Tell me about violence in Europe Movement

[Sokol]

Greetings to all.
Some time I had an exchange of letters with some nationalists (and skins) from Europe (it is concrete - from Germany, Austria Switzerland).
Can be, I not rights, but at me have become impressions (that I read in their letters and their opinions on some questions which we discussed) that nationalists, even skins from these countries doonly drink of beer, campaigns on elections for the right parties, and some times per one year visit legal actions (Rudolf Hess Marsh and other). Very important in their opinion to visit the European concerts (they named concerts "gigs").
One more parameter - when I sent them some videos from our street actions, at them were directly a fountain of emotions!!!!!! And when I on their enthusiastic responses have written, that it is children so play and on more serious actions nobody will take a videocamera, in the answer there was an awkward silence. Such impression, that they never accepted participations in actions of violence, that it is atypical for their countries.
Can be, my information is not true, but only in Russia for skins white cords in boots mean it " I took part in murder". In Europe - is not present. And now and in Russia white cords it is not so actual - at us now simply to beat not so fashionably (well, for children of years 14-16 it it is possible if video remove though also they already murders shoot on video) if skins attack enemies necessarily try to kill.
And me interests, how in general fight nationalists (and skin) from Europe? Yes, I know, recently have arrested group in Holland. I want to know more about daily struggle.
And still a question. To tell the truth, that in Europe it is a lot of antifa and they very aggressive?
Thanks

[M.R.]

The violence in movements/groups here in Slovenia is minimal. No nationalist movement or group here supports violence, however that doesn't mean we don't have nationalists vs. anti-nationalists fights, of course.

[Menydh]

Sokol, skinheads are a urban tribe. Not a political movement by any stretch of the imagination.

Further, nationalists do not (and should not) marginalize themselves from the rest of the people. Skinheads are a social group which is self-marginal. If a group makes itself marginal from the people to the point that skinheads do, the group loses contact with the reality and with the people.

I hope that you understand how important it is for nationalism not to go to such extremes of marginality. Nationalists must stay above, not aside.


P.S. thread moved from Politics into Atrium.

[Strengthandhonour]

I agree with Mynydd. When you are a nationalist, you have to be part of the people, not make yourself look different,act different,etc then the people see you almost as foreign to them, and by commiting violent acts,you further push yourself away from the people.
But anyhow, to answer the question..In Italy violent acts are not so common, atleast of extreme violence. There has been a few events in the south were groups of nationalists stormed into gay and communist meetings and handed out a few beatings. There is events like that reported around Italy every now and then, but usually nothing big like murder, which is a very good thing.

[Sokol]

Comrades, all of you are not right!
If to look at a history of great revolutions of 20 centuries (bolsheviks, National-Socialist and fascist), we shall see, that all used violence. The violence against enemies - is necessary for political strike, as well as propagation. The violence - is one of grades propagation of idea. which supporters make this violence. The violence on behalf of any idea - doesthis idea serious in eyes of people.
Participation in actions of violence - good psychological school for young comrades. The true essence of the man opens only in extreme situations. That to 100% trust the mans - this man should be seen in real aktion.

I do not know what skinheads at you, countryes and at us in Russia skinheads - they go in avant guarde of our Movement.

After your words I am surprised - as you want to reach the nationalist purposes without violence?
Look at our enemies. How it is possible to battle against them without violence?

[Strengthandhonour]

Sokol,
there is a difference between defending and attacking. I am not sure if most will agree, but if there was a call to arms to defend Europe I am sure most of us would take it. However, you need to understand that "fascism" and "national socialism" do not have a good image in today's society. People don't want violence, people don't like getting hurt and people clearly do not like to see people die.
By engaging in this activities, you manage to push yourself away from the people, you become a "nationalist" but clearly a nationalist in exile since you have no connection to your people. People pick governments to improve their life style, not to diminish it. People won't be too happy if that government came to power via violence. Nationalism is based on the people, if the people are turned off what is labeled as "nationalism", then what is the point of encouraging it?

[Menydh]

Sokol, right. Fascism was defeated violently (war). National-Socialism was defeated violently (war). Bolschevism was defeated non-violently in most countries (economics).

Through your posts, you glorify war. There you are much wrong. War is a means, not an end. Further, it is the last resort and only justified if used to repel an aggresion. What constitutes here an aggresion I suppose that it is open to interpretation. But that's a different story.

Imagine a full scale war in Europe. The consequences are beyond anyone's imagination:

Men are required to take up on arms. Industries are targeted by bomb shells. Production efforts are diverted to the war industry machinery. Normal industrial production falls sharply. Public investment too is diverted to war production and to aliviate the immediate consequences of war. Thus investment on development also falls sharply.

When the war is finally over, victorious or defeated, involved countries must focus on reconstruction. Much has to be rebuilt from scratch. And much time has been missed (the years duration of the war). Meantime neighbouring regions have been at peace, they have been able to further develop their industry during those years at the expense of the lack of the presence of Europe in the world markets. That could be China or America. Europe is empoverished after the war. It becomes a cheap market for richer countries to buy Europe on retails.

Does it sound too chaotic? Then look at what happened in Western Europe after WWII, with America and its Plan Marshall. We are, in fact, living today on an aftermath of it.

Farming and agriculture are also directly affected by the consequences of war. Famine follows suit. After the war, large extensions of field are waste land either because they have been razed down to ashes or simply because they had to be abandoned. Cattle also drops in numbers. Years will pass until food production recovers to points where the entire population can be fed to normal levels once again and the next generation will show the effects of an unappropiately fed population. Some friendly strangers arrive with a big smile on their faces as if they were a commercial add for a toothpaste.. and an ounce of chocolate or sugar on their hands, to offer to a young woman whose young husband died on the battlefield, leaving her with a child or more. They are hungry. And the friendly stranger will pass a night of sex with her in exchange for that miserable ounce of chocolate which she needs to feed her children. The children of that dead soldier.

Does it sound like an unlikely and incredible story? After WWII friendly American soldiers did trade primary necessity food items for sex in some countries of Western Europe.

The once proud men-soldiers were not there to provide and to defend their women and children. They were lying dead on the battle fields of Europe. Or, if they were there, they were defeated and left powerless to watch the humiliation of their nation.

And that's just the immediate colateral effects of the war. The short term effects. The long term effects are still to come. It must be for a reason that people say that the bests always die. Maybe this is not an absolute truth. But it is truth at least to some extent. Thus, the human quality, the stock of a nation, is severely damaged through generations.

Add to all the above the techniques used in modern warfare and the role of the soldier in modern warfare. The ideal of the noble warrior is dead. Modernity has killed it. Technology has grind it down to dust.


The warrior, the fighter inside the man must be there to defend his people, which also means to cast away the shadow of war and misery from his people, avoiding the above scenarios.

Europe has produced great warriors. But the Moors, the Huns, the Tatars and the Mongols too. There must be something that made the difference between them and Europe. Something that gave Europe the leading edge. Whatever it was, it will only serve us if we are able to adapt it to the times.

Originally Posted by Sokol

... you want to reach the nationalist purposes without violence?

If possible, at least with the minimum amount of violence.

That is not to mean that men should not be prepared for it.. or for anything else. I believe in army conscription. Young men must be taught to fight in war in case of need to defend their people, to defend their nation, ultimately to defend Europe. Of that I have no doubt. But hope that it will be not necessary. Yet, if it is, then be prepared.

[Sokol]

I am not sure if most will agree, but if there was a call to arms to defend
Europe I am sure most of us would take it.

The moment - you take the weapon. Can be, you wait for invasion of UFO? And invasion color and moslems is a nonsense, it is not necessary to worry? I can not understand your logic, sorry

However, you need to understand that "fascism" and " national socialism " do not have a good image in today's society.

The today's society is there is a standard. I already wrote, that the society in which we are compelled to live - is a dead civilization without the future. Our task also is to destroy this society in all his elements, and on his ruins to construct the new society. To pay attention to official opinion of this society - it is silly. It is a way in anywhere.

People don't want violence, people don't like getting hurt and people clearly do not like to see people die.

You want to be guided by weights of inhabitants? And the most important - you are mistaken. I do not know, how at you in Italy, but at us in Russia a situation such - on all sociological researches the quantity of the Russian people approving the actions of violence against invaders - is made bigger year from year. Russian Movement is made) by the important participant of political life due to that literally each day there come messages about new violens actions. And now recently the level of violence has raisedbefore terror and mass pogroms.
It is possible to talk to occupational authority only violence - it understands this language. An example: when government officials in Kondopoga, Salsk and Samara see under windows of crowd of people which beat non-russian, officials have very quickly understood, that wanted people and have told, that non-russian leaved away from town. Still an example:
http://www.newsru.com/russia/02oct2006/apple.html
Translation: in city of Krasnoyarsk on office the most democratic and Liberal party "Apple" the slogan «Russia for Russians» and «For democracy hangs! For Russian authority!» If you do not know a reality in Russia you can trust me - some years back anything such could not be imagined. Even if radical liberals use slogans of nationalists - we, skinheads, not vainly beat and kill.

you manage to push yourself away from the people, you become a "nationalist" but clearly a nationalist in exile since you have no connection to your people.

Nonsenses. People follow real force. In Russia already 62 % support the slogan «Russia for Russian». The violence is immoral, if the violence supports idea which the majority of people rejects. The violence for idea which the majority of people supports also a positive - is fair violence.
Our popularity grows in Russia - because we do real, at that time when others speak.

People pick governments to improve their life style, not to diminish it.

You believe in pure and fair elections??????

People won't be too happy if that government came to power via violence.

If we shall come to authority, only revolution and violence. Show me the idiot who voluntary will give authority to nationalists?

Nationalism is based on the people,

Nonsense. It is not correct.

My point of view can be correct, can be - not. But we have plan and we follow it. While results positive.
You deny violence as an element of struggle. Ok. Can be, you will tell to me how you plan to result nationalists in authority? You personally - as you struggle? It Is interesting to me.

And still very much an important point. Liberalism is one enemy. The second enemy is muslims which use violence against us at all levels - from street murders and pogroms - and before massacre and terror. How you want to struggle without violence against enemy which uses violence at each opportunity?

[Strengthandhonour]

Well let's see.
The moment - you take the weapon. Can be, you wait for invasion of UFO? And invasion color and moslems is a nonsense, it is not necessary to worry? I can not understand your logic, sorry

I was refering to the way you make it sound, Skinheads attack not defend. I was expressing that I would only stand up to fight if it was for defense reasons, I don't find it necesarily productive to attack a single person as a group like most Russians tend to do from the video footage and stories I have heard.

The today's society is there is a standard. I already wrote, that the society in which we are compelled to live - is a dead civilization without the future. Our task also is to destroy this society in all his elements, and on his ruins to construct the new society. To pay attention to official opinion of this society - it is silly. It is a way in anywhere.

Well that is our opinion, "our" dosnt apply here, if you want to destroy your civilization or try rather, go ahead and see how well it goes. Last time a "society" was destroyed in Europe, look how things ended up today and it was because of the destruction of that society.

You want to be guided by weights of inhabitants? And the most important - you are mistaken. I do not know, how at you in Italy, but at us in Russia a situation such - on all sociological researches the quantity of the Russian people approving the actions of violence against invaders - is made bigger year from year. Russian Movement is made) by the important participant of political life due to that literally each day there come messages about new violens actions. And now recently the level of violence has raisedbefore terror and mass pogroms.
It is possible to talk to occupational authority only violence - it understands this language. An example: when government officials in Kondopoga, Salsk and Samara see under windows of crowd of people which beat non-russian, officials have very quickly understood, that wanted people and have told, that non-russian leaved away from town. Still an example:
http://www.newsru.com/russia/02oct2006/apple.html
Translation: in city of Krasnoyarsk on office the most democratic and Liberal party "Apple" the slogan «Russia for Russians» and «For democracy hangs! For Russian authority!» If you do not know a reality in Russia you can trust me - some years back anything such could not be imagined. Even if radical liberals use slogans of nationalists - we, skinheads, not vainly beat and kill.

Well you have to understand that the political climate in Europe isn't necesarily similar to the ITalian one or most of Europe I imagine. Russia for Russians sound like a good quote atleast.

Nonsenses. People follow real force. In Russia already 62 % support the slogan «Russia for Russian». The violence is immoral, if the violence supports idea which the majority of people rejects. The violence for idea which the majority of people supports also a positive - is fair violence.
Our popularity grows in Russia - because we do real, at that time when others speak.

Well there is a difference between following a slogan and following violence. It would be interesting to actually see this poll results that show 62% of support. As far as I know, in most countries were skinheads are violent, they are not taken well by the society as a whole and they don't necesarily have a good image, this forum included.

You believe in pure and fair elections??????

No, not necesarily, but perhaps in your lovely Russia it works this way, but violence just ignites a worst image, a image that nationalists across Europe should be trying to fix except of making worst.



Nonsense. It is not correct.

My point of view can be correct, can be - not. But we have plan and we follow it. While results positive.
You deny violence as an element of struggle. Ok. Can be, you will tell to me how you plan to result nationalists in authority? You personally - as you struggle? It Is interesting to me.

And still very much an important point. Liberalism is one enemy. The second enemy is muslims which use violence against us at all levels - from street murders and pogroms - and before massacre and terror. How you want to struggle without violence against enemy which uses violence at each opportunity?

If people don't make the nation then what does? do you want to kill until the people of your country accept a new political ideology?I am sure that will fix everything..