DIR Return Create A Forum - Home
---------------------------------------------------------
True Left
HTML https://trueleft.createaforum.com
---------------------------------------------------------
*****************************************************
DIR Return to: Questions & Debates
*****************************************************
#Post#: 11156--------------------------------------------------
Re: National Socialists were socialists
By: SirGalahad Date: February 9, 2022, 3:44 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
@Zhang Caizhi That depends on what you mean by "originally". I
think that most of us here would agree that any successor chosen
by a monarch is legitimate, even if they aren't biologically
related. If I were a monarch, I would easily choose just about
anyone who browses the main site and this forum regularly, over
anyone in my direct family. So it's clear that the obsession
with "keeping it in the family" is a materialistic degeneration
of what monarchy truly means to us. Only non-Aryans care about
biological descendants. I do think it's possible to end up
choosing direct family by coincidence however, in a hypothetical
case where non-Aryan genes have reasserted themselves over a
civilization and become dominant.
#Post#: 11158--------------------------------------------------
Re: National Socialists were socialists
By: guest55 Date: February 9, 2022, 8:15 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
[quote]I think that most of us here would agree that any
successor chosen by a monarch is legitimate[/quote]
I agree and the point you made here raises an interesting
question for democratic Westerners to ask themselves in regards
to the topic of democracy, that question being: "Why is it you
can trust certain people enough to elect them into positions of
power, yet you then turn around and do not trust them enough to
pick their own successor? Do you trust the person you voted for,
or don't you?". And if the answer is 'no', then the obvious
follow-up question would be, "why would you ever vote for
someone you do not trust in the first-place if you yourself are
supposedly a trust worthy person?". How is this not more
hypocrisy coming from you the Westerner?
#Post#: 11169--------------------------------------------------
Re: National Socialists were socialists
By: 90sRetroFan Date: February 9, 2022, 11:40 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
Cori Bush is a good example of true autocratic personality:
HTML https://us.yahoo.com/news/cori-bush-won-apos-t-025907079.html
[quote]Cori Bush won't drop 'defund the police' slogan even
though Dems fear it's poison at the polls
...
"I always tell [fellow Democrats], 'If you all had fixed this
before I got here, I wouldn’t have to say these things,'" Bush
told Axios Tuesday.[/quote]
#Post#: 11171--------------------------------------------------
Re: National Socialists were socialists
By: guest55 Date: February 9, 2022, 11:44 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
[quote]"I always tell [fellow Democrats], 'If you all had fixed
this before I got here, I wouldn’t have to say these things,'"
Bush told Axios Tuesday.[/quote]
Such a great point! I would echo that sentiment for any lurker
to this forum who actually falsely believes we are enjoying what
we do here as well. This probably isn't the "club" most of you
want to be in....
#Post#: 11185--------------------------------------------------
Re: National Socialists were socialists
By: Zea_mays Date: February 10, 2022, 2:38 am
---------------------------------------------------------
[quote]I guess you are thinking of this quote:[/quote]
It must have been a blog comment or something, since I remember
the term "ancient past".
----
[quote]As I understand it, nationalism defines the in-group as
the citizens of a particular state[/quote]
Since anyone can choose to become part of a nation (e.g. by
meeting the criteria and pursuing citizenship), it is not a
tribe. Further, in the modern era, the delineation of a nation
is not arbitrary, but follows the boundaries of a
state/government.
In contrast, an individual cannot simply change their ethnic
background and therefore can never meet the requirements to
"join" a tribe whose membership was arbitrarily based on some
ethnic background.
[quote]Hitler clearly believed that having German "blood" is
more important than having German citizenship. So he was a
tribalist, of course.[/quote]
Hitler's emphasis on "blood" had the goal to manifest a new
folk.
A nation is a group of individuals who share a common
history/past. A folk is a group of individuals who will blend
together to form a common future; this is the first step in the
process that eventually leads to a nation forming. As Hitler
himself mentioned numerous times, the new folk he was building
contained multiple "races". Hitler even said the United States,
with its vast ethnic diversity, would eventaully turn into a
single folk as well.
[quote]A Volk in the current political sense has ceased to be a
racial unit, a racially pure community. The great migrations of
world history, the military expeditions, the times of enemy
occupation, and also, of course, the admixture that became ever
more frequent as the result of international trade relations,
have seen to it that all sorts of races and racial mixtures live
side by side within the borders of any state.
[...]
Such groups of people who feel that they belong together
continue to unite under economic, political, and even purely
geographic influences, and these groups rightly designate
themselves a Volk. In this same way, America will in time turn
into one Volk.[/quote]
HTML https://trueleft.createaforum.com/colonial-era/national-socialism-is-revolutionary-not-reactionary/msg10914/#msg10914
[quote]We have this folk of ours that is not to be defined as a
race, and this is now clear to millions. However, when I began
my career twenty-five years ago, this was not the case; then I
was always told by bourgeois circles: “Yes, folk and race are
one and the same.” No, folk and race are not the same! Race is a
component of blood – a blood kernel, but a folk is very often
composed not of one but of two, three, four or five different
blood kernels.
-Adolf Hitler, Platterhof speech, May 26, 1944.[/quote]
In the social/cultural sense, a folk will eventually result in
the formation of a nation. In the biological sense, the
evolution of a folk will eventually manifest a new "race", as
anthropologist Egon Freiherr von Eickstedt explains:
[quote]…races provide the original fundamentals of our essence
and our expressions; it determines the physical and psychical
collective expression of our people; but our Folk is a new
biological unity whose members are joined together in the
portentous bands of a community of blood in a common homeland.
Within a Folk the profound biological laws of human evolution,
heredity and selection, adaption and genetic drift, realize
themselves. Race is therefore a result, Folk is a commencement
in the biological evolution of human groups…"
-Egon Freiherr von Eickstedt, Die rassischen Grundlagen des
deutschen Volkes, (1934).[/quote]
So, yes, the innate biological quality of an individual is
important when attempting to build a new folk--but it is not
constrained by the traditional definitions of "race", since
Hitler's new German folk consisted of multiple "races" being
transformed into a new folk, and even the US would be able to
form a single folk according to Hitler.
[quote]But at least be honest and open against the flaws of
those who inspired you, whether the Nazis, Islamists, or
post-WW2 countercultural movements.[/quote]
I think we were quite fair criticizing their flaws on the
articles on Aryanism.net. My impression was that the main
articles of the site were 1/3 salvaging the positive aspects of
the past and the other 2/3s were distilling them and rebuilding
them with present-day ideas (which included criticizing and
correcting the ideological mistakes in the past).
----
[quote]If Hitler had established German domination in Africa, he
would treat Blacks at least as bad as he treated Poles or
Russians.[/quote]
Hitler actually talked about forming alliances with "the
millions of the African, Indian, and yellow peoples" to form a
global socialist movement:
HTML https://trueleft.createaforum.com/colonial-era/national-socialism-is-revolutionary-not-reactionary/msg11183/#msg11183
----
[quote]I don't think most people, especially in the West,
understand the importance of the difference between tribalism
and nationalism.[/quote]
This is why I tried to define "patriotism" as a clannish
tribalist attitude and define "nationalism" as a non-tribalist
attitude. These days, most people seem to define them the
opposite (which I think stems back to an essay George Orwell
wrote), but there has never really been an agreed-upon
definition.
Goebbels distinguished authentic Nationalism from "bourgeois
patriotism":
HTML https://trueleft.createaforum.com/colonial-era/national-socialism-is-revolutionary-not-reactionary/msg11182/#msg11182
#Post#: 20626--------------------------------------------------
Re: Re: National Socialists were socialists
By: christianbethel Date: June 24, 2023, 4:27 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
[quote]Hitler's emphasis on "blood" had the goal to manifest a
new folk.[/quote]
Would it be accurate to say Hitler was referring to innate
biological and genetic traits and not ethnicity whenever he
mentioned 'blood' and 'race'(since the terms didn't exist at the
time)?
*****************************************************
DIR Next Page