My position against inter-European imperialism (no more brother wars) was always there and I continue to criticize ethnic feuding that goes on between different Europeans (Irish vs English, Serbs vs Croats, etc.) But two years ago I gave Hitler a pass on it for the same reasons that virtually all Natsocs give Hitler a pass on it (he was racist plus anti-Semitic, thus a “liberator”). I no longer support that view. My revised view was solidified more recently after Putin invaded Ukraine and I saw a ton of “Natsocs” and others on the “Right” supporting it using the same logic that they use to defend Hitler’s invasions, that if the guy doing it fits one of their social standards (racist, anti-Semitic, homophobic) then his invasion should be supported, no matter the carnage caused. Now I see why this is a destructive idea that could be used to justify any number of atrocities against fellow Whites. Also this video below and a few others demonstrating the brutalities of Hitler’s forces in occupied countries confirmed my view that Lebensraum wasn’t a good thing for Whites who weren’t German.
Hitler’s Lebensraum – ethnic
Putin’s Lebensraum – cultural
These are slight variations of the same policy with the same result: tons of dead White people.
I don’t like seeing dead Whites so I don’t support Lebensraum either cultural or ethnic. You can get angry at me for saying this, but getting angry isn’t an argument. Ask yourself why you’re angry at me and not at the people whose imperialist Lebensraum policies caused White deaths. You know I am right about this.
If your litmus test is whether or not someone idolizes a dead politician and defends his entire program with no nuance, then your priorities are compromised. My priority is White well-being in the current year, not worshipping dead politicians who made serious errors. Personality cults are never healthy, no matter how much you agree with that person on certain issues.
If you’re going to oppose Putin’s cultural-Eurasianist variant of Lebensraum in Ukraine, you can’t maintain support for Hitler’s ethnic version of it while being honest with yourself. There’s no first principle there, only tactical affirmation of a policy if the person doing it fits some of your social litmus tests. The only way to be consistent here is to either support both or oppose both. I choose the latter because I actually care about White people.
Apparently, Putin does live up to many of the social litmus tests of what I call the “Gimp-Right” (all of the acolytes of Richard Spencer’s “Alt-Right”), who are vehemently supporting his rampages in Ukraine. These types know that Putin is neither a White nationalist or an anti-Semite, but they propagandistically hone in on his anti-gay attitudes and his general hostility to America to justify their support of his genocidal policies. Some of these idiots are even going so far as to parrot the Kremlin lie that Ukrainians are “not a real people,” a “fake nation” with a “fake history” to rubber-stamp the erasure of their country and people from the map.
Who needs leftists when you have “right-wingers” like these? Can you call such people “pro-White”? I certainly can’t. At best, they’re tactically pro-White when it suits their agenda to undermine the American government, NATO and the EU, but morph into anti-White bloodthirsty Eurasianists when writing propaganda in favour of Putin’s war machine. These people put geopolitics and ideology above White well-being, as you can see from their rancid discourse. White well-being is not their priority. Their priority is some kind of spergy geopolitical larp where they’re betting all of their chips on the “Based Eastern Powers” (Russia, China, Iran, etc.) to come save them from their own governments.
Then there’s the faction of Natsocs who do support Ukraine and oppose this bloody war and Putin generally, but they do so for the wrong reasons. The main thrust of their discourse is that Ukraine is a hub of National Socialism in Eastern Europe (groups like Azov, even though Azov disavowed Fascism last year, which they ignore) and that Ukraine’s independence should be preserved because it’s “safer” to be a Natsoc in Ukraine than in Russia where they’re persecuted under anti-extremism laws. What these types are essentially saying is that the only reason, or the main reason, that they oppose this war is so that their ideology can have a safe haven to thrive in Ukraine. It’s not that they oppose brother wars or care about White well-being in general because these same people defend to the hilt Hitler’s Lebensraum invasions throughout Europe, which caused millions of White deaths.
These types also make the argument that Putin doesn’t live up to enough of their social litmus tests (racist, anti-Semitic in particular) to support, but I pointed out that if he did, they would support this war just as they support Hitler’s war against Poland and Russia. To me, this is not a principled stance against brother wars, it’s just an inverse variant of the tactical bullshit that the pro-Putinists use to buttress their stance. They would switch sides in a heartbeat if Putin suddenly became “racist and anti-Semitic,” wouldn’t they?
I’ve noticed this with Natsocs more generally. They place ideology much above White well-being. They only care about Whites who agree with their ideology. So the lives they are truly defending in Ukraine are the “Natsocs” that are there, but they couldn’t really care less about the Ukrainians who aren’t ideological Natsocs which is like 99% of them.
As you can see with their unyielding support for Hitler’s aggressive foreign policy and Lebensraum, most Natsocs don’t believe in nationalism in the traditional sense that each nation should decide its own fate. Instead, they adhere to a NS version of internationalism and interventionism. They believe that Hitler, who they view as a quasi-god, had the right to impose his will on every nation on earth. If the government of a country is not to Hitler’s liking, if it doesn’t live up to all of the autistic litmus tests that they use, then he has the absolute right to invade and conquer it, and to install a puppet government. This is not majorly different to neocon ideology which says if a government is not Democratic, it can be overthrown and replaced. The only difference is the litmus tests they use to justify their imperialism.
None of that will engender peace among White nations, but only hostilities which breed generational enmities. If we want peace and cooperation among European countries, it’s best to let each nation decide their own fate individually, instead of imposing some autistic universal standard on them all.
Do you condone any type of expansionism or only that between White Nations? I care to remind you that Francisco Franco ruled over the Spanish Protectorate of Marroco for 20 years and over Equatorial Guinea for 32 consecutive years. Do you think these two countries deserved to choose their own fate as well? Do you support Spanish imperialism/expansionism?
Instead of bringing up Franco, why don’t you tell me what your own stance is on Hitler’s Lebensraum and if you support it or not.
So was Hitler supposed to win a war by using pepper spray to “not kill whites”? Or would no war have even happened without Hitler somehow wanting to play world of tanks just for fun? Would we have had eternal peace? The difference between 1939-Germany and 2022-Russia is: Russia is a nuclear superpower. Nobody is going to attack them.
Yes no war happens if Hitler isn’t in the picture. It wasn’t “for fun,” he wanted a German land empire to secure Lebensraum for his “thousand year Reich” project.
There are no serious sources about an imperialistic, expansive politic with annexions of nations which where not German before into Germany or their subjugation, furthermore it would be the reconquista of annexions by Poland of former German areas. Hitler spoke about the “Lebensraum im Osten” (living environment in the east) in the last years of peace but at the beginning of the war, it was clear that no more “Lebensraum” is necessary or could be settled by the Germans, simply because there wasn’t enough Germans to do so. Hitler speaks in “Mein Kampf” about Russia, but later it becomes clear, that it wasn’t a real plan, it was just an option.
The war against Russia, was because of the secret coalition with Britain and their own expansive politics.
Germany was just a poor tiny land, the plaything for Hegemons (France, Britain).
Why i like Putin a little bit more than our westeners?
The Rus is a man of nature.
I can’t understand that argument of “Whites”, because leftism is white, homosexuality is white, pedophilia is white. For instance: Do you know the Carolinger? they where not blacks or jewish but they hunting down and selling their own daughters and sons together with the jews as concealers to Arabia, just because they didn’t know Jesus (jewish cult). That’s why they are called slavs, former pagan german tribes. And that’s the reason you call them slaves, because in latin “slave” is unknown, it would be servus (servant) or sclavus (slave), and in German we call them “die Sklaven” for slaves.
Your frivolity is scrupulous. I remember an argument with a friend of mine: He told me about his blond parents and so on, but I ask him where are your blond superparents?
(They neglect him and where alcoholics and the excuse was, because the world is not what I like it supposed to be)
Or that it would be good looking, when I wear a white shirt, I told him, yes you could be completly brainless, main thing is the white shirt.
Don’t get me wrong : No more brother-wars! but as we say in german: “Willst du nicht mein Bruder sein, schlag’ ich dir den Schädel ein.”
(If you don’t want to be my brother, I will bash your head in.)
You see, it’s never easy.