You're really asking if I'd consider myself a Neo-Nazi, which I wouldn't, but more specifically.yettee wrote: ↑Tue Dec 04, 2018 10:36 amWhat's your view of what he wanted to do and did, both in Germany and outside it? What do you think about him as a person, morally (good? bad?)? Do you think he wasn't interested in taking over other countries? You mentioned the topic and it seems like you aren't satisfied with what you were taught, so I'm curious about your views.
My view of what he did and wanted to do?
I guess this depends on specifics, but I'll say that the basic ideas of being an ethnostate, your people first, that democracy is not always the solution, and rejection of communism and foreign interest I would fundamentally agree with.
But, much like the Neo-Nazis of today, I disagree as to what life should be like for the people in that ethnostate or the means of achieving it, and I disagree with the whole "master aryan race" thing. I don't think we need people rounded up in death camps (though it's inevitable when democracy fails for too long), I disagree about the kinds of personal interests that should be sacrificed, etc. For example, most Neo-Nazis I've heard think that women should be married off against their will shortly after puberty, that they should "remain perpetually pregnant until they're years of fertility have passed" and that they shouldn't be allowed to vote or have agency because they'll just be whores otherwise.
It's little more than materialism and growth for growth's sake applied to people and is just cover for their own failures with women. It's really funny, because Nazis champion Iceland and Poland for being successful ethnostates, but fail to see that their particular brand of authoritarianism isn't needed to achieve this state.
Was He Interested In Taking Over Other Countries?
I think that's obvious.
Why am I dissatisfied with what I was taught?
My teachers would have you believe that Hitler (and Mussolini) simply rose to power because people are awful bigots or that maybe Hitler just had some sort of hypnotism powers. These people had absolutely no valid point or motivation whatsoever. They and their followers were just evil and that was that. Fuck, my Bolshevik 9th grade teacher literally said that Hitler was just angry because a goat bit one of his nuts off...
It's intellectually dishonest and lazy.
Even the communists still had a point; it's easy to see why socialism appealed to the Russian people.
But here's the redpill:
Russia, Poland...they survived a brutal government and economic system that was designed for them to serve rather than the other way around, which economies are supposed to do. They survived the most anti-freedom ideology there is because they remained one people, "comrades", and they came out of it as one people.
History, especially concerning the soviets, teaches us an important lesson that the west is only beginning to remember: People like Dinesh D'Souza are wrong when they say that "When a nation is no longer free, it ceases to be a nation." A nation ceases to be a nation when it's ethnic people, with a shared genetic history that ties them to a culture and ancestral homeland, are lost.
It is for that reason that I cannot say that any of the nationalist dictators, be they fascists or communists of yore, were wrong about their sense of brotherhood.