Blacks in National Socialist Germany

All aspects including lead-in to hostilities and results.

Moderator: Moderator

Forum rules
Be sure to read the Rules/guidelines before you post!
User avatar
Lamprecht
Valuable asset
Valuable asset
Posts: 1326
Joined: Sun Nov 30, 2008 6:32 pm

Re: Blacks in National Socialist Germany

Postby Lamprecht » 2 months 4 weeks ago (Sun Sep 08, 2019 8:53 am)

This quote is relevant:

"German racialism has been deliberately distorted. It never was an anti-"other race" racialism. It was a pro-German racialism. It was concerned with making the German race strong and healthy in every way. Hitler was not interested in having millions of degenerates, if it was in his power not to have them. Today one finds rampant alcohol and drug addiction everywhere. Hitler cared that the German families be healthy, cared that they raise healthy children for the renewal of a healthy nation. German racialism meant re-discovering the creative values of their own race, re-discovering their culture. It was a search for excellence, a noble idea. National Socialist racialism was not against the other races, it was for its own race. It aimed at defending and improving its race, and wished that all other races did the same for themselves."
- Waffen SS General Leon Degrelle - Epic: The Story of the Waffen SS (Lecture given in 1982). Reprinted in The Journal of Historical Review, vol. 3, no. 4, pp. 441-468.
"There is a principal which is a bar against all information, which is proof against all arguments, and which cannot fail to keep a man in everlasting ignorance -- that principal is contempt prior to investigation."
-- Herbert Spencer

User avatar
HMSendeavour
Valued contributor
Valued contributor
Posts: 146
Joined: Mon Aug 06, 2018 3:12 pm
Contact:

Re: Blacks in National Socialist Germany

Postby HMSendeavour » 2 months 4 weeks ago (Sun Sep 08, 2019 11:17 am)

Lamprecht: I think they are taking an exaggerated stance from the opposite perspective as the "Mainstream" opinion, which is that Hitler thought every race (especially Jews and Slavs) was biologically inferior to Whites/Aryans and that they all deserved to be exterminated because of it. As pointed out in the thread I linked to in my first reply, Hitler saw Slavs as Aryans and did not see them as inferior. The reason he was "anti-semitic" was because of the leading role of Jews in communism, as well as their tendency to be loyal to their fellow Jews over the German people.

I think it is interesting what they say here: "Hitler’s early rhetoric exaggerated German superiority in order to restore German confidence following defeat in WWI and long years of economic hardship, and thus gain political support."

That could be true. A great deal of so-called "Racism" is actually "cheerleading," boosting the morale and cohesiveness of one's own racial group, a practice that is adaptive if it is not unrealistic. As cheerleaders have long known, people who believe that their own group is "superior" to other groups, even if it is not, are more successful than people who believe their group is the pits. Greater success is an excellent reason for having a group identity and for favoring one's own group.


This isn't true. The idea Aryanism and the current day historians share in common is the belief in Hitler's duplicitousness. The 'Aryanism' crowd think Hitler is some secret ultra egalitarian while the current historians think he was some fantasy exterminationist. Both of these views are untrue. The latter has been shredded so it hardly bears going over again. The former is untrue by simply thinking about it. We know from August Kubizek that Hitler was devoted to the German people from day one.

Kubizek writes that he [Hitler] was “unconditionally devoted” to the German people: “He lived in that people alone. He knew nothing but that people.” In his sublet at Stumpergasse, Kubizek says, Hitler would grow agitated all night long: “He was again trying to erect the Reich of all Germans which put the ‘guest peoples,’ as he called them, in their proper place. Sometimes, when he expounded on that for too long, I fell asleep. As soon as he noticed that, he would shake me awake and yell at me, was I perhaps no longer interested in what he had to say? Then I should just go ahead and sleep, just as all those who had no national conscience were sleeping [. . .].” – Brigitte Hamann, Hitler’s Vienna ( I.B. Tauris & Co. Ltd., 2011), pp. 78


On this alone it's totally untrue that Hitler was for some reason using ethnic nationalism to gain political support. We also know that Hitler in the trenches was fanatical when it came to the enemy and those he saw as traitors to the Fatherland. Hitler didn't participate in the Christmas truce because it was inappropriate to converse with the enemy at war time. These facts and no doubt more do not at all accord with any kind of Hitler that is racially egalitarian. In no private conversations does Hitler let it slip that he is nothing other than who he always portrayed himself to be. He does however let it be known that other peoples can be great as well which isn't mutually exclusive with National Socialism. That claim by Aryanism.net also doesn't account for WHY Hitler decided to become a politician in the first place, it simply states Hitler did a certain thing he would do as a genuine nationalist anyway to rally the people, except in this instance Hitler is lying about his true intentions for seemingly no reason at all. Why not side with the communists or start some kind of International Bolshevist party if you're somehow dedicated to international racial egalitarianism? The reason is because it's a lie. Hitler may have used radical anti-semitism in the 1920s, more than he was anti semitic himself, but that doesn't mean Hitler wasn't an ethnic nationalist.

Lamprecht you touched on something without even knowing it.

As cheerleaders have long known, people who believe that their own group is "superior" to other groups, even if it is not, are more successful than people who believe their group is the pits. Greater success is an excellent reason for having a group identity and for favoring one's own group [...] The definitions of "Racism" I use, which are consistent with the dictionary:
1 - Belief that some races are superior or inferior to others
2 - Hatred or prejudice* of an individual or group based on their race or ethnicity

* prejudice = an adverse judgment or opinion formed beforehand or without knowledge of the facts

Quite often, in practice, the word "Racism" is thrown around by a person whose feelings are hurt, regardless of whether or not the definition applies. Like I said, I find people who apply to #1 to be wrong and their beliefs unscientific. I do not consider them "immoral" unless they take some negative action based on them.
As for #2, I would say that it is also wrong, but only immoral if someone would act on these beliefs. Sometimes it is not a conscious decision. I am not about to control what other people are allowed to think if they just keep their thoughts to themselves and don't harm anyone, I have not walked in their shoes.



Recognising people are stuck within superior and inferior roles, as races, as individuals and as a species. That’s the hierarchy of life.

We do not kill or hurt because of inferiority nor does anyone hate based on that alone (or at all) otherwise people like Hitler would not be compassionate to animal life and recognise their natural order within nature itself. While other species are inferior to humans that doesn’t mean they should be hated or killed. Nor is that some requirement. The false equation with inferiority and genocide is unfounded. It’s too simple and inaccurate. Humans beings are superior and inferior in the same way. When Hitler speaks about such things he is speaking of it in this context.

Some people are superior at Maths, while others are superior at sports for example. The same goes for groups. Africans have certain physical attributes which will always make them superior over Europeans and Asians. While Europeans and Asians will have certain attributes superior over Africans. Whether these attributes are 'better or worse' is the subjective question which can only be answered by individuals. All groups will be superior or inferior measurably at different things, but the things themselves don't necessarily have value. Whatever one group does in a superior way than another is usually what they consider to be subjectively better. Europeans have been masters of civilisation and technological achievement. We are by far superior at this. . .

vcoy5rgdwx321.png


But that doesn't mean other groups of people who don't necessarily covet the same civilisational outcome are worse people. Nor are they in their own cultural environment to be seen as worse necessarily. We in the west see growth as natural and desirable, while some native tribes dwelling off the land in forests do not care about these things at all. That's the difference. One group isn't better or worse, they're just simply different. They might not value these things the way we do.

Men and women for example. Men and women should not and do not compete on the same teams because there is a biological difference in our physiologies. This is why Transgender women shouldn't wrestle or compete in any sport against genuine biological women. The superiority of the Transgender woman is too great leaving the regular women without a chance. Now does this difference mean better or worse? No. Not really, it's simply a difference. The Transgender man may be better when pared up with that woman but that's because the matching was unfair to begin with.

The reason Hitler and other National Socialists can be so iron willed and do the harshest of things when necessary is because of the recognition of the equality of human life. However, it isn’t the equality of sameness we're taught and told to hold as some high moral ideal today. The equality I'm talking about is the equality of power and influence. Each person and race on earth is capable of power and influence. But I'm talking about the hierarchy of species to be specific and how that power and influence can be wielded by the same species against itself.

So because you recognise a certain level of equality within the species (the capability to commit evil, or to bring forth prosperity and be a responsible agent for your actions) you can devalue human life at a moments notice when that same life perverts itself and tries to destroy or attack other aspects of the species. If it's humans then we usually attack other groups on various different basis. This is why Hitler's vegetarianism confuses so many people, because they cannot fathom how he can so easily value life on the one hand and destroy it on the other. Hitler understood that there exists a certain level of equality within the human species, and that is what makes us capable of bearing responsibility and thus suffering violence you wouldn't otherwise inflict on an inferior species.

To put it simply: You don’t punish what doesn’t know better. Because whatever it is that happens to be unequal and inferior is so of no fault of its own, thus is lacks the ability to be responsible and receptive to standards or moral agency. The equality comes in when someone is equal and is knowingly doing something that they know is bad; it is then when you can retaliate without remorse.

Superior and inferior is objective.

Better or worse is subjective..

On the personal level all peoples who are members of their own race should and do consider their own to be the best, while another the worst. That is simply because it's your group and you want your group to succeed. It is only Europeans in recent decades that embrace the individualism which turns European altruism towards other races and thus ends up supporting nationalisms, or rather, ethnocentrisms of the non-european races. We Europeans no longer take our own side as we should. We no longer see ourselves, our civilisation as the best and therefore we shall succumb to death and degeneracy.

By that I mean complacency and domination from the outside. If you no longer believe in your superiority you then fail to better yourself, you fail to reproduce and you fail to reach greater cultural heights. You stagnate as we in the European world have today. High culture is disregarded, trash is considered Art and people with no talent, no ability to create become 'artists'. This is the destruction of culture.

Culture is the heritage of a people that geographically exist on this earth and the moment you prefer others over yourself and allow others to use your culture, to distort it then you've been killed. Your heritage forsaken. Culture is exclusive and it represents the development of each race over thousands of years. it isn't interchangeable and it doesn't come about or improve without dedication. When other groups merge into your nation, taking up small parts that become larger and end up forming their own subculture, voting bloc and national identity which will subvert the original inhabitants then that is proof the dominant culture isn't strong enough or coherent enough to assert itself. The United States (and unfortunately the rest of the west as well to a degree) is the perfect example of this. Because culture isn't interchangeable and it represents one geographic race, that means culture itself to 'assimilate' other races must broaden itself to accommodate them, thus losing substance and being watered down to such a degree that it only represents the most basic needs of the populace in such a superficial way. In reality this 'accommodation' is ceding territory and dominance, both physically and culturally. This is why what Hitler said about 'Germanisation' is relevant and undeniably true. If 'multiculture' becomes your culture (as it has for Europeans, because we've been deprived of our own identities) it ends up being oppression and slavery. Multiculturalism isn't even a culture anyway.

The point is that If your culture and those who create it from within no longer try to become masters of it, and constantly improve then you've lost. Cultures that flourish know it's purpose is to lift the people up to new heights and those cultures who are dying and die are those which tell their people it is their right to remain mediocre. Just remember what Hitler said.

Those people did not understand that a policy of Germanisation can be carried out only as regards territory and not as regards human beings. What was generally understood by this term was the enforced adoption of the German language, but it is almost inconceivable that people should imagine that a Negro or a Chinaman, for example, can become German simply by learning the German language, by being willing to speak it for the rest of their lives and even to vote in favour of some German political party. Our bourgeois nationalists could never clearly see that such a process of Germanisation is in reality de-Germanisation, for even if all the outstanding and, visible differences between the various peoples could be bridged over and finally eliminated by the use of a common language, this would give rise to a process of bastardisation which in this case would not signify Germanisation, but the annihilation of the German element. In the course of history it has happened only too often that a conquering race succeeded by force in compelling the people whom they had subjected to speak their tongue, with the result that after a thousand years their language was spoken by another people and thus the conqueror finally turned out to be the conquered." - Adolf Hitler, Mein Kampf, Stalag edition, pp. 435-43


If you look at the links I previously provided you will see how the National Socialists dealt with this. They did not deride other cultures or other people's right to live, they simply declared that their people, the German people the right to live. The Communism of the east was 'subhuman', this assessment the National Socialists applied to the IDEOLOGY of Communism was entirely correct, because it denies and reviles nature, it sought to melt everyone down to the lowest common denominator. To liberate the world (as the National Socialists sought to liberate Europe) you must destroy that which is subhuman, meaning Communism, meaning Egalitarianism, meaning Liberalism, Conservatism all of these false ideologies with reject nature. Which reject human kinds right to life and flourish and aren't worthy to carry the torch of humanity.

The reason there is no objective standard as to what race is 'superior and inferior' is simply because OF the subjective nature of that assertion. Going back to what I said before, all peoples generally consider their group to be the best, because it is their own. It is human nature to be this way so 'better or worse' is simply a matter of standpoint. but this doesn't mean you cannot appreciate other cultures. That much should be obvious. I as a European would never unswervingly dedicate myself to the modern culture in the European world. It's sick and vile, I find certain traditional values in the east to be superior this much I think is objective because of it's natural basis, and the satisfaction it creates for it's people.

As for prejudice, see 'The Myth of Prejudice' https://www.bitchute.com/video/Fz7STPD5cFc/ and also 'In defense of prejudice' https://www.bitchute.com/video/bt1zQVAiCscG/

For summary prejudice is a natural instinct. If you get attacked by a wild wolf you'll be prejudice towards other wild wolves. The logic being 'if wild wolves attack me, it's likely they'll do it again'. The same goes for race. If you want to protect your nation you must take precautions against other races because it's likely they'd want your resources. This is how human and animals have and will always live. We are all prejudiced because it is a survival mechanism. You are prejudiced against people all the time, the way people dress, smell, act etc. are all ways in which we prejudge people because we cannot ever get to know personally every person on the planet. So we use markers that will signal to us whether a stranger is trustworthy or not. You would never leave your child with a black man who is smoking, swearing, wearing his pants around his ankles and brandishing face tattoos. A black man in a suit however, well that's a potentially a different story.

You do not need to hate others to love and care for your own people. Nor do you need to be prejudiced in any way particularly. If you're in a homogenous country it's extremely likely you won't be very prejudiced. However, if you live in a diverse area then the story will be different. Hitler is a perfect example. He grew up in Multicultural (and thus multi-ethnic Austria-Hungary) in which he saw rich Jews and Slavs who were displacing ethnic Germans in their own cities meanwhile the Germans were poor and starving like Hitler himself was. His people were demeaned in their own surroundings among the monuments dedicated to them, the architecture designed by them and the culture of his people dwindling. The Fatherland was all used to benefit those who never belonged there, those who used it to make money or take advantage generally. And so Hitler while not being prejudice, became POSTjudice towards them. After having contact with them.

Now it is true that Hitler considered Slavs to be Aryan, or at least he definitely considered them to be European, there's no doubt. But many he did not see as being Germanizable, simply because they were too culturally 'inferior' (harsh words but not necessarily as cruel as it sounds to the modern reader). This is understandable when the Germans having moved into Poland saw thatched roofs and very poverty stricken areas it seemed only confirmed.

Hitler’s tours of these Polish battlefields were his first real contact with ‘the east.’ They reinforced his unhealthy fantasies about the ‘sub-humans’ and the Jews. Was this still Europe? Indiscriminately scattered about the untended acres were wretched wooden hut like dwellings with thatched roofs. At the roadsides, knots of submissive Polish civilians stood in the swirling dust of Hitler’s motorcade. Among them he glimpsed Jews in high crowned hats and caftans, their hair in ritual ringlets; they looked for all the world like figures out of mediæval antisemitic drawings. Time had stood still here for centuries. The Jews were the enemy. - David Irving, Hitler's War and the War Path, pp. 228


Now I think Irving here is towing the line to an unreasonable extent, but nevertheless I think it has some truth to it. Hitler was particularly tough against the Poles while other Slavs got off easy, like the Czechs which he even praised. I think this harshness came not from their race but from their continuous actions against Germany. As we know there's always been a conflict there (https://www.wintersonnenwende.com/scriptorium/english/archives/articles/wrsynopsis.html). Also the partisan warfare was particularly rough which played a large part, of that I think there is little doubt.

Hitler when referring to Bohemia and Moravia also expresses how the Slavs lived among the ancient Teutonic Germanic architecture.

At the same time the Germans saw that many Slavs were Germanisable, in the orthodox narrative Hitler in this regard was much more tolerant than the likes of Himmler when he would assimilate one third of some Polish territories by 1944.

Mark Mazower in his book 'Hitler's Empire' notes

Facing the prospect that the whole resettlement programme would end up depopulating the Reich’s new eastern borderlands by getting rid of Poles before enough Germans had been found to come in, the local authorities in the Warthegau moved towards an assimilation policy and sought to introduce new citizenship guidelines in order to work out whom to give German ID papers to. Less dogmatic than Himmler, Hitler himself understood the problem and once he clarified that he would tolerate some degree of assimilation the guidelines were finalized. Even in Poland, it turned out, the Nazi regime was being forced to retreat from its hardline insistence on biology as a criterion for nationality. [. . .] [T]his really involved the introduction of a surprisingly flexible approach to German nationality, one that allowed large numbers of people to claim citizenship, even if they did not speak German. - Pages (194-5)


Whoever wasn't assimilated wasn't so not because of their race (because of course they were racially applicable), but because of their attitudes and cultural inability to be assimilated. Robert Ley enlightens us on this

Who of us is racially pure? Even if somebody’s appearance is Nordic he might be a bastard inside. That somebody is blond and blue-eyed does not mean that he is racially pure. He might even be a degenerate coward. Bastardization shows in different aspects. We have to be on our guard against racial arrogance. Racial arrogance would be as devastating as hatred among classes.

– Robert Ley (Source:Tatsachen – Die Leipziger DAF-Tagung 2.-6 Dez. 1935, Published by the German Labour Front, Printed by Buch- und Tiefdruck DmbH, 1935 Dr. Robert Ley: Fatherland, Race, Discipline and Love of Life.)


Whoever the unassimilable people were it was because of their inner bastardisation. This is a much more metaphysical concept which must be considered.
Last edited by HMSendeavour on Sun Sep 08, 2019 11:58 am, edited 2 times in total.
Now what does it mean for the independent expert witness Van Pelt? In his eyes he had two possibilities. Either to confirm the Holocaust story, or to go insane. - Germar Rudolf, 13th IHR Conference

User avatar
HMSendeavour
Valued contributor
Valued contributor
Posts: 146
Joined: Mon Aug 06, 2018 3:12 pm
Contact:

Re: Blacks in National Socialist Germany

Postby HMSendeavour » 2 months 4 weeks ago (Sun Sep 08, 2019 11:19 am)

Lamprecht wrote:This quote is relevant:

"German racialism has been deliberately distorted. It never was an anti-"other race" racialism. It was a pro-German racialism. It was concerned with making the German race strong and healthy in every way. Hitler was not interested in having millions of degenerates, if it was in his power not to have them. Today one finds rampant alcohol and drug addiction everywhere. Hitler cared that the German families be healthy, cared that they raise healthy children for the renewal of a healthy nation. German racialism meant re-discovering the creative values of their own race, re-discovering their culture. It was a search for excellence, a noble idea. National Socialist racialism was not against the other races, it was for its own race. It aimed at defending and improving its race, and wished that all other races did the same for themselves."
- Waffen SS General Leon Degrelle - Epic: The Story of the Waffen SS (Lecture given in 1982). Reprinted in The Journal of Historical Review, vol. 3, no. 4, pp. 441-468.


There's a great graphic for this quote by the way.
1401605076111.jpg
Now what does it mean for the independent expert witness Van Pelt? In his eyes he had two possibilities. Either to confirm the Holocaust story, or to go insane. - Germar Rudolf, 13th IHR Conference

User avatar
Lamprecht
Valuable asset
Valuable asset
Posts: 1326
Joined: Sun Nov 30, 2008 6:32 pm

Re: Blacks in National Socialist Germany

Postby Lamprecht » 2 months 4 weeks ago (Sun Sep 08, 2019 11:56 am)

HMSendeavour wrote:This isn't true. The idea Aryanism and the current day historians share in common is the belief in Hitler's duplicitousness. The 'Aryanism' crowd think Hitler is some secret ultra egalitarian while the current historians think he was some fantasy exterminationist. Both of these views are untrue. The latter has been shredded so it hardly bears going over again. The former is untrue by simply thinking about it. We know from August Kubizek that Hitler was devoted to the German people from day one.
Kubizek writes that he [Hitler] was “unconditionally devoted” to the German people: “He lived in that people alone. He knew nothing but that people.” In his sublet at Stumpergasse, Kubizek says, Hitler would grow agitated all night long: “He was again trying to erect the Reich of all Germans which put the ‘guest peoples,’ as he called them, in their proper place. Sometimes, when he expounded on that for too long, I fell asleep. As soon as he noticed that, he would shake me awake and yell at me, was I perhaps no longer interested in what he had to say? Then I should just go ahead and sleep, just as all those who had no national conscience were sleeping [. . .].” – Brigitte Hamann, Hitler’s Vienna ( I.B. Tauris & Co. Ltd., 2011), pp. 78

On this alone it's totally untrue that Hitler was for some reason using ethnic nationalism to gain political support. We also know that Hitler in the trenches was fanatical when it came to the enemy and those he saw as traitors to the Fatherland. Hitler didn't participate in the Christmas truce because it was inappropriate to converse with the enemy at war time. These facts and no doubt more do not at all accord with any kind of Hitler that is racially egalitarian. In no private conversations does Hitler let it slip that he is nothing other than who he always portrayed himself to be. He does however let it be known that other peoples can be great as well which isn't mutually exclusive with National Socialism. That claim by Aryanism.net also doesn't account for WHY Hitler decided to become a politician in the first place, it simply states Hitler did a certain thing he would do as a genuine nationalist anyway to rally the people, except in this instance Hitler is lying about his true intentions for seemingly no reason at all. Why not side with the communists or start some kind of International Bolshevist party if you're somehow dedicated to international racial egalitarianism? The reason is because it's a lie. Hitler may have used radical anti-semitism in the 1920s, more than he was anti semitic himself, but that doesn't mean Hitler wasn't an ethnic nationalist.

Well there is a difference between ethnic nationalism and belief in "superiority" which is what Christian is talking about. As I pointed out before, "Race" can be defined as "a large, extended family" so saying "I put my family/race/people/volk before others" or "I am devoted to the welfare of my race" does not require a belief in "superiority" but rather, just a love for you own people. Egalitarians will shoot back: "Well why do you prefer your race unless you think they're superior?" and you can simply respond: "Because they are my people." If they don't understand it, it's because they don't want to understand.

You can also think of it in terms of family: most people treat their own family better than random people. If your sibling or cousin lost their job and became homeless, you would probably let them come stay with you. However, you would not do this for some random homeless person on the street. Does that mean you believe your family is superior to every other human on the planet? No, but it's your family. This is called "nepotism" but the term is usually used in reference to a person giving a job to a family member over someone more qualified. And when this is applied to the larger, extended family it is called "ethnic nepotism".

For more on this topic I recommend the following book:
Image
Ethnic Conflicts Explained by Ethnic Nepotism, by Tatu Vanhanen
PDF: http://web.archive.org/web/201909081632 ... nhanen.pdf
TXT: https://archive.is/MwVFm
Book reviews: https://archive.is/I3A4G and https://www.unz.com/print/OccidentalQua ... ame-holder

The question is, did Hitler think Blacks were biologically "inferior" to Whites/Germans/Aryans? Did he hate Blacks? Hitler probably did not personally interact with many Blacks, are you aware of any Blacks discussing their interactions with Hitler? Jesse Owens said he waved, but he was an Olympic athlete so that's a bit different. If Hitler had any opinions on Blacks in general (the "Rhineland bastards" were a special case of 500 or so mostly bastard children) he probably got them exclusively from secondhand sources.

From Mein Kampf:
During the last century it was lamentable for those who had to witness it, to notice how in these circles I have just mentioned the word ‘Germanization’ was frivolously played with, though often with the very best of intentions. I well remember how, in the days of my youth, this very term used to give rise to notions which were false to an incredible degree. Even in Pan-German circles one heard the opinion expressed that the Austrian Germans might very well succeed in Germanizing the Austrian Slavs, if only the government were ready to co-operate. Those people did not understand that a policy of Germanization can be carried out only as regards territory and not as regards human beings. What was generally understood by this term was the enforced adoption of the German language, but it is almost inconceivable that people should imagine that a negro or a Chinaman, for example, can become German simply by learning the German language, by being willing to speak it for the rest of their lives and even to vote in favour of some German political party. Our bourgeois nationalists could never clearly see that such a process of Germanization is in reality de-Germanization, for even if all the outstanding and visible differences between the various peoples could be bridged over and finally eliminated by the use of a common language, this would give rise to a process of bastardization which in this case would not signify Germanization, but the annihilation of the German element. In the course of history it has happened only too often that a conquering race succeeded by force in compelling the people whom they had subjected to speak their tongue, with the result that after a thousand years their language was spoken by another people and thus the conqueror finally turned out to be the conquered.

What makes a people or, to be more correct, a race, is not language but blood. It would therefore be justifiable to speak of Germanization only if that process could change the blood of the people who were subjected to it, which is obviously impossible. A change would be possible only by a mixture of blood, but in this case the quality of the superior race would be debased. The final result of such a mixture would be that precisely those qualities were destroyed which had enabled the conquering race to achieve victory over an inferior people. It is especially cultural creative ability which disappears when a superior race inter mixes with an inferior one, even though all the resultant mongrel race speaks the language of the race that had once been superior. For a certain time there will be a conflict between the different mentalities and it may be that a nation which is in a state of progressive degeneration will at the last moment rally its cultural creative powers and once again produce striking cultural masterpieces. These are, however, produced only by individuals belonging to the superior race or by hybrids of the first crossing, in whom the superior blood has remained dominant and seeks to assert itself, but never by the last descendants of such hybrids. These are always in a state of cultural retrogression.

So it is likely that Hitler did see Blacks as an inferior race, but I don't see any evidence that he necessarily hated them, he just did not want miscegenation and Blacks flooding into Germany. If Hitler believed certain races are "superior" to others, then he would also believe that humans are superior to other animals. And yet, Hitler was extremely fond of animals and, as a vegetarian, even discouraged people from eating meat by describing cruel methods used to produce it. According to the Aryanism website, Hitler's talk of "inferior races" in this instance was merely "early rhetoric [that] exaggerated German superiority in order to restore German confidence following defeat in WWI and long years of economic hardship, and thus gain political support."

I am not sure about that, as I said it "could be true" -- but I am sure that the belief that Blacks were an "inferior race" was common in the USA during the 1930s and even after World War II was over. So it's not some thing that Hitler invented, and if he disagreed with it he would have been an outlier, at least among Whites in that time period that had opinions on race.
"There is a principal which is a bar against all information, which is proof against all arguments, and which cannot fail to keep a man in everlasting ignorance -- that principal is contempt prior to investigation."
-- Herbert Spencer

User avatar
HMSendeavour
Valued contributor
Valued contributor
Posts: 146
Joined: Mon Aug 06, 2018 3:12 pm
Contact:

Re: Blacks in National Socialist Germany

Postby HMSendeavour » 2 months 4 weeks ago (Sun Sep 08, 2019 12:14 pm)

Lamprecht wrote: Well there is a difference between ethnic nationalism and belief in "superiority" which is what Christian is talking about. As I pointed out before, "Race" can be defined as "a large, extended family" so saying "I put my family/race/people/volk before others" or "I am devoted to the welfare of my race" does not require a belief in "superiority" but rather, just a love for you own people. Egalitarians will shoot back: "Well why do you prefer your race unless you think they're superior?" and you can simply respond: "Because they are my people." If they don't understand it, it's because they don't want to understand.

You can also think of it in terms of family: most people treat their own family better than random people. If your sibling or cousin lost their job and became homeless, you would probably let them come stay with you. However, you would not do this for some random homeless person on the street. Does that mean you believe your family is superior to every other human on the planet? No, but it's your family. This is called "nepotism" but the term is usually used in reference to a person giving a job to a family member over someone more qualified. And when this is applied to the larger, extended family it is called "ethnic nepotism".

For more on this topic I recommend the following book:
Image
Ethnic Conflicts Explained by Ethnic Nepotism, by Tatu Vanhanen
PDF: http://web.archive.org/web/201909081632 ... nhanen.pdf
TXT: https://archive.is/MwVFm
Book reviews: https://archive.is/I3A4G and https://www.unz.com/print/OccidentalQua ... ame-holder


Yes you are right. I believe I said the same thing in my long reply just before.

A college of Vanhanen is 'Frank Salter' who wrote a very good book called 'On Genetic Interests'.

997fbab9d581ac081b81b03b604528c3-d.jpg

https://libgen.is/book/index.php?md5=997FBAB9D581AC081B81B03B604528C3

The question is, did Hitler think Blacks were biologically "inferior" to Whites/Germans/Aryans? Did he hate Blacks? Hitler probably did not personally interact with many Blacks, are you aware of any Blacks discussing their interactions with Hitler? Jesse Owens said he waved, but he was an Olympic athlete so that's a bit different. If Hitler had any opinions on Blacks in general (the "Rhineland bastards" were a special case of 500 or so mostly bastard children) he probably got them exclusively from secondhand sources.

[...]

So it is likely that Hitler did see Blacks as an inferior race, but I don't see any evidence that he necessarily hated them, he just did not want miscegenation and Blacks flooding into Germany. If Hitler believed certain races are "superior" to others, then he would also believe that humans are superior to other animals. And yet, Hitler was extremely fond of animals and, as a vegetarian, even discouraged people from eating meat by describing cruel methods used to produce it. According to the Aryanism website, Hitler's talk of "inferior races" in this instance was merely "early rhetoric [that] exaggerated German superiority in order to restore German confidence following defeat in WWI and long years of economic hardship, and thus gain political support."

I am not sure about that, as I said it "could be true" -- but I am sure that the belief that Blacks were an "inferior race" was common in the USA during the 1930s and even after World War II was over. So it's not some thing that Hitler invented, and if he disagreed with it he would have been an outlier, at least among Whites in that time period that had opinions on race.


In my long post I made my point about "inferior and superior". You echoed the same point at the end there about animals that I made above. In short I find the dichotomy precarious.

Hitler probably had conception of their differences, but never was biological inferiority or superiority (whatever that means) used in National Socialist biology of race. Hierarchy is the way it was probably framed. And if it was 'inferior or superior' that didn't necessarily have to mean "better or worse".

“Prewar Germany funded racial science well – as it did the sciences in general – and the Third Reich was a particularly generous sponsor. After 1939, the Third Reich’s racial experts were no longer consulted merely on the health of Germany’s own population but helped to make decisions affecting the continent as a whole. Men in white coats ran classification panels and training programmes to decide which of the Slavs of ethnic Germans they stripped and measured were ‘re-Germanizable”. –The discipline of racial science itself was in turmoil, and many German scholars had already become aware of the difficulties. Old -Fashioned racial determinism seemed hard to square with new findings in genetics, and it was not particularly helpful either when explaining the characteristics of a people or Volk. — But knowing how to distinguish a German from a non-German the key concern for those running the new empire was not something upon which it was possible to get expert consensus. ‘Every German had his own idea of race,’ comments a recent historian. The subject was certainly in flux. The breslau school believed in tracking blue eyes and blond hair, but Otto Reche and Fritz Lenz – two luminaries of academic racism – thought physical characteristics were crude markers since most individuals were themselves mixed racially. For Hans Gunther, a popularizer of Nazi science, even Germany contained strains of all the major European races – the Nordic, East Baltic, Alpine and Dinaric as well as fortunately small quantities of Mediterranean and Inner Asian blood. A few heretics solved the problem of matching up the categories of race and Volk by talking about a ‘German Race’, but this simple solution was criticized by most of the academics as unscientific. There were similar doubts about the usefulness of talking about ‘Slavs’, whom experts thought were made up of a variety of much smaller sub-groups of differing racial ‘value’. The value question itself was divisive – some believing in racial hierarchies, others insisting that difference carries no connotation of worth – Hitler’s Empire by Mark Mazower Pages 182-183


We know Hitler was a very intelligent and well read man. So it's likely he had his own ideas of race that accorded much with the research. But it doesn't seem like there was a consensus. See the article 'What the Nazis really thought about race':

https://redpillaction.wordpress.com/2019/05/08/what-the-nazis-really-thought-about-race/

and my article:

https://redpillaction.wordpress.com/2019/08/17/correcting-a-simple-misunderstanding-about-nazi-race-theory/

On blacks Hitler was probably just apathetic. They weren't a concern so why bother caring about them? We will never know. And frankly it doesn't really concern me. He was probably no different than any other reasonable man. I myself admire Hitler not because I have to agree with him on every single position, but because I find great truth in his world concept as a whole. People in my opinion fuss too much over 'what Hitler thought' when in reality it doesn't matter. That viewpoint maintains the false premise that Hitler was all powerful, when in reality he wasn't.

Kershaw tried to show that in many situations Hitler didn’t need to do very much at all since German society—everyone from the underlings surrounding him to ordinary people on the street—were increasingly inclined to anticipate and fulfil the Führer’s every wish, “working towards him. - Volker Ullrich, Hitler: Ascent, pp. 4


In 1969 Martin Broszat in The Hitler State questioned the image of the Nazi state and called Hitler a “weak dictator” who presided over many factions.4 The six-volume study under his direction, Bavaria in the National Socialist Era, examining resistance to Nazi rule, concluded that the regime was not as totalitarian as assumed, and that there had been “much greater latitude to criticize.” https://inconvenienthistory.com/8/3/4172


Also keep in mind what Goebbels said

Commenting (perhaps with some exaggeration) on this state of affairs, a frustrated Joseph Goebbels confided to his diary in 1942: "Everyone does and permits whatever he wants because there's no strong authority anywhere ... The Party does its own thing, and won't permit itself to be influenced by anyone." Entire Third Reich government ministries remained practically "Nazi free," notes Nolte, and while many younger officers were dedicated National Socialists, the German armed forces remained largely free of NS party influence http://www.ihr.org/jhr/v14/v14n1p37_Nolte.html.


In short, the Third Reich wasn't monolithic and Hitler always gauged public opinion and acted depending on support. This is even more reason that Hitler's specific opinions on issues such as this aren't too important since many tasks probably weren't up to him anyway. I mean for gosh sakes, some people claim Hitler didn't even know about certain SS divisions. That's a pretty large oversight (one i'm sceptical of) but says something about Hitler's actions and knowledge.

If Hitler believed certain races are "superior" to others, then he would also believe that humans are superior to other animals. And yet, Hitler was extremely fond of animals and, as a vegetarian, even discouraged people from eating meat by describing cruel methods used to produce it.


Humans are superior to animals. But we all have a place in the natural order and hierarchy of life and nature. That's the point. We all have our place and part to play. This is fundamentally what Hitler thought about nature, so in my view it would be totally out of character for Hitler to believe some other group was 'inferior' less deserving of life than another in the way modern historians intend to portray it. In reality it would make more sense that Hitler saw them as different while their position as a race on earth as being an inferior one because as a German, Hitler valued different standards of civilisation, culture and art. Those kinds of things. This doesn't mean he hated anyone or didn't respect their difference. Quite the opposite.

1453285108881.jpg
Now what does it mean for the independent expert witness Van Pelt? In his eyes he had two possibilities. Either to confirm the Holocaust story, or to go insane. - Germar Rudolf, 13th IHR Conference

christianbethel
Member
Member
Posts: 36
Joined: Sun Aug 18, 2019 1:17 pm

Re: Blacks in National Socialist Germany

Postby christianbethel » 2 months 4 weeks ago (Sun Sep 08, 2019 2:14 pm)

@HMSEndeavor
First of all I wanted to know. Are you black? Because I've never seen anyone specifically interested in this niche of Blacks in National Socialist history.
Yes, I'm black. I came to this forum thinking racism would be rejected as we unravel the truth about the 'Holocaust' and Hitler and WWII. Based on your comments, I seem to have been mistaken. You strike me as someone who espouses white nationalism or white supremacy. The fact that you reference Jared Taylor, National Vanguard, and a video entitled "White Nationalism Is The Only Way To Save The West" confirms my suspicions. I refuse to involve myself with the racial hatred that is white nationalism/supremacy.

You also spoke of supposed "mistreatment". What is this mistreatment you're talking about or afraid of? What is wrong with the bigotry of the 1930s?
Blacks were subject to discrimination in their places of work, barred from pursuing a higher education, forbidden from miscegenation, etc. You say there's nothing wrong with the bigotry of the 1930s. You are incorrect. Bigotry in any form is to be rejected and condemned.
If it's your prerogative to portray Hitler as some kind of anti-racist egalitarian, while the allies are 'the real racists' you're going to need to reevaluate. Hitler would never allow Germany to become a dystopian multiracial state that it is today. He would never have allowed the destructive policy of the Jews (and others do not get me wrong) to racially corrupt the German people as Jewish influence has done in the rest of the world today.
I said nothing about egalitarianism. Equality implies identicality, and no one is the same as another. Why you think a multiracial society is dystopian just tells me all I need to know about you.


I think what's going on here is a misunderstanding. You're a typical normie who's still terrified about the spectre of "Racism" and European Racial Nationalism, you see old 'racism' in the 1930s-40s as the typical person would today. This is evidenced by this comment of yours:
I know what racism is. You are the one who is in denial. That's not my fault.
I don't read Aryanism.net, but they strike me as weird and unconventional. Perhaps they attract you because they also use the same catchphrases as the left.
They are weird and unconventional, but you should read it nonetheless. Don't expect them to cite any sources for their ideology, though.

For me (I speak for no one else on this forum except myself, let that be clear) as a European who is deeply concerned about my people and their place on this earth today I embrace National Socialism as the complete worldview which constitutes value and love of one's race, culture and nation.
I assume you are also an Islamophobe?
It is the worldview which embraces natural order and the deep connection we as humans have to nature itself. National Socialism is focused on the people, the group, not the state.
Agreed.

Hitler explains to us what the problem of civic 'nationalist' ideas are, and thus the old world colonialism which while being racially antagonistic at times was also quite egalitarian in it's actions. Misguided and wrong.
"The white races did, of course, give some things to the natives, and they were the worst gifts that they could possibly have made, those plagues of our own modern world-materialism, fanaticism, alcoholism and syphilis." Political Testament of Adolf Hitler, page 13
This statement by Hitler is historically and today observably true when we see this diversity pushed on European countries, and only European countries. It is not 'racist' in the slightest, but to those who do not understand nature.
You are relying to heavily on Mein Kampf. Most of the content in that book were either lies or convenient half-truths told to get support from the Pan-German völkisch movement and to get out of prison. it's veracity and reliability in regards to National Socialism are in question to this day among authentic (non-racist) national socialists.

'Racism' isn't a word ever used in good faith, nor would anyone actually describe themselves as a 'racist' unironically. If you or anyone else calls someone 'racist' what do you actually learn about that person? Nothing. Because Racism defines nothing because it means nothing.


From Wordnik
from The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, 5th Edition.

noun The belief that race accounts for differences in human character or ability and that a particular race is superior to others.
noun Discrimination or prejudice based on race.

from Wiktionary, Creative Commons Attribution/Share-Alike License.

noun The belief that each race has distinct and intrinsic attributes.
noun The belief that one race is superior to all others.
noun Prejudice or discrimination based upon race.

from WordNet 3.0 Copyright 2006 by Princeton University. All rights reserved.

noun discriminatory or abusive behavior towards members of another race
noun the prejudice that members of one race are intrinsically superior to members of other races



'Racism' is used to describe everything from accents, jokes, discrimination, hatred etc etc. The truth is that nobody has ever hated a race simply because they were different. This is a very common misconception created after 1945.
Lolwut?

What 'racism' which should be called 'ethnocentrism' is simply the preference of your group over another. This is totally normal and void of hatred, although if another racial group seeks you harm then of course hatred can brew, in this scenario it's not unjustified.
Racism is a derivative of xenophobia. It is easily one of the very definitions of hate.

What we call 'racism' occurs when different groups are competing for resources in order to propagate their genetic lineage. But leftists today have planted in the minds of the public that 'racism' is some kind of irrational hatred based on phenotypic differences, or even simply preference for one's own cultural heritage.
Human beings should not exist solely to produce offspring. Overpopulation is a very serious issue.

You will notice that the pejorative' racist' only ever applies to White people and is hardly if never used to characterise non-whites.
Lolwut?
American race laws for example, were justified to keep America European and dominated by Europeans who built the country. Germany did not need these same segregation laws because Germany wasn't as diverse as the United States was at that time, the laws in each country thus reflected each countries problems. With Germany it was Jewish influence, as it was all over Europe. Many other countries including the United States was 'anti-semitic' for good and bad reasons which can always be debated. In any case that was the norm.
America has been poisoned by Western Civilization.

'Racism' is natural. It's not some boogeyman which was societally manufactured.
Lolwut?

Now I know this isn't on the topic of Blacks in Nazi Germany, but this thread started by Lamprecht has been hijacked by christianbethel's pathological desire to obsess over race politics.
For your information kind sir, I started this thread to talk about blacks in Nazi Germany.

Usually revisionists are enlightened people who have taken the wool off their eyes to the games of the general public and the Jewish establishments tricks. So to describe these basic concepts is usually unnecessary.
Yet you took the time to describe them and insult me. Charming.

I think we have a rare instance of a person who understands the Holocaust myth, but was brought to it via another route of dissatisfaction with society as it is today. Or even just morbid curiosity. Although I doubt the latter is true since he seems to be ideologically fixated on Blacks in Nazi Germany/European World for some reason instead of the Jews as most people interested would be.
I was inspired by The Greatest Story Never Told and Aryanism.

@Lamprecht
I think they are taking an exaggerated stance from the opposite perspective as the "Mainstream" opinion, which is that Hitler thought every race (especially Jews and Slavs) was biologically inferior to Whites/Aryans and that they all deserved to be exterminated because of it. As pointed out in the thread I linked to in my first reply, Hitler saw Slavs as Aryans and did not see them as inferior. The reason he was "anti-semitic" was because of the leading role of Jews in communism, as well as their tendency to be loyal to their fellow Jews over the German people.
Agreed. Though I wouldn't say "exaggerated", but "radical" or "unconventional"

I think they are wrong saying that the Waffen SS was the most diverse military. The Waffen SS really only allowed Aryans (Germans + other White Europeans) and it was the Wehrmacht that had people of all races and ethnicities.
No, it was the Waffen SS. I'm sure of it.

As for discrimination against German Blacks in general, as pointed out in the "Other Germans" book that I quoted, with the exception of the measures against the Rhineland Bastards (which numbered around 500, compared to the 20-25,000 other Blacks, and were called for by the public prior to Hitler's rise to power) there was no specific anti-Black legislation by the Nazi regime. Measures taken against German Blacks were "ambivalent, with often-contradictory measures implemented at the local level and usually carried out on the initiative of individual bureaucrats or community members."
This was probably due to the Pan-German völkisch movement and statements from Mein Kampf.

They are using a very specific definition of "Racism" and it is not the same as the one found in the dictionary.

From their Glossary:
Tribalism (non-Aryan attitude)

In-group altruism and out-group indifference; ethics based on this principle

E.g. humanism, racism
Often called “identitarianism” by those trying to make it sound respectable
Contrast with universalism

Racism (non-Aryan attitude)

Tribalism with the tribe defined as a certain ethnic group


So what we are experiencing here is an issue of equivocation ('calling two different things by the same name'). But, I do think that Hitler promoted tribalism. He wanted Germany to serve the German people, and he enacted laws to prevent miscegenation.

It should also be noted that Aryanism's definition of race is vastly different from their definition of ethnicity.
If we are talking about Blacks, there just were not very many Blacks in the country, he didn't worry about them. And they did not have some separate identity like the Jews, as most of the Blacks were probably mulattoes of mixed German-African heritage (from former German colonies in Africa).


The definitions of "Racism" I use, which are consistent with the dictionary:

1 - Belief that some races are superior or inferior to others
2 - Hatred or prejudice* of an individual or group based on their race or ethnicity

* prejudice = an adverse judgment or opinion formed beforehand or without knowledge of the facts

I assume Aryanism takes its definition from #2.

Quite often, in practice, the word "Racism" is thrown around by a person whose feelings are hurt, regardless of whether or not the definition applies. Like I said, I find people who apply to #1 to be wrong and their beliefs unscientific. I do not consider them "immoral" unless they take some negative action based on them.
It saddens me that the fact the word 'racism' has no common definition on this forum.

I believe that the major human races: Caucasoid, Mongoloid, Negroid, Australoid, Americanoid, Capoid... are analogous to separate subspecies and "Human" is the species.
Exactly. That's what I'm saying.

But a "Race" is also defined as a large, extended family that is partly inbred. So there can be a "Human race", a Caucasian race, a European/White/"Aryan" race, a German race, even a Bavarian race. So one person can belong to all of those "races" which are just subsets of the former. So in that sense, the word "Race" has two major definitions.
Can you provide an example?

What did Hitler do to Massaquoi? I just read a bit about him. He claims some discrimination against him, and then also mentions certain Germans going out of their way to be nice to him. As we just acknowledged above, Hitler is not responsible for every German person's behavior.
He was denied entry into the Hitler Youth as a child and was rejected for military service, IIRC.

christianbethel
Member
Member
Posts: 36
Joined: Sun Aug 18, 2019 1:17 pm

Re: Blacks in National Socialist Germany

Postby christianbethel » 2 months 4 weeks ago (Sun Sep 08, 2019 2:21 pm)

Lamprecht wrote:This quote is relevant:

"German racialism has been deliberately distorted. It never was an anti-"other race" racialism. It was a pro-German racialism. It was concerned with making the German race strong and healthy in every way. Hitler was not interested in having millions of degenerates, if it was in his power not to have them. Today one finds rampant alcohol and drug addiction everywhere. Hitler cared that the German families be healthy, cared that they raise healthy children for the renewal of a healthy nation. German racialism meant re-discovering the creative values of their own race, re-discovering their culture. It was a search for excellence, a noble idea. National Socialist racialism was not against the other races, it was for its own race. It aimed at defending and improving its race, and wished that all other races did the same for themselves."
- Waffen SS General Leon Degrelle - Epic: The Story of the Waffen SS (Lecture given in 1982). Reprinted in The Journal of Historical Review, vol. 3, no. 4, pp. 441-468.

Yes, I've seen this before. I think this quote exemplifies the idea of racialism.

christianbethel
Member
Member
Posts: 36
Joined: Sun Aug 18, 2019 1:17 pm

Re: Blacks in National Socialist Germany

Postby christianbethel » 2 months 4 weeks ago (Sun Sep 08, 2019 2:27 pm)

HMSendeavour wrote:The 'Aryanism' crowd think Hitler is some secret ultra egalitarian...

From their FAQ:
We consider ourselves representatives of the True Left, a radical leftism which rejects moral relativism and blank-slate egalitarianism but whose moral absolutism and non-egalitarianism are based not on traditional standards but on anti-traditional standards.
Like I said, you really should read Aryanism.net.

User avatar
Lamprecht
Valuable asset
Valuable asset
Posts: 1326
Joined: Sun Nov 30, 2008 6:32 pm

Re: Blacks in National Socialist Germany

Postby Lamprecht » 2 months 4 weeks ago (Sun Sep 08, 2019 3:17 pm)

christianbethel wrote:
I think they are wrong saying that the Waffen SS was the most diverse military. The Waffen SS really only allowed Aryans (Germans + other White Europeans) and it was the Wehrmacht that had people of all races and ethnicities.
No, it was the Waffen SS. I'm sure of it.

You give the example of India, except India was known as a subcontinent that was conquered by the "Aryans" - remember also that India was ruled by the British, who were at war with Germany. Most people don't consider Iranians to be White, but in 1935, the country known as "Persia" changed its name to "Iran" which meant "of the Aryans" because of Hitler.

The Waffen SS was originally created only for Aryans/Germans, but they relaxed this after the war progressed. But the Wehrmacht was more generally open to foreign volunteers, so, all those photos of Blacks serving the Third Reich were Wehrmacht, not SS. See:
Image

As for discrimination against German Blacks in general, as pointed out in the "Other Germans" book that I quoted, with the exception of the measures against the Rhineland Bastards (which numbered around 500, compared to the 20-25,000 other Blacks, and were called for by the public prior to Hitler's rise to power) there was no specific anti-Black legislation by the Nazi regime. Measures taken against German Blacks were "ambivalent, with often-contradictory measures implemented at the local level and usually carried out on the initiative of individual bureaucrats or community members."

This was probably due to the Pan-German völkisch movement and statements from Mein Kampf.

Supposedly, the German people committed a genocide in 1904-08 against certain African ethnic groups:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Herero_an ... a_genocide

I don't claim to know much about that specific event, but I think that at the time Europeans in general just did not think very highly of Blacks. What did Germans hear about Blacks? In America, the only White country with a large Black population, they were hated and discriminated against; there were laws against miscegenation. In Africa, they were colonized by European powers and thus seen as a subjugated people. And then there was the reports of rape by Afro-French colonial troops, producing the "Rhineland bastards". I don't think anti-Black sentiment in Germany was necessarily a result of Hitler, although his ethnocentric rhetoric probably didn't help Blacks.

The definitions of "Racism" I use, which are consistent with the dictionary:

1 - Belief that some races are superior or inferior to others
2 - Hatred or prejudice* of an individual or group based on their race or ethnicity

* prejudice = an adverse judgment or opinion formed beforehand or without knowledge of the facts

I assume Aryanism takes its definition from #2.

Not necessarily. They define it as tribalism based on ethnicity, and tribalism as "In-group altruism and out-group indifference; ethics based on this principle"

To show in-group preference is not inherently based on hatred or prejudice. It is not even based on prejudice, because they are judging whether a person is part of their in-group based on their ethnicity.
How I think Hitler and the NSDAP would see it is, a Black man may be a criminal, lazy, and ignorant. Or he may be honest, intelligent, and hard working. But either way he is not German or Aryan. So therefore, he is not part of their in-group, he is not "German" regardless of where he is born or what language he speaks.

It saddens me that the fact the word 'racism' has no common definition on this forum.

This is just reality. The word has a definition, but the way it is often used by real people in real life is that they use it as a slur against ideas they do not like. I provided two definitions, but even statements which do not fit that definition can be called "Racist".

On this forum, we are more focused on discussing the "Holocaust" story and World War II era, rather than finding ideas and individuals born in the 19th century to label as "Racist". But it does come up. For example:

Judaism is Racism!
viewtopic.php?t=8387

But a "Race" is also defined as a large, extended family that is partly inbred. So there can be a "Human race", a Caucasian race, a European/White/"Aryan" race, a German race, even a Bavarian race. So one person can belong to all of those "races" which are just subsets of the former. So in that sense, the word "Race" has two major definitions.

Can you provide an example?

An example of what? Steve Sailer talks about this definition of race here:

Steve Sailer, 1998: "A Race Is An Extremely Extended Family"
http://www.unz.com/isteve/steve-sailer- ... extremely/

In German there is the word "Volk" and also the word "rasse". Volk would be better defined as a 'people, nation, folk, tribe, race' but I do not think Hitler used the word to describe all Aryans/White people, from Britain to Iberia to Scandinavia and the Balkans. But he spoke about the German Volk. At the time, DNA research wasn't available and anthropologists categorized White people into different [sub-]races. See:

Image
Depiction of German Races 1 and 2: Nordic, Phalian, Western (Mediterranean), East-Baltic, Eastern (Alpine), and Dinaric.

Racial composition of the German people (Hans F. K. Günther (1922) Rassenkunde des deutschen Volkes)
ImageImage

So the Germans were a "volk" comprised of various "rassen" or races. But all of those races belonged to the "Aryan" or White race. And they also accepted that Aryans were a subset of the Caucasian race, along with Semites and Hamites.

You can find various statements of authors writing of the "Anglo-Saxon race" or the "Zulu race" or the "Korean race". But also the Caucasoid, Negroid and Mongoloid races.

What did Hitler do to Massaquoi? I just read a bit about him. He claims some discrimination against him, and then also mentions certain Germans going out of their way to be nice to him. As we just acknowledged above, Hitler is not responsible for every German person's behavior.

He was denied entry into the Hitler Youth as a child and was rejected for military service, IIRC.

Yes, well Hitler would be the one to say "Germans only" (defined by bloodline) and it was up to people below him to make the exceptions and deal with those situations. It would be absurd to think that Hitler personally analyzed Massaquoi's case and made that decision.

HMSendeavour posted this quote that basically describes what I'm saying here:
"Kershaw tried to show that in many situations Hitler didn’t need to do very much at all since German society—everyone from the underlings surrounding him to ordinary people on the street—were increasingly inclined to anticipate and fulfil the Führer’s every wish, working towards him.'"
- Volker Ullrich, Hitler: Ascent, pp. 4
"There is a principal which is a bar against all information, which is proof against all arguments, and which cannot fail to keep a man in everlasting ignorance -- that principal is contempt prior to investigation."
-- Herbert Spencer

christianbethel
Member
Member
Posts: 36
Joined: Sun Aug 18, 2019 1:17 pm

Re: Blacks in National Socialist Germany

Postby christianbethel » 2 months 4 weeks ago (Sun Sep 08, 2019 3:48 pm)

I need to converse with my associates on Aryanism.net about what we're discussing. I'm sure we can use this platform or some sort of intermediary to discuss the historical plight of blacks in NS Germany. How does this forum view Hitler and his associates? Do you view him in a more sympathetic light or is he still universally reviled here?

User avatar
Lamprecht
Valuable asset
Valuable asset
Posts: 1326
Joined: Sun Nov 30, 2008 6:32 pm

Re: Blacks in National Socialist Germany

Postby Lamprecht » 2 months 4 weeks ago (Sun Sep 08, 2019 4:41 pm)

christianbethel wrote:I need to converse with my associates on Aryanism.net about what we're discussing. I'm sure we can use this platform or some sort of intermediary to discuss the historical plight of blacks in NS Germany. How does this forum view Hitler and his associates? Do you view him in a more sympathetic light or is he still universally reviled here?

Everyone has their own opinions. I think Hitler had a lot of silly beliefs about race. I also think he is possibly the most lied about person in history. It would be absurd to "revile" Hitler for his views on Blacks but not do the same to the American Founding Fathers, Abraham Lincoln, Mahatma Gandhi, Charles Darwin, and thousands upon thousands of other notable achievers. It is quite clear that Hitler's views on Blacks were not something he thought up on his own, but just a reflection of the prevailing views of his time.

Mein Kampf was published in 1925, and Hitler came to power in 1933. People do change after becoming powerful political leaders. And, as pointed out by your website, he may have indeed "exaggerated German superiority in order to restore German confidence" but he certainly was a tribalist who was "Germans first".

National Socialism is often considered a form of Fascism, but there are major differences. Primarily in the purpose of a state. In Mein Kampf, Adolf Hitler wrote:
"The state is only a means to an end. Its end and its purpose are to preserve and promote a community of human beings who are physically as well as spiritually kindred. Above all, it must preserve the existence of the race, thereby providing the indispensable condition for the free development of all the forces dormant in this race. A great part of these faculties will always have to be employed in the first place to preserve the physical existence of the race, and only the remaining portion will be free to work in the field of intellectual progress. But, as a matter of fact, the one is always the fundamental prerequisite for the other. Those States which do not serve this purpose have no justification for their existence. They are monstrosities."

In contrast, Mussolini wrote:
"The Fascist conception of the state is all-embracing: outside of it no human or spiritual values can exist, much less have any real worth. Thus understood, Fascism is totalitarian, and the Fascist state--a synthesis and a unit of all values--interprets, develops and potentiates the whole life of a people...It is not the nation that generates the state...Rather it is the state which creates the nation, conferring volition and, therefore, real life on a people...In the Fascist conception, the state is an absolute before which individuals and groups are relative..."

Under Fascism anyone, regardless of racial background, can be a citizen, as long as he accepts his responsibility to the state. Under National Socialism, on the other hand, membership in the racial community is the first requirement of citizenship.

As I mentioned with my comment on "Cheerleading" it is "possible" that Hitler did not necessarily believe in "superior" or "inferior" races himself, and only used that language to promote a strong ethnic identity in Germans; maybe, maybe not. Perhaps he saw how effective it was for the Jews (whose religion is racially supremacist at its roots) and decided to adopt a belief system also based on racial/ethnic/tribal specialness. Perhaps he did truly believe Blacks were inferior for some reason. Hitler said very little about the Black/Negro race. And, as pointed out in previous posts, most of the policies that Blacks were discriminated under were not created specifically for Blacks, but rather as "Ethnic Germans only" which excluded Jews, Gypsies, Asians, Blacks and any other non-Aryans. And they were enforced by individual Germans, Hitler himself was not really involved in such trivialities. The "Mistreatment" of Blacks you speak of in NS Germany was not necessarily a result of a specific feeling about Blacks as a group, but instead because they were not German.
According to this WIkipedia page which cites some Chinese-language works, the Third Reich discriminated against Chinese people even though Hitler praised Chinese culture and people for their civilizational achievements: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Persecuti ... zi_Germany

Hitler was elected because he opposed communism, a poisonous ideology which had already caused the death of millions of people by the time the NSDAP rose to power. Possibly, he prevented the Soviets from conquering all of Europe which they wanted to do. If it was not for Britain and France's declarations of war, he may have been able to end communism in Eastern Europe and liberate the Russian people from this system of enslavement.
I talk more about why Hitler was elected here:

How did Hitler come to power // The rise of the NSDAP
viewtopic.php?t=12669

We can celebrate the accomplishments of historical figures even if we disagree with things they believed. Are you going to not celebrate Lincoln ending slavery because he was racist against Blacks? Are you not going to celebrate the Bill of Rights (I assume you're American) because Jefferson and Washington were racist against Blacks?
"There is a principal which is a bar against all information, which is proof against all arguments, and which cannot fail to keep a man in everlasting ignorance -- that principal is contempt prior to investigation."
-- Herbert Spencer

christianbethel
Member
Member
Posts: 36
Joined: Sun Aug 18, 2019 1:17 pm

Re: Blacks in National Socialist Germany

Postby christianbethel » 2 months 4 weeks ago (Sun Sep 08, 2019 5:18 pm)

I see what you're saying. I suppose it is important to recognize the flaws in a role model, to criticize someone you look up to when they genuinely err.
Hitler himself may not have been racist, but the people of Germany came first. i suppose we will never conclusively know about the treatment of blacks in Nazi Germany.

User avatar
Lamprecht
Valuable asset
Valuable asset
Posts: 1326
Joined: Sun Nov 30, 2008 6:32 pm

Re: Blacks in National Socialist Germany

Postby Lamprecht » 2 months 4 weeks ago (Sun Sep 08, 2019 7:12 pm)

I think we can all agree on the following summarized points:

- Anti-Black 'racism' was common in Germans before and during the Third Reich period, just as it was common in Whites elsewhere in the world; especially wherever Whites and Blacks shared living spaces.

- Hitler's issue with Blacks in Mein Kampf was mainly with them being brought into Germany by Jews "bastardize" the White race so that the Jew could dominate them. These were the French occupation troops that produced the "Rhineland bastards"

- Hitler's talk about Germans or Aryans being "Superior" may have been a form of 'ethnic cheerleading' or, as your Aryanism website claims, "exaggerated... in order to restore German confidence following defeat in WWI and long years of economic hardship, and thus gain political support."

- There were no specific laws aimed against the Black minority in Germany, which numbered around 20-25,000 (out of 67 million Germans). There were laws that took away certain rights against all non-Germans/Aryans, which included all minorities: Jews, Gypsies, East Asians, Blacks, and others.

- The Nuremberg Laws limited German citizenship only to those of German or Aryan blood. Therefore, Blacks were not citizens. However, article 7 of the first supplementary decree allowed for racial exemptions.

- Hitler at one point had plans for colonizing Africa, and probably intended to keep the Black Germans around to help spread a positive view for that purpose. Obviously this plan never came to fruition.

- Although Hitler praised the Chinese people for their civilization achievements and certainly didn't see them as "Inferior", they were still discriminated against in 1930s Germany.

- The anti-Black discrimination experienced by Blacks living in Germany was not systematic or coherent; actions were arbitrary, incidental, "often contradictory measures implemented at the local level and usually carried out on the initiative of individual bureaucrats or community members". German Businesses didn't hire Blacks because they thought they would lose customers, not because it was illegal. If you look into the history of 1930's USA, you'll find in some places Blacks were treated worse.

- The NSDAP government provided some programs for Afro-Germans because of their employment difficulties. Some were given jobs at universities to teach languages, and the "German Africa Show" was revived. Mostly, the Nazi party didn't concern itself with such matters. For example, in 1936 a German official wrote to the Berlin main office for guidance on how to resolve the unemployability of a 15-year old mulatto. 3 years later they replied, simply telling him to "handle the situation as he saw fit".

- The only actual program directed at Black Germans specifically was the sterilization of about half of the "Rhineland bastards". There were only around 500 of these mulattoes born to German woman and French occupation troops, and calls to have them sterilized were made as early as 1927. The entire French occupation was universally seen by Germans as a national disgrace. A larger number of ethnic Germans were sterilized in the Third Reich eugenics program.

- At the same period in the USA, various states had anti-miscegenation laws, discrimination was legal everywhere, and most US states had mandatory eugenic sterilization laws*** This continued long after World War II was over. The USA sterilized far more Blacks than Germany ever did.


*** some info on Black-American sterilizations:

"In 1965, 14 percent of [American] black women had undergone surgical sterilization as opposed to only 6 percent of white women" https://books.google.com/books/about/Fi ... 22&f=false

"As of 1982, fifteen percent of white women had been sterilized, compared with twenty-four percent of African-American women, thirty-five percent of Puerto Rican women, and forty-two percent of Native American women." http://web.archive.org/web/200202201047 ... mike2.html
"There is a principal which is a bar against all information, which is proof against all arguments, and which cannot fail to keep a man in everlasting ignorance -- that principal is contempt prior to investigation."
-- Herbert Spencer

christianbethel
Member
Member
Posts: 36
Joined: Sun Aug 18, 2019 1:17 pm

Re: Blacks in National Socialist Germany

Postby christianbethel » 2 months 4 weeks ago (Sun Sep 08, 2019 10:01 pm)

Nice, just what I was looking for: a conclusive list. It saddens me to know blacks faced some discrimination in Nazi Germany, but I like to think Hitler was an anti-racist who wanted to introduce his anti-racist policies to the public, but couldn't. As you mentioned earlier, he was a product of his time.

User avatar
HMSendeavour
Valued contributor
Valued contributor
Posts: 146
Joined: Mon Aug 06, 2018 3:12 pm
Contact:

Re: Blacks in National Socialist Germany

Postby HMSendeavour » 2 months 4 weeks ago (Mon Sep 09, 2019 1:48 am)

christianbethel wrote:Yes, I'm black. I came to this forum thinking racism would be rejected as we unravel the truth about the 'Holocaust' and Hitler and WWII.


I cannot say I'm surprised. I do not expect a black man to try and understand my views as I have taken the time to so delicately explain them to you and provide countless resources.

Your racial interests as an African living in a country built by Europeans has no incentive to agree nor attempt to understand National Socialism nor the complexities of the philosophy of it's racial inceptions any more than "racism bad, equality good"; while you try and fit Hitler into a dichotomy he would never accept to begin with. And nor do I. Like I said, it's not in your racial interests to understand European identitarianism.

It's disappointing, because you too could find identity in your African heritage and we could be amicable partners in the struggle against the modern world. Much like the American Nazi Party and the Black Mohammedans in the 1960s. As Hitler so aptly says

I have never regarded the Chinese or Japanese as being inferior to ourselves. They belong to ancient civilisations, and I admit freely that their past history is superior to our own. They have the right to be proud of their past, just as we have the right to be proud of the civilisation to which we belong. Indeed, I believe the more steadfast the Chinese and the Japanese remain in their pride of race, the easier I shall find it to get on with them - Hitler-Bormann Documents (Feb. 13, 1945)


Meaning in this context, if you weren't so anti-european and our identities in your attempt to obfuscate and pretend all humans are equal you and I could easily get along in mutual understanding and pride in our peoples. For there is more than one way of getting along that doesn't mean everyone loses who they are and where they came from. National Socialism isn't communism Christian, the sooner you understand that the sooner you can just call yourself a Cultural Marxist and get out of our way.

Based on your comments, I seem to have been mistaken. You strike me as someone who espouses white nationalism or white supremacy. The fact that you reference Jared Taylor, National Vanguard, and a video entitled "White Nationalism Is The Only Way To Save The West" confirms my suspicions. I refuse to involve myself with the racial hatred that is white nationalism/supremacy.


Supremacy? A typical and useless canard. In a sense yes, I am a supremacist, but the truth is I'm really not. You must understand that to be a supremacist you must desire to rule over other races (rule supreme), I do not. I'm a National Socialist, and I seek only the comfort of my race and culture within the nation my ancestors gifted me. I am a Supremacist in the sense that I believe all races should be supreme in their homelands and nations. That goes for all races. So to call me a specific stripe of 'supremacist' would be disingenuous. I am a Chinese Supremacist, Japanese Supremacist, English Supremacist, German Supremacist etc etc. You clearly as I stated in my first reply, use the same tired and unoriginal catchphrases as the left. Also there are no 'white' people. 'White' while standing in as another word for European totally ignores the ethnic and cultural diversity among our European race. So that's my gripe with the marxian use of 'white' to degrade our European peoples. I find it easier to get along with other Racial Nationalists, because we have the same worldview and understanding of nature then people like you who believe in post 1945 usually Jewish fantasies. Propagated by their philo semitic slaves in academia. Again, see the resources.

Blacks were subject to discrimination in their places of work, barred from pursuing a higher education, forbidden from miscegenation, etc. You say there's nothing wrong with the bigotry of the 1930s. You are incorrect. Bigotry in any form is to be rejected and condemned.


And I'm all for this treatment. You have simply said it is to be condemned without good reasons as to why. It isn't the right of blacks to have access to Europeans, our countries, our institutions and our women. This is a disgrace. You do not understand this 'bigotry' because you're black and it doesn't benefit you. So yeah, I understand why you would think this way. But Europeans owe you nothing, and it isn't our duty to give you any of these rights which would and are being used to displace our people from this earth within our own countries. it is suicide. I do not know how I can be any clearer than that. I don't even know why I bother seeing as I know you won't actually look at anything I'm linking you.

The bigotry of the 1930s only existed in places where non-europeans were present in the lands of Europeans. In Australia this discrimination couldn't exist because your kind never lived there, and so racial tensions were thwarted. The united states made the mistake of accepting slaves from Jewish merchants (not all but many, if not the majority) in a capitalist utilitarian fashion which only caused long term harm to the US; This is why America is filled with racial hatred and tension today.

Discrimination prevented the racial outsiders from gaining political and educational power in a country that wasn't theirs, and they weren't even considered citizens of. This is natural in order to preserve the genetic lineage of the in-group and the culture which they have formed to represent their unique heritage and people. So of course they're not going to give it all away to the rowdy Africans and Asians who wish to take advantage of it. Don't make me laugh.

See the links https://www.bitchute.com/video/-gTRVKsBiSU/,https://www.bitchute.com/video/9cls-nGTjoE/, https://www.bitchute.com/video/Fz7STPD5cFc/,https://www.bitchute.com/video/A_n88E99Hdk/,https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCK1Uk2f36aglexxLkfOWnEQ . There is more than this, but this should be enough for you to attempt to understand.

Why you think a multiracial society is dystopian just tells me all I need to know about you.


Seemingly not as you don't understand me at all. https://archive.fo/LRe05 https://web.archive.org/web/20180829091319/https://pastebin.com/jkHpcB4j

I know what racism is. You are the one who is in denial. That's not my fault.


And yet you cannot tell me. Shame.

I assume you are also an Islamophobe?


Hahahaha. Oh man. You really are just some run of the mill normie.

The reason question is. Should I not be?
islam_hatefacts.jpg


"The white races did, of course, give some things to the natives, and they were the worst gifts that they could possibly have made, those plagues of our own modern world-materialism, fanaticism, alcoholism and syphilis." Political Testament of Adolf Hitler, page 13


Please post a source to the full testament. In any case, this doesn't mean anything. Hitler was against European colonialism, which is why he rejected the colonies. He did however admire Britain and her Empire so there might be a bit of contradiction there. At least, he admired their administration of India.

You are relying to heavily on Mein Kampf. Most of the content in that book were either lies or convenient half-truths told to get support from the Pan-German völkisch movement and to get out of prison. it's veracity and reliability in regards to National Socialism are in question to this day among authentic (non-racist) national socialists.


There is no such thing as a 'non-racist' National Socialist. If you do not put your people above all else, and actively preserve them and your own culture while recognising the racial differences in humanity then you aren't a National Socialist. You do not understand that National Socialism is a total worldview, uncompromising and for the strongest most iron-willed of men. Not degenerate cowards who would race mix, accept dysgenics and lower themselves to subhuman status in which they are the lowest materialistic common denominator.

As for your accusations about Mein Kampf the onus is on you to prove it. It sounds to me as if you simply find it inconvenient so you disregard it. Keep in mind, Hitler not only spoke in Mein Kampf, but also the Second Book and elsewhere reaffirming all that was said. You have no proof Hitler was anything else but how he portrayed himself, and the evidence in this thread all goes against your false conceptions of Hitler as an anti-racist. Your views are so unbelievably contrived you have no sources, no evidence to make it worthy of note or debate.

The idea that Hitler wrote Mein Kampf to get out of prison just laughable. What connection is there or has there been to Mein Kampf and lenient prison sentences? What a joke. Hitler was let out of prison after he converted the staff to National Socialism and received so many guest he considered prison to essentially be a holiday.

Mein Kampf in reality was written to organise his political philosophy and organising the movement into unity from the warring north and south NSDAP under the Fuhrer Principle.

That May Kurt Lüdecke returned from his money-raising trip abroad to find confusion in the ranks of the underground NSDAP. “The various groups quarreled internally and with each other. Nor were their antagonisms private scandals—enemies clawed each other in public regardless both of the spectacle they were giving the shocked onlookers and of the damage they were doing to themselves.”

[...]

According to Lüdecke’s account, Hitler declared that the party must pursue a new line of action. Its future lay not in armed coups but the ballot box. “I am convinced this is our best line of action, now that conditions in the country have changed so radically.” Hitler appeared to be not at all downcast by the party squabbles. “Indeed, he was so confident of final victory that my own misgivings were dispelled, for his mood was contagious.” But the party split continued to widen. A few weeks later Strasser joined with Ludendorff in proposing the foundation of the National Socialist Freedom Party, thus creating a single völkisch party of which the NSDAP would be but a part. This raised the intensity of interparty rancor which, in turn, forced Hitler into making a radical decision. On July 7 Der Völkische Kurier announced that he had “laid down the leadership of the National Socialist movement, and that he will refrain from all political activity during his term of detention. He requested his adherents not to visit him in prison since he had so much work and was also engaged in writing a book.”

[...]

Then, in the privacy of his cell, he would laboriously type out the manuscript with two fingers on the typewriter loaned to him by the warden.

[...]

At first the book was to have been a general history but the first volume—under the ponderous working title Four and a Half Years of Struggle Against Lies, Stupidity and Cowardice—now included an autobiographical account of Hitler’s childhood, his years in Vienna, the war, the Red revolution and the beginnings of the party in Munich. It turned out to be the story of a poor boy’s political education and gave him the opportunity to discourse not only on his three favorite subjects—Jews, Marxism and racism—but the futility of parliamentary government, syphilis, the decline of the theater, the monarchy, and responsibility for loss of the war.

Writing down his political theories was in itself a process of self-education. “During my imprisonment I had time to provide my philosophy with a natural, historical foundation.” The authorities had made a mistake by imprisoning him. “They would have been far wiser to let me make speeches all the time, without giving me respite!”

It was remarkable how Hitler had gained ascendancy over his jailers. He had already converted a majority of the staff to National Socialism and even the warden became so impressed that he permitted Hitler’s lights to stay on until midnight. Surveillance was so lax that the prisoners established their own under - Adolf Hitler, John Toland, pp. 196-97


And continuing from Toland

On July 16 Hess wrote a university friend that Herr Hitler wanted to know nothing of present-day politics. “For the time being he has withdrawn himself publicly from the leadership [of the party]. The reason is that he does not want to assume the responsibility for what happens outside without his knowledge, and possibly against his better judgment. Nor is he able to smooth out the constant quarrels, at least not from here. He considers it unnecessary to bother with such petty disagreements. On the other hand, he is convinced that once he obtains his freedom, he can steer everything back on the right track.” - Adolf Hitler, John Toland, pp. 199


There is nothing here or anywhere to suggest Hitler had any ulterior motives for writing Mein Kampf other than illustrating his autobiography and party history. If Hitler was going to he probably would've written something more anti-racist to appease the left-wing northerners.

Determined opposition to the völkisch merger came from left-wing Nazis in North Germany who denounced the racists as “enemies” of the working class. Collaboration with them, warned one student leader, would force “the true National Socialists, especially the workers,” to leave the NSDAP. - Adolf Hitler, John Toland, pp. 200


But he didn't. He united the party himself, with his ideas and held steadfast to his ideals. If you want to make the claims there were 'lies' and 'half-truths' you must establish that Hitler knew he was doing this, and for what purpose. This you cannot do.

From Wordnik
from The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, 5th Edition.

noun The belief that race accounts for differences in human character or ability and that a particular race is superior to others.
noun Discrimination or prejudice based on race.

from Wiktionary, Creative Commons Attribution/Share-Alike License.

noun The belief that each race has distinct and intrinsic attributes.
noun The belief that one race is superior to all others.
noun Prejudice or discrimination based upon race.

from WordNet 3.0 Copyright 2006 by Princeton University. All rights reserved.

noun discriminatory or abusive behavior towards members of another race
noun the prejudice that members of one race are intrinsically superior to members of other races


And yet this definition is never used, nor is it applicable to myself. The definition of racism is useless because the word itself isn't genuine to begin with, it's a pejorative, not a valid label. Again, nobody calls themselves a 'racist' willingly. It defines nothing because it's use is so broad, even in this definition. Again,see the in depth explanations and refutations of the 'racism' canard.

The Dishonest use of the term "Racism" https://www.bitchute.com/video/TuPm5OLNf02Q/

also see the classic videos 'Racism is a Bogus concept" https://www.bitchute.com/video/NUvmEgydADCT/ and Part 2 'Dismantling Racism' https://www.bitchute.com/video/4AjubiOspI3e/

Racism is a derivative of xenophobia. It is easily one of the very definitions of hate.


Ah yes, because that makes so much sense! If you're xenophobic you must hate others! That's a fucking joke and strawman. No definition can possibly tell what people actually think and feel. It assumes and wrongly at that what people like me actually think and believe.

Human beings should not exist solely to produce offspring. Overpopulation is a very serious issue


I did not suggest they should. If you are concerned about population growth, you might want to look towards Africa, South America and Asia to prevent those people from not only polluting the world but overpopulating it as well.

America has been poisoned by Western Civilization.


Whatever that means. The United States was built by Western Civilisation. Get a clue.

Yet you took the time to describe them and insult me. Charming.


I didn't insult you in this place you quote me at.

Hitler himself may not have been racist, but the people of Germany came first. i suppose we will never conclusively know about the treatment of blacks in Nazi Germany.


Hitler was basically me, or rather, I'm 'literally Hitler' because I follow him. In any case, If I'm an evil racist so was Hitler.

It saddens me to know blacks faced some discrimination in Nazi Germany, but I like to think Hitler was an anti-racist who wanted to introduce his anti-racist policies to the public, but couldn't. As you mentioned earlier, he was a product of his time


There was no way that he couldn't. If Hitler was truly as you pretend an 'anti-racist' (of which there is no proof whatsoever) then he went about fostering the wrong movement to advance those aims. When in actuality had Hitler been as you described he could've used his talents to unify German society in such a way as it was deeply divided in the 1920s, to create such a party platform. The Communists were very powerful, as were the Social Democrats, there's no reason why he couldn't have tried to merge with them. Yet he didn't. Hitler wasn't a Commie Lysenkoist like you are Christian. Hitler was a National Socialist who loved his race, his Germans and fought for Europe. He wasn't an Anti-Racist, he was quite conventional with his racial views yet his world conception was radically different and built for a better age.

You came here hoping we would affirm your beliefs. Instead you pretended to have read books, you didn't follow citations and you threw out pejoratives instead of discussing with us.

https://forum.codoh.com/viewtopic.php?f=4&t=7264 See the rules in which you repeatedly have violated. Namely, 2 and 9.
Now what does it mean for the independent expert witness Van Pelt? In his eyes he had two possibilities. Either to confirm the Holocaust story, or to go insane. - Germar Rudolf, 13th IHR Conference


Return to “WWII Europe / Atlantic Theater Revisionist Forum”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 7 guests