@KurtGodel7:
@Zooey72:
Thought I would update this
https://www.yahoo.com/news/hitlers-mein-kampf-becomes-german-bestseller-publisher-112022916.html
Not sure what to make of that. If I had to guess the reason it is selling so well is because people haven’t been allowed to see it. I doubt it is any kind of validation of Hitler. I think the reason it is probably doing so well is because if you were raised being told that your country was resp. for the most evil man who ever lived, you might be curious to want to read the book when it became legal.
I am aware of the Merkel thing and immigration, and there may be some stupid people who are getting it for that reason. But they are just that… stupid. Hitler made Muslim extremist honorary Aryans, and they were in the SS because they were a good fit (being fanatical crazies).
Anyhow, just thought it was interesting.
I’d like to address your point about Merkel and immigration.
First, I’d divide all ideologies into two categories: particularist and universalist. If for example a Jew is willing to sacrifice the interests of Palestinians in order to benefit Jews, that’s particularism. If a Palestinian is willing to sacrifice Jewish interests to benefit Palestinians, that’s also particularism. “My country, right or wrong, but my country” is an expression of particularism. The National Socialists were particularists: their objective was to benefit Germanic and Nordic ethnies, if necessary at the expense of other ethnies or non-white geographic races. The existence of a threat to one’s ethny tends to heighten ethnocentrism. One sees that heightened level of ethnocentrism on both sides of the Israeli/Palestinian conflict, and in most other cases where an ethny’s existence is threatened.
The question then arises: is Angela Merkel’s ideology particularist or universalist? Her policy calls for Germany to accept almost unlimited numbers of migrants from Third World nations. Such policies will (and are) causing the extinction of the German ethny, and its physical replacement with non-white Middle Easterners. This threat to the German ethny’s existence does not involve the drama of extermination bombing raids, firestorms, or forced deportations of millions of Germans. Instead, its effect is to use the slow, inexorable pressure of demographics to cause the extinction of the German ethny. (And more generally of the white race in Western and Central Europe.)
Throughout human history, it has been exceedingly rare for a nation to voluntarily accept large numbers of immigrants. The normal immigration policy is an outright ban, except perhaps for a few special cases. For Merkel’s immigration policy to be universalist, it would need to be part of a broader effort to pressure all the nations of the world to discard this traditional immigration policy in favor of a “destroy the native ethny” policy that Germany has adopted. For example, both China and India have truly massive populations. Opening the border between the two could result in large numbers of Chinese immigrants into India, and large numbers of Indian immigrants into China. With the right immigration policy and the right financial incentives, both ethnies could be destroyed/blended together. By the same token, Israel could be caused to lose its unique Jewish identity, for example by flooding it with large numbers of immigrants from Latin America or Sub-Saharan Africa or India. (Israel accepts only Jewish immigrants.) The same could be done to Palestine to cause it to lose its unique Middle Eastern/Muslim identity.
However, no major players are pushing for any of this. Not Angela Merkel. Not the major media companies or plutocrats who stand behind Merkel. Not colleges or universities. No one within the Establishment is pushing for this kind of immigration policy for any non-white nation. Merkel’s immigration policy is highly particularist: traditionally white nations are asked to surrender their racial identities. The idea of asking any non-white nation to do the same is of course not even mentioned.
The Middle East’s problems are due to poverty, corruption, unequal distribution of wealth, overpopulation, and poor treatment of women. Paying large numbers of Middle Easterners to come to Germany, and to do nothing other than have babies and exist off the government dole, does not represent a serious attempt to solve any of those problems. If the goal was to benefit the Middle East, Merkel’s policy would be completely irrational. If on the other hand the goal were to cause the extinction of the German ethny, and of the white race within Germany, Merkel’s immigration policy would be highly rational. Merkel’s immigration policy is rabidly anti-German particularism. As such, it can only be embraced by self-hating Germans or self-hating whites. Anti-Nazi propaganda is therefore drummed into white children’s heads from a very early age, in order to create that self-hatred.
You make some valid points and I agree with some and not others. But being a WW2 site, and a thread about Mein Kamph; Hitler’s perspective on America and immigration is appropriate. I won’t attempt the direct quote, so here is me paraphrasing it.
America is to be feared because people around the world (mostly Europe to him) will abandon their entire lives and culture to go to America AND ADOPT American culture. The type of person who does this is the best the world has to offer, and America is made stronger for it.
Hitler was not referencing droves of refugees coming into a country being a strength. Being poor is not a virtue, it is an economic condition. What he was talking about was that it was hard to come to America because getting in meant you had to have something to offer. If you have something to offer why leave your country of origin and abandon your own culture? The immigrants who came here did (relatively) well in their own countries, but wanted more. He viewed America as siphoning off the world’s best in a macro kind of way (not every engineer or doctor would come here, but the guy who was a ‘doer’ in his own country would come).
To your larger point, historically you are correct. Look at the Austria-Hungarian empire as an example of how this kind of thing never works out. You must have a shared culture. The Irish who came here were not liked, but they CONTRIBUTED/ADDED to our culture (or at least one day a year we all get drunk). You can not have any group of people come into another culture and not assimilate. Immigration without assimilation is invasion. Diversity can be a good thing in small doses, but even than it is not essential. There is zero diversity in Japan and China and they are cleaning our clock in academics.
