Fascism Question: What exactly does National Socialism say about Indians and nonwhites being National Socialists?

submitted by 8thmonitor from self.debatealtright

sorted by:
top
newinsightfulfun
you are viewing a single comment's thread.

view the rest of the comments →

[–]MarkimusNational Socialist 6 insightful - 1 fun6 insightful - 0 fun7 insightful - 1 fun -  (11 children)

Aryan = descended of the people who called themselves Aryans. These were Europeans who conquered much of the Middle East, India etc (there's even some archaeological evidence as far as China). The more high caste you get in India the more European DNA they have, although I doubt there's many actual 'Aryans' IE people who have remained unmixed with Indians. Have you ever seen a completely white looking Indian? I haven't, but there might be some. There are more of these kinds of people in the Middle East though, blue eyes, blond(e) hair, completely white looking.

National Socialist = anyone who shares the worldview, it will just apply to your own race rather than Aryans. National Socialism if you're white/European/Aryan = for Aryans, National Socialism if you're Indian = for Indians, if you're Mestizo = for Mestizos, if you're black = for Africans etc. It could be pan-Racial or a particular ethnicity/nation too. In the beginning National Socialism was a specifically German national phenomena (but the Volkisch movement always had pan-European/Aryan interests) then it evolved to become a pan-European one as power of the movement increased and they saw the necessity of the situation IE all whites need to be united in a state in order to compete against external "Racial/Continental/Civilisation superstates" (China, India, Russia, South America, Africa, America) and be protected from International Finance.

Indians love to claim they're the real Aryans and all this stuff, but it's quite clear that they inherited systems, institutions, philosophy etc from white Aryans and not the other way around. It doesn't make sense to think that the white conquerors were undeveloped savages, went to India and became enlightened then continued conquering spreading the institutions and ideas they learned from Indians. Especially since we have archaeological evidence of symbols belonging to the Aryans first showing up in Ukraine, thousands of years before India.

[–]ifuckredditsnitches_Resident Pajeet 3 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 0 fun4 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

Have you ever seen a completely white looking Indian? I haven't, but there might be some.

There were some with blue eyes though this trait is rapidly becoming extinct. Blonde hair is only present in the Kalash of Pakistan and maybe a handful of Pashtuns in KPK and Afg.

Indians love to claim they're the real Aryans and all this stuff, but it's quite clear that they inherited systems, institutions, philosophy etc from white Aryans and not the other way around. It doesn't make sense to think that the white conquerors were undeveloped savages, went to India and became enlightened then continued conquering spreading the institutions and ideas they learned from Indians. Especially since we have archaeological evidence of symbols belonging to the Aryans first showing up in Ukraine, thousands of years before India.

What is somewhat unknown is the multiple waves of Eurasian adjacent peoples that went into India after the initialy negrito type settlement. The original Dravidians were in fact a white adjacent race with genetics from both ANE and ENF populations. Afterwards there was the second wave which brought the Yamnaya population in, and then a third which brought some EHG/WHG genetics from where those light eyes came from.

[–]AlphixNational Socialist 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

Beyond that, the White capacity for innovation seems at the very least heavily diluted in Indians. If they had been the "true Aryans," they wouldn't still be mired in 10,000 year-old traditions and systems and Indian inventions would have conquere the world. Not Indian scams and tech support.

[–]8thmonitor[S] 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (8 children)

Thank you! This is very helpful. Which source(s) is most of this info from? One of A James Gregor's books?

I have another related question about National Socialism. Did the majority of National Socialists believe in Nordicism? Did most see Slavs as Aryans? I know the Generalplan Ost is more WW2 nonsense, but didn't Günther say Slavs were separate? But I think Rosenberg said Slavs are Aryans.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hans_F._K._G%C3%BCnther#Racial_theories

[–]MarkimusNational Socialist 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (7 children)

Thank you! This is very helpful. Which source(s) is most of this info from? One of A James Gregor's books?

Don't know of any specific sources, I have just been reading translations of articles and speeches for years, as well as listening to podcasts, using forums etc.

Did the majority of National Socialists believe in Nordicism?

Nope, that stuff went out of fashion because most Germans aren't of the Nordic type. All of Europe has all of the types (Nordic, Alpine, Mediterranean, Dinaric and whatever the others were)

Did most see Slavs as Aryans?

No idea. They definitely saw Slavs and Germanics as being separate and didn't want to mix together. But Slavs objectively speak Indo-European languages so calling them not Aryan doesn't really make sense.

didn't Günther say Slavs were separate

Yes, and many people consider(ed) slavs to be at least partly 'Asiatic'.

[–]8thmonitor[S] 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (6 children)

Did the majority of National Socialists EVER believe in Nordicism? Did it just go away at some point when further research was done? I thought that is why Mussolini and Fascists initially had problems with Hitler and National Socialists. Something like Mussolini disliked how Hitler considered his people as inferior. I think that is why Mussolini said those quotes that race is nonsense.

I thought National Socialists disliked SOME Slavs like Serbs. Isn't that why they supported the Ustaše's killings of Serbs?

[–]MarkimusNational Socialist 3 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 0 fun4 insightful - 1 fun -  (5 children)

Did the majority of National Socialists EVER believe in Nordicism?

This is similar to saying 'did the majority of the Alt Right ever believe in Nordicism?', the Volkisch and subsequently NS movement was a mix of multiple subcultures that had things in common coming together. Someone who might support the NSDAP and be part of the SA would be a nationalist and consider himself a racialist obviously, but did he have any interest in racial science? Maybe some did, maybe some didn't. Some guys would be heavily into anti-semitism and international finance, some guys heavily into mysticism, some guys heavily into racial science, some guys heavily into organising labour etc.

Did it just go away at some point when further research was done?

It was more like Hitler realised that most Germans weren't the Nordic type so he never pursued Nordicism as policy or pushed for it to be emphasised in propaganda outside of aesthetics. It was still a thing that floated around in the culture for sure, Lothrop Stoddard was super into it and thought the Nazis were cucks for not purity spiralling about trying to be purely Nordicist.

I thought that is why Mussolini and Fascists initially had problems with Hitler and National Socialists.

The problems were moreso Realpolitik and also over Austria, Mussolini liked Doofus. Doofus oppressed the National Socialists in Austria, the National Socialists funny-momented Doofus. Mussolini got butthurt his gay friend got owned epic style, the Austrians voted 99.7% in favour of the anschluss with Germany, Doofus proven eternally to be not only a manlet of the body but also a manlet of the soul.

I think that is why Mussolini said those quotes that race is nonsense.

Hitler had similar thoughts as Mussolini in regards to Nordicism. They both recognised there are representatives of all the types all over Europe and there was no such thing as pure of any of the types.

Mussolini talked about race plenty, just not the splitting hairs Nordicism stuff, there's a lot of information you'll find relevant in my comments from this link.

I thought National Socialists disliked SOME Slavs like Serbs

Mostly Czechs and Poles from what I've seen, and that's simply because of politics too not some racial animosity.

Isn't that why they supported the Ustaše's killings of Serbs?

Not sure what this means, are you saying there was some propaganda from the NSDAP that was pro-Ustase killing serbs or something? Them funding it, ordering it? What exactly was the support?

[–]8thmonitor[S] 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (4 children)

Thank you so much. This is so informative.

Why didn't the NSDAP tell the Ustase to stop killing Serbs and just treat them as equals? Doesn't their silence kind of support the killings? I don't think they funded or ordered it.

Also, what exactly would the world likely look like is the Axis won? The TV show The Man in the High Castle did something like that, but it made 0 sense because they said Fascist Italy did not exist anymore. Only NatSoc Germany and Imperial Japan existed with some "neutral" areas of the world. The other simulations are based on Generalplan Ost nonsense.

The map looks like https://www.reddit.com/r/maninthehighcastle/comments/5xm7za/the_man_in_high_castle_world_map/

[–]MarkimusNational Socialist 4 insightful - 1 fun4 insightful - 0 fun5 insightful - 1 fun -  (3 children)

Why didn't the NSDAP tell the Ustase to stop killing Serbs and just treat them as equals?

No idea anything about this stuff. I assume if they were aware of it they just didn't care because they were fighting the war and it's none of their business. They did step in to stop the Iron Guard wiping out a bunch of Jews in Romania, so perhaps the Ustase stuff was either not known about, or the details of it are fudged for propaganda purposes IE both sides were just warcriming the shit out of each other as usual in every war but after the fact only the guys who lost are talked about for obvious reasons.

Also, what exactly would the world likely look like is the Axis won?

If this happened we'd probably not see a one world government of empire or something like that. Instead it'd just be similar to today but with less jewish fuckery. Africa united, probably as a vessel of Europe instead of China. Asia being similar to today, led by Japan instead of China. USA being its own state, Europe being more united maybe including Russia or Russia would be a secondary state like India. The ME would have no Israel-America fuckery, they'd probably be united as a regional bloc under Iran. It would be almost exactly the same as today but with these split-regions being more united and insular. So the ME being more unified rather than being put against each other for the interests of Jews as an example. Of course there would still be differences in neighbour states, and states meddling around the world with each other - intrigue wouldn't go away, but there would be much more regional uniformity and congruence in my opinion, and definitely there would be less spread of liberalism and globohomo which is spread through the power of High Finance.

The goal of Europe would be to unite into a state large enough to sustain itself and defend itself from any other states. This could be a confederation, federation, or single state. I would expect a federation headed by Germany but where the other states have quite a lot of autonomy. Internally Europe would resemble 1933-1938 Germany, characterised by developmentalism, populism/majoritarianism, high culture being made available to the masses, constant standard of living increases, reduction in wealth disparity and unproductive economic practices etc. But this still being balanced with high level of development, usually in the economy ethics and power/development are not aligned. But with careful management of resources it is possible to balance them; profit sharing, capping dividend pay outs, requiring a minimum amount into reinvestment are examples that benefit the economy at large (developmentalism) and the average person (socialism). These are things the Third Reich did, and China do things along these lines today. China is pulling millions of people out of poverty constantly, and growing their middle class. China is basically National Socialism-lite, they are good to look at to see the kind of things that developmental socialist states would aim for.

[–]8thmonitor[S] 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (2 children)

This is all so amazing and helpful. Thank you.

Do you think America and England under fascist rule would ever be successful? I'm referring to a scenario where a fascist party wins power, rules with complete authority, and acts similar to other fascist nations.

I don't believe it would work with movements like the Silver Shirts, BUF, or any other fascist movement because America and England possess highly individualistic cultures. Fascism requires collectivism, which is lacking in these countries. Has any fascist movement ever succeeded in an individualistic nation? I don't think a country's culture can fundamentally shift to its complete opposite. Do I have the right understanding?

[–]MarkimusNational Socialist 3 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 0 fun4 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

I don't think culture is static. In just the past decade or so the average person has changed their behaviour drastically multiple times over due to what the institutions that rule them decided.

Humans adapt to their environment, when the instruments of power create a fascist environment the people will adapt to it. Obviously with there being no foundational institutions to build upon in liberal countries it would take a long time to really establish a coherent society once again, but it can definitely be done in my opinion. The real challenge is getting power in the first place, exercising it isn't the problem.

What you're referring to as individualism in the culture I would say would more precisely be described as a lack of social capital, caused by the intentional atomisation of the people through destruction of institutions, particular kinds of urban planning, media, technology etc.

To learn more about Social Capital and its relevancy to fascism check out 'Bowling for Fascism' and 'The Civic Foundations of Fascism'.

[–]8thmonitor[S] 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

Very interesting. Yeah, I think that makes sense. I will check out those sources.

Thank you again for your very informative and thorough answers.