Contrasting views on political realism vs other

[Lutiferre]

The question is how much it matters, the level of Neo-Nazi-ness of the individual movements. Just for the sake of the experiment, I've asked a lot of my Danish friends what they think about nationalism or even national socialism, and articulating the question with a slightly nationalistic or even racist tone.

And a lot of people, that arent politically "active", when talking to only friends (when no blacks or etc are present), have nationalistic sentiments, and many even admire Adolf Hitler, all though not meaning it totally seriously, they are serious about their nationalistic sentiments.

The reason? That our many Arab immigrants are very racist against Danes, and often are involved in violent hate crimes against us. "Dumme kartjoffler" which means stupid potatoes is one of their prevalent racist expressions for us.

I myself am a user on most of the biggest nationalist sites, such as the Aryan sites, PAA, PANF, Stormfront, WhiteRevolution, and some of the real extremist sites. While I dont agree with many "movement-specific" sentiments shared by a lot of those member communities, there are some things we agree on, and especially Stormfront has lots of members that disagree with each other - they are very divided.

We should build a united movement on the most essential common sentiments we share, which is nationalism and separatism. Whether we call ourselves whites, Europoids, Caucasians, Caucasoids, European, Aryan, or the Nordish and Medish race, is less important.

The most important thing in the whole European nationalist movement (which ultimately is the most neutral expression for the movement as a whole) is that we agree on the most basic things. And we should start uniting instead of dividing, or we will end up with agendas that are relatively similar, yet not cooperate.

[Martín Zalacaín]

Are you insinuating that my agenda is somehow similar to that of Stormfront???

[Lutiferre]

Originally Posted by Kalevi

A would-be-successfull political movement needs the middle-class. The middle-class is mainly interested in their daily economic and social affairs, and being associated with a neo-Nazi organization is not first on their to-do list.

Also, we don't need a unified movement, we need a change in the ideological atmosphere. That change is hard to achieve with a neo-Nazi ballast.

I agree that being associated with Neo-Nazi organizations is something the fewest would want to. However, I think a lot of people on Stormfront arent your average Hitler-freak or Neo-Nazi. A lot of people dont associate with that, and Stormfront by definition isnt Neo-Nazi. What we need, is to appeal to some of their users, those that dont agree with the general Nazi-connotations Stormfront may have. And they are numerous, I know that since I've actively participated in discussions about this subject on both Aryan and white sites, including Stormfront.

Unity instead of division, is exactly what we need if we want a strong movement. Nazism is not the way to appeal to the masses, but splitting up as twenty different movements and communities, many of which have members that agree and arent Neo-Nazis, is not the way either.

[Kalevi]

Originally Posted by Degenuicide

Unity instead of division, is exactly what we need if we want a strong movement. Nazism is not the way to appeal to the masses, but splitting up as twenty different movements and communities, many of which have members that agree and arent Neo-Nazis, is not the way either.

No, but there can still be like a few different 'movements' that can fight at least partly the same enemy. Like an extremist movement appealing to the lower classes living in hellhole areas, a moderate 'movement' that concentrates to the material effects of immigration without being racist, and a conservative movement of cultural/religious preservationists, etc. Putting all them together just makes them all appear like a big freak circus.

[Menydh]

Originally Posted by Degenuicide

The question is how much it matters, the level of Neo-Nazi-ness of the individual movements. Just for the sake of the experiment, I've asked a lot of my Danish friends what they think about nationalism or even national socialism, and articulating the question with a slightly nationalistic or even racist tone.

And a lot of people, that arent politically "active", when talking to only friends (when no blacks or etc are present), have nationalistic sentiments, and many even admire Adolf Hitler, all though not meaning it totally seriously, they are serious about their nationalistic sentiments.

It matters. A lot.

I wonder how wide is your circle of friends and how representative it is of the Danish people. I don't know Denmark and I can only guess. But my guess would be that we are speaking of the marginal few.

As it happens, there are many more people out there who would likely support a True Nationalist option, but who refuse to be related with nazis, neo-nazis or new-age nazis because they are nothing like them. I, for one, am one of those people. And I suspect that the starter of this thread is also one. Like are many more here. But don't take my word for it and ask them, if you want to find out by yourself.

I find it terribly annoying when I see honest and true Nationalist people working hard to organize a protest or a campaign, and when they do it the usual freaks turn up on the scene with their fetishist fashion for sieg-heiling and for the little man of the small moustache, just in time to ruin the hard work of others.

I find it terribly annoying when people with honest and true concerns for their families and lineages, their peoples and their societies gather in public forums to discuss and to share their views and concerns, and every now and then some irresponsible individual attaches himself to the crowd to come with who knows which nonesene about cheap racial supremacy, freak eugenics or any pseudo-esoteric views on who knows what else.

And then I wonder, if they are seen being so loud about euthanasia and other methods of extermination, have they ever considered that under strict and serious methods of selection they should step ahead and volunteer as patients? If only for the sake of being consequent with the views that they proclaim.

Or maybe I'm being too harsh and what they need is some caring love and affection. If so, blame it on a feeling of hopelessness.

I myself am a user on most of the biggest nationalist sites, such as the Aryan sites, PAA, PANF, Stormfront, WhiteRevolution, and some of the real extremist sites.

To the best of my knowledge, you have not named one single Nationalist site there. Much on the contrary, all those sites stand for constructs that are diametrically opposed to any idea of Nationalism.

While I dont agree with many "movement-specific" sentiments shared by a lot of those member communities, there are some things we agree on, and especially Stormfront has lots of members that disagree with each other - they are very divided.

A cage of crickets can be something very noisy.

We should build a united movement on the most essential common sentiments we share, which is nationalism and separatism. Whether we call ourselves whites, Europoids, Caucasians, Caucasoids, European, Aryan, or the Nordish and Medish race, is less important.

Is this some plan for collective suicide? Or would it be a lobby to obtain higher doses of methadone?

The most important thing in the whole European nationalist movement (which ultimately is the most neutral expression for the movement as a whole) is that we agree on the most basic things.

The problem is that we not even agree in the most basic things. Whereas you define Nationalism as an ultimately "the most neutral expression", others are true Nationalists and they object to their feelings and ideas being used as a blanket to hide anything that is not about Nationalism, but that it is about deception and ultimately careless and irresponsible egocentrism.

And I'm being very lenient with the words that I'm using here.

And we should start uniting instead of dividing, or we will end up with agendas that are relatively similar, yet not cooperate.

Speaking of agendas, what's yours?

Anyone who had a minimum reading through Stirpes will notice that the general feeling of the members here is more or less along the lines that I've mentioned, with whatever variations left or right, or up or down, depending on the invidual member. Come on, it only takes very little reading through the forums to realize that much.

So let me give you three options and you pick up the closest:

1. You did not take any time to read through the forums, you just assumed things because you confuse Nationalism with something altogether different.
2. You did take a little time to read through the forums, but you did not comprehend what people discuss in them.
3. You did read enough and you have no problems with comprehension. But for some reasons that you are not going to tell, you had to put things upside down and then mix them up to look something different.

[Lutiferre]

Originally Posted by Mynydd

And then I wonder, if they are seen being so loud about euthanasia and other methods of extermination, have they ever considered that under strict and serious methods of selection they should step ahead and volunteer as patients? If only for the sake of being consequent with the views that they proclaim.

Or maybe I'm being too harsh and what they need is some caring love and affection. If so, blame it on a feeling of hopelessness.

Speaking of agendas, what's yours?

I know I've been loud about euthanasia, eugenics and controversial subjects. But I have not directly said that I advocate any of them. I leave that part open for interpretation, and maybe I shouldnt. Maybe I should clarify my views, because obviously when I dont, people dont consider what I have to say or the concept that I am describing, anyway. People assume I advocate them, and the focus from the intended subject is jeopardized.

Its very classical of you, to bring my personal and emotional life into it. Thats exactly what I mean, the intended focus is jeopardized.

I dont have a direct agenda for being here, except for discussing topics with people to stimulate own intellectual growth. I am a nationalist, and a pan-Europeanist. But I admit that I discuss controversial things, and sometimes say controversial things. Perhaps my passionate studies of pessimist and nihilist philosophy sometimes impact upon the level of morality in my posts; the element of hopelessness may not be an adequate description, but something along those lines.

Originally Posted by Mynydd

Anyone who had a minimum reading through Stirpes will notice that the general feeling of the members here is more or less along the lines that I've mentioned, with whatever variations left or right, or up or down, depending on the invidual member. Come on, it only takes very little reading through the forums to realize that much.

So let me give you three options and you pick up the closest:

1. You did not take any time to read through the forums, you just assumed things because you confuse Nationalism with something altogether different.
2. You did take a little time to read through the forums, but you did not comprehend what people discuss in them.
3. You did read enough and you have no problems with comprehension. But for some reasons that you are not going to tell, you had to put things upside down and then mix them up to look something different.

Neither. The closest would be number three, if you remove the last sentence.

The only thing I can interpret out of those three possibilities, is that you find my posts inappropriate. And that is not strange or wrong of you, many people do. I say inappropriate things, that may not correspond with your morality, they may be wrong. The question is how seriously you take me. I am not a person of any authority after all, so no matter how morally deprived the subjects I explore are, it would have no impact or negative influence on society. That is the benefits you got from being independent - the freedom of any higher responsibility for the topics you explore and statements you make about them. In my way of approaching things, I dont assume any morality or humanity to be the prerequisite or limit of my thought.

I dont want fill this thread up with personal things unrelated to the subject of discussion any more though.

[Lutiferre]

Perhaps you could clarify your intentions with the post I replied to with the above post?

Was it correct, my interpretation that you felt that my posts were inappropriate?

If not, tell me what I am supposed to make of it.

[Savorgnan]

Originally Posted by Degenuicide

I am a nationalist, and a pan-Europeanist.

You cannot be both, the two things are exclusive, because Europe is not a nation (and I hope it will never be).

[Lutiferre]

Originally Posted by Savorgnan

You cannot be both, the two things are exclusive, because Europe is not a nation (and I hope it will never be).

I disagree. Well, I dont think its so relevant whether Europe is a nation or a set of nations, the point is that Europe should keep being Europe and not Africa or Asia or Zimbabwe or Vietnam. And that might very well happen with a set of nations, instead of one nation. The most important thing to preserve is the geocultural and political border between Europe and other parts of the world. Not saying we should dissolve all countries, just pointing out that pan-Europeanism and nationalism can very possibly be compatible. "White nationalism" isnt based on a current nation either, its based on separatism between the perceived white race and other races, in a geopolitical and perhaps geocultural context. Pan-Europeanism and nationalism would be the Europeanist equivalent to white nationalism.

[Marcus Marulus]

Originally Posted by Degenuicide

I disagree. Well, I dont think its so relevant whether Europe is a nation or a set of nations, the point is that Europe should keep being Europe and not Africa or Asia or Zimbabwe or Vietnam. And that might very well happen with a set of nations, instead of one nation. The most important thing to preserve is the geocultural and political border between Europe and other parts of the world. Not saying we should dissolve all countries, just pointing out that pan-Europeanism and nationalism can very possibly be compatible. "White nationalism" isnt based on a current nation either, its based on separatism between the perceived white race and other races, in a geopolitical and perhaps geocultural context. Pan-Europeanism and nationalism would be the Europeanist equivalent to white nationalism.

Pan-Europeanism? No, thanks.

[Martín Zalacaín]

Originally Posted by Degenuicide

I disagree. Well, I dont think its so relevant whether Europe is a nation or a set of nations, the point is that Europe should keep being Europe and not Africa or Asia or Zimbabwe or Vietnam. And that might very well happen with a set of nations, instead of one nation. The most important thing to preserve is the geocultural and political border between Europe and other parts of the world. Not saying we should dissolve all countries, just pointing out that pan-Europeanism and nationalism can very possibly be compatible. "White nationalism" isnt based on a current nation either, its based on separatism between the perceived white race and other races, in a geopolitical and perhaps geocultural context. Pan-Europeanism and nationalism would be the Europeanist equivalent to white nationalism.

Don't you think that such position would result in the dissolution of our respective national identities into one huge, amorphous, identity-lacking, soul-less nation? For instance, we the spaniards still have traditions and customs we'd like to preserve --traditions that would probably disappear in an hypothetical European Federation.

[Lutiferre]

Originally Posted by Gonzalvus

Don't you think that such position would result in the dissolution of our respective national identities into one huge, amorphous, identity-lacking, soul-less nation? For instance, we the spaniards still have traditions and customs we'd like to preserve --traditions that would probably disappear in an hypothetical European Federation.

We Danes have, as well. And all though I'm not only Danish I consider myself a Dane (I was born in Denmark, I have part Danish ancestry, etc).

A problem seems to be that people confuse or synonymize geocultural and geopolitical borders. Like I said, I dont think we should even completely dissolve the geopolitical borders, but I dont think we should enforce them on a separatistic level either; that has never been natural for Europe.

But the geocultural borders between nations should definitely be enforced. I am definitely not saying we should merge Europe into a single mass of what was before a number of different things (with many things in common though). Geocultural borders dont directly involve geoethnic borders, but since they are national borders, the division would be at least part geoethnic. E.g. all French and Spanish people wouldnt replace each other ethnically from one moment to another, but a level of intermigration between European countries has always been occuring and has never threatened individual national groups, and resorting to sub-European isolationism and separatism would be bad for Europe as an entity, and for our relations and unity. A such extreme division would kill the spirit of Europe and result in political conflicts.

[Savorgnan]

Originally Posted by Degenuicide

Well, I dont think its so relevant whether Europe is a nation or a set of nations

Sure it is, it's a crucial point. If you think not, then you are not a nationalist.

Originally Posted by Degenuicide

the point is that Europe should keep being Europe and not Africa or Asia or Zimbabwe or Vietnam. And that might very well happen with a set of nations, instead of one nation. The most important thing to preserve is the geocultural and political border between Europe and other parts of the world.

Do you know what Europe is? Something even wider than a meta-ethnicity, and thus even less palpable.

Originally Posted by Degenuicide

Not saying we should dissolve all countries, just pointing out that pan-Europeanism and nationalism can very possibly be compatible.

No, they are absolutely not, in any case.

Originally Posted by Degenuicide

"White nationalism" isnt based on a current nation either, its based on separatism between the perceived white race and other races, in a geopolitical and perhaps geocultural context.

White "nationalism" is bollocks, a concept totally alien to Europe, and I don't know what the "white race" is. Anyway, Europe isn't a racial concept, and Stirpes isn't a racist forum.

Originally Posted by Degenuicide

Pan-Europeanism and nationalism would be the Europeanist equivalent to white nationalism.

Pan-Europeanism is another Masonic avatar, and so can be assimilated to a somewhat reduced White "nationalism" if you want. But true Nationalism is antagonist, and I'll rather say enemy of that.