[FiveofSwords]

First off the Nazis were National Socialists, but many ,many people have been National Socialists beside the Nazis. Atlee's Labour party was undoubtedly national socialist but they weren't fascist, unlike Xi's regime which is both national socialist and fascist. I'd probably call Pol Pot's Khmer Rouge national communist rather than national socialist.

I've never understood this obsession with gas chambers. What's so bad about killing people in gas chambers? The Romanians exterminated huge numbers of Jews, but no one ever seems to have any problem with that. Is that because they didn't use gas chambers? I noticed when the BBC talked about the Romanian / German invasion of Odessa, They didn't think it even merited a mention. I believe the Nazis were mistaken in seeing the Jews as an existential threat. However if Arabs living in Gaza or the West Bank were to see Jews as an existential threat, I wouldn't see that as a totally irrational belief.

Fascism is a broad category of political philosophy that seeks to resolve class conflict by accepting and accenting an authentic identity. E.g. rich and poor germans should work together and care about each other because they are both german.

National socialism is a subset of fascism because the identity they seek to accent is national...which in that era meant ethnicity...and was not tied to the state.

An alternative form of fascism would be, for example, integralism...which accents religion rather than nation.

Fascism conflicts with communism because fascists do not believe that 'worker' is an authentic identity. Fascists consider that to be a superficial identity and artificial. It is also universal...there are 'workers' in every country...so it is necessarily internationalist and seeks world domination.

During the interwar period, workers themselves basically supported Fascism rather than communism. That fact itself basically proved marx wrong...workers do in fact care more about being german than being workers.

That empirical reality was deeply embarrassing for communist thought leaders...which is why they felt the need to pretend that workers were all scared into supporting fascism while they secretly loved communism. But the actual facts suggest the opposite. Workers were clearly terrified of Stalin while they loved Hitler.

You should note that by this definition, China should really be called national socialist. It of course is...and that is why the country functions so well. Communism simply does not function and the ussr was not dismantled by Reagan but actually be Estonian nationalism which quickly spread to other occupied ethnic groups within the ussr.

Capitalists had their own reason for fearing fascism...especially co sidering the fact that Germany quickly became the most powerful economy on earth under national socialism.

So both capitalists and communists have good reason to lie and say that natsoc Germany was secretly capitalist or secretly mean to the germans. That is why you hear so much weird propaganda about the 'nazis' and about hitler...and it is meant to manipulate your emotions rather than to be a coherent claim about reality...any dispassionate examination of the reality would tell you that national socialist Germany was a massive success and the germans (but not the jews, perhaps) were quitr happy with it. The fact the germans were happy with it is also why 'denazification' had to be so extensive and so brutal. That is why it is illegal to question the gas chamber narrative. It is also illegal to question whether germans really did chase around jews with german Shepards who had fangs coated in poison (which somehow did not kill the german shepard) and other bizarre and impossible atrocity pornogrsphy like that.

You are intelligent enough to tell that something is fishy about all the propaganda you are exposed to and you can tell people are lying, but you didn't get to the bottom of it and understand why exactly they are lying or why it is impossible to speak about the subject in a common sense way. I hope I have explained that to you.

[Pants-of-dog]

You defined 'whiteness' as a propaganda device. That cannot be a people.

There is no “white people” other than the arbitrary social construct we call the white race. And they are not really a people, if we define “people” as a unified group with a common history, ethos, language, religion, and culture.

And it has been incredibly successful as a propaganda device. It excused slavery, colonialism, imperialism, forced assimilation, and all sorts of atrocities committed by “white people”.

[FiveofSwords]

There is no “white people” other than the arbitrary social construct we call the white race. And they are not really a people, if we define “people” as a unified group with a common history, ethos, language, religion, and culture.

And it has been incredibly successful as a propaganda device. It excused slavery, colonialism, imperialism, forced assimilation, and all sorts of atrocities committed by “white people”.

I guess I might as well repeat myself one time...but I don't really know why because you have a very difficult time understanding simple things and I am basically wasting my time. But I have nothing to so right now so whatever.

Yeah. Before a people can be racist, they have to be a people. You cannot say white people don't exist and also they are racist. That is just a very obvious logical flaw. I think that even the average mountain gorilla would understand that is a logical flaw. You yourself could stand as an exhibit to prove that calling humans 'sentient' is not really accurate.

[Pants-of-dog]

Before a people can be racist, they have to be a people

Not necessarily, no.

A group can define itself through racism, such as white people did when they needed to rationalize oppression of non-whites for personal profit.

You cannot say white people don't exist

Again, no one ever claimed that.

[FiveofSwords]

Yeah...sorry but this probably is only comprehendable to people capable of basic abstract reasoning.

But if you say 'races don't exist, it is just an idea to justify exploitation of different races'...you are contradicting yourself. That very claim is resting on the premise that races exist...cause you cannot exploit a people who don't exist. It's actually quite funny how stupid that whole idea is

[Pants-of-dog]

@FiveofSwords

Do all things exist in the same way?

Does an isosceles triangle exist in the same way a pig does?

[Tainari88]

Now Swordy is talking about a worker being an artificial identity. No. There is nothing more real than working your ass off all day to get paid. And having some boss man or woman order you around and get paid more than you do--and knowing you are not getting ahead financially. Working and being a working-class person is REAL in an economic sense. And since we live in an economic system--capitalist mainly---it means we wind up paying more taxes per capita than huge wealthy corporations do as working joes and janes.

For the Nazis to claim that the 'differences' between poor and rich are not affecting you as a German, an American, or as any nationality, is just something artificial? No, that is a vile lie as well.

In fact, internationalism in terms of many workers having the same working-class values, experiences, and identities is a very real thing. Because it has economic consequences. Just like some fools who might claim slavery is not exploiting the slave's unpaid slave labor. It does not really exist. So what are you if you do not get paid and you belong to an owner who refuses to pay you a wage if not a slave? We are all German, or Italian, or English. Who cares that you might be some chimney sweep and or shopgirl sweating it out for tuppence, and the nobles and so on, do not lift a finger and just sit back and spend the money and do not care you die of cold for lack of money to buy coal for your fire or your hearth--that kind of LYING is pure MYTH.

China is National Socialist Nazi now eh? Who says this and why?

Swordy moves on with more lies.

He wrote:

coherent claim about reality...any dispassionate examination of the reality would tell you that national socialist Germany was a massive success and the germans (but not the jews, perhaps) were quitr happy with it.

Final result was Germany was occupied by its enemies and divided in half. Eastern Germany and Western Germany until 1989.

A fractured nation. An entire generation of young German men extinguished. Broken men. Only some insane and fanatical freak would send 12 year old boys to fight grown men to defend the Motherland when the war was obviously lost. They did that. Sending little boys to their deaths without any remorse or compassion. Their own CHILDREN.

Bombed out cities.

Colonialism is what did them in for sure. Invading other people's lands to conquer? Was a bad idea when European land has been claimed for a long time by other nation-states and governments. But, if you believe all that trash about you have a right to everyone else's land you wind up losing like Don Black did when he tried to invade Dominica. He violated the neutrality laws and got 3 years in prison for his trouble.

Break out the Kleenex. If it was so successful why did it lose the war? Because it had too many enemies. How many repetitions of the same mistakes do you have to do to learn your lessons with human history and erroneous political philosophies?

[FiveofSwords]

@FiveofSwords

Do all things exist in the same way?

Does an isosceles triangle exist in the same way a pig does?

Well I appreciate you asking and I can certainly believe that you would struggle with such questions.

But no...a triangle is an abstraction. It is basically a question of convention or linguistics to say whether it 'exists' or not.

A pig, in contrast, is a thing that you can identify from sensory data...so it actually has some kind of physical existence. 'Pig' is a category that would refer to a lot of distinct individual pigs. And a category is itself a sort of abstraction...you abstract out certain things that pigs generally have in common that make them look or sound a certain way...do that inspires the category in the first place. The observation that there's a bunch of life forms that seem related so they ought to have a name.

[Pants-of-dog]

Well I appreciate you asking and I can certainly believe that you would struggle with such questions.

But no...a triangle is an abstraction. It is basically a question of convention or linguistics to say whether it 'exists' or not.

A pig, in contrast, is a thing that you can identify from sensory data...so it actually has some kind of physical existence. 'Pig' is a category that would refer to a lot of distinct individual pigs. And a category is itself a sort of abstraction...you abstract out certain things that pigs generally have in common that make them look or sound a certain way...do that inspires the category in the first place. The observation that there's a bunch of life forms that seem related so they ought to have a name.

And yet we can make clear and falsifiable claims about isosceles triangles. We can study their properties and see that they behave consistently.

So, a thing can exist on an abstract level. You seem to agree with that.

Now, does money exist?

[FiveofSwords]

Now Swordy is talking about a worker being an artificial identity. No. There is nothing more real than working your ass off all day to get paid. And having some boss man or woman order you around and get paid more than you do--and knowing you are not getting ahead financially. Working and being a working-class person is REAL in an economic sense. And since we live in an economic system--capitalist mainly---it means we wind up paying more taxes per capita than huge wealthy corporations do as working joes and janes.

For the Nazis to claim that the 'differences' between poor and rich are not affecting you as a German, an American, or as any nationality, is just something artificial? No, that is a vile lie as well.

In fact, internationalism in terms of many workers having the same working-class values, experiences, and identities is a very real thing. Because it has economic consequences. Just like some fools who might claim slavery is not exploiting the slave's unpaid slave labor. It does not really exist. So what are you if you do not get paid and you belong to an owner who refuses to pay you a wage if not a slave? We are all German, or Italian, or English. Who cares that you might be some chimney sweep and or shopgirl sweating it out for tuppence, and the nobles and so on, do not lift a finger and just sit back and spend the money and do not care you die of cold for lack of money to buy coal for your fire or your hearth--that kind of LYING is pure MYTH.

China is National Socialist Nazi now eh? Who says this and why?

Swordy moves on with more lies.

He wrote:



Final result was Germany was occupied by its enemies and divided in half. Eastern Germany and Western Germany until 1989.

A fractured nation. An entire generation of young German men extinguished. Broken men. Only some insane and fanatical freak would send 12 year old boys to fight grown men to defend the Motherland when the war was obviously lost. They did that. Sending little boys to their deaths without any remorse or compassion. Their own CHILDREN.

Bombed out cities.

Colonialism is what did them in for sure. Invading other people's lands to conquer? Was a bad idea when European land has been claimed for a long time by other nation-states and governments. But, if you believe all that trash about you have a right to everyone else's land you wind up losing like Don Black did when he tried to invade Dominica. He violated the neutrality laws and got 3 years in prison for his trouble.

Break out the Kleenex. If it was so successful why did it lose the war? Because it had too many enemies. How many repetitions of the same mistakes do you have to do to learn your lessons with human history and erroneous political philosophies?

So uh...yeah. Germany demanded danzig because it was a German city, occupied by ethnic germans. That is not colonialism. Because Germany demanded danzig, France and the uk declared war on Germany. It was France and the uk that wanted to destroy germany,, when Germany had don't nothing but try to unite all germans under one banner. Eventually they succeeded, sure. But none of thay was the fault of Germany. It was unnecessary foreign aggression.

[Tainari88]

Swordy also says this folks:

National socialism is a subset of fascism because the identity they seek to accent is national...which in that era meant ethnicity...and was not tied to the state.

National means part of a nation and implies implicitly a state. That is a glaring contradiction folks.

Then the glory of the German nation that sent a bunch of kids to fight because they ran out of men. If they wanted a future for Germany you do not send out teenagers and kids. But fascists would rather burn their own country down to the studs and kill off everyone than surrender and live another day. It is a lesson to be learned folks, because this Swordy man really does not give a fuck anymore about the USA because it is not in the agenda he thinks it should be in. That says it all about who they are. It is about if I can't control it, it needs to be gone. That is pathological behavior. Again, ANTI LIFE. The same as not being able to accept diversity and variation as an integral part of natural law and nature.


One has to make a distinction between a nation's government and its rulers and power group, versus the ordinary people living in that nation and working in that nation. They are not really the same folks. If you are an American it is not a generic designation. You have a nationality but the history behind that nationality is specific. What the US does is have a set of rules the US Constitution that encompasses all the people that agreed to be a part of that voluntarily or through naturalization or birth.



He can go on and talk with Pants all he wants. The truth is Pants has more of a grasp on abstract concepts than he ever will. He keeps repeating simplistic categorizations. When asked to elaborate on what it means in a real abstract sense and become specific? It is the cut and run response. He never addresses the issues Stormfront had and the critique Derek Black does in his own father's political ideology--WHY? He does not elaborate at all.

The truth is he avoids anything where the points hit home. That is not being honest and upfront at all. No. But what can you expect of a Holocaust denier? Again, the Germans had to prove to their supporters and the German nation was doing the job they set out to do--get rid of the threat of the Jews to Germany. So they recorded dates, names, times, and places, and they were meticulous about those records. It is all written. Some of it was burned or removed, but the vast quantities left behind were quite specific. To say that none of the atrocities occurred against gays, communists, gypsies, political opponents and Jews is totally false folks. But they have to do it now because if you examine the political thoughts behind exterminating innocent people it brings condemnation. And repulsion. If they accept responsibility for EVERYTHING and then say they have a new and different sort of fascism that is not about Concentration camps and killing and apartheid but about patriotism and including all groups who are this or that? It might be different. Probably some watered-down Republican form of fascism. But still? They will never be able to do in a modern world an overthrow of some land and set up an all-white nation.

They have cults that are religious that are similar in politics to the Neo-Nazis. David Koresh types. Lol. Or Ruby Ridge. Sovereign Nation type of people. But it is mostly a small anarchistic group if they are not obsessed with racial purity it turns into a different political philosophy.

And except from the University of Newcastle in England about the Volkssturm'.

Volkssturm' and German Child Soldiers
Toward the end of the war, old men and young teenage boys were recruited to Hitler’s ‘Volkssturm’ (‘People’s Storm’) troops, a last-ditch home defence force created to avert military defeat.

But German teenage soldiers also fought abroad. After the defeat of the Germans at Stalingrad in early 1943, the Hitler Youth was called to arms, and the 12th SS-Panzer Division Hitlerjugend formed. They did, for instance, fight in northern France during the Battle of Normandy (June/July 1944), where the division, led by SS-officers and heavily indoctrinated during training, committed several massacres.

Having teenagers trained to massacre people is not my idea of raising children with moral values. No. They should be ashamed of the atrocious concepts they try to lie to people about all day. It is horrific. One of their posters killed a bunch of innocent shoppers in the TOPS store and his name was Peyton Geyndron. He was 18 years old and got life in prison without the possibility of parole. The family members had a victim impact statement in the courtroom. Geyndron stated he regretted his decision. But he was convicted of a Hate Crime and sentenced to life in prison at age 18. He was a member of Stormfront. The National Socialist website. Do they claim they do not harm? Who the fuck are these people killing black people in black neighborhoods? Over hating them for being black, and then driving hundreds of miles to be able to kill people who are already living in segregated neighborhoods? These are the YOUTH these Stormfront people produce? It is SHAMEFUL!

That kid who is 18 years old is going to spend the rest of his life in a cage over some STUPID racist beliefs that were fed to him partially through that website. Do you think an entire nation run by these intolerant people is going to produce peace and prosperity and everyone living happily whether poor or rich? No more class conflict and capitalism problems? All solved by that mentality eh? No. Just NO.

[Potemkin]

Well I appreciate you asking and I can certainly believe that you would struggle with such questions.

But no...a triangle is an abstraction. It is basically a question of convention or linguistics to say whether it 'exists' or not.

A pig, in contrast, is a thing that you can identify from sensory data...so it actually has some kind of physical existence. 'Pig' is a category that would refer to a lot of distinct individual pigs. And a category is itself a sort of abstraction...you abstract out certain things that pigs generally have in common that make them look or sound a certain way...do that inspires the category in the first place. The observation that there's a bunch of life forms that seem related so they ought to have a name.

The point that is being made is that imaginary things can have real-world consequences (examples: national borders, currency). A white race can ‘exist’ in the sense that there are individuals who believe themselves (whether rightly or wrongly) to be members of a ‘white race’, and this belief will affect how they behave towards other individuals whom they believe (whether rightly or wrongly) to belong to a different ‘race’. A white race doesn’t necessarily have to actually exist in the same way that pigs exist in order to lead to self-identified members of that imaginary ‘race’ behaving in a racist way towards other people whom they believe to belong to a different ‘race’. There is no logical contradiction here.

[FiveofSwords]

And yet we can make clear and falsifiable claims about isosceles triangles. We can study their properties and see that they behave consistently.

So, a thing can exist on an abstract level. You seem to agree with that.

Now, does money exist?

Well no, you can't really 'study' the properties of a triangle the same way you would study something that has physical existence. You deduce the properties of mathematical entities, you don't observe them.

Money, of course, can be the physical thing...like a dollar bill. That physical aspect is no different from the physical aspect of a pig. But the physical aspect of money is not what makes it 'money'. What makes money money is the fact we all agree to a sort of social contract where we pretend that money represents actual value so that it can be used to trade for other things that have actual value.

That contract is the reason money exists in the first place...but the contract itself is not money. It is just a contract. Just like you seem to have a difficult time distinguishing race itself from various opinions about race, you probably have a similar problem understanding money.

A dollar bill is just a piece of paper with stuff printed on it. It has little to no intrinsic value...but that doesn't mean dollar bills don't exist. They are in fact a piece of paper with stuff printed on it. That is, in fact, a tangible thing... in CONTRAST with a social contract which has no physical existence. The social contract would be necessary to understand in order to explain human behavior associated with dollar bills which would appear very strange to some alien that didn't realize that we all agree to pretend that money has value.

In the same way, race is absolutely a thing that exists. But different cultures have different laws and customs relating to race. Those laws are not the same thing as race just like a piece of paper with stuff printed on it is not the same thing as what gives value to money.

I can see how such concepts would be difficult to grasp for lifeforms who are unable to easily understand abstractions. It might be easy to fool such lifeforms into thinking that people care a lot about paper or that scottish people have just asmuch melanin in their skin as bantus. But neither statement is actually true.

[FiveofSwords]

The point that is being made is that imaginary things can have real-world consequences (examples: national borders, currency). A white race can ‘exist’ in the sense that there are individuals who believe themselves (whether rightly or wrongly) to be members of a ‘white race’, and this belief will affect how they behave towards other individuals whom they believe (whether rightly or wrongly) to belong to a different ‘race’. A white race doesn’t necessarily have to actually exist in the same way that pigs exist in order to lead to self-identified members of that imaginary ‘race’ behaving in a racist way towards other people whom they believe to belong to a different ‘race’. There is no logical contradiction here.

There is a contradiction if you are insisting that the only way to identify race is via some internal attitude. Race has to be identifiable by something physical and genetic or else nobody could manage to be 'racist'.

If people decided to just throw all white people in death camps, for example, then Taylor swift would not be able to be safe by claiming that she isn't white. She clearly is white and there is nothing she can do about that.

I suppose she could get extensive cosmetic surgery to try to appear non white and maybe she would fool people that way...but that's the thing: she would be fooling people. She woukd be misrepresenting what she 'really' is because he 'really' is white. That is in her dna. It is a real thing.

[Pants-of-dog]

Well no, you can't really 'study' the properties of a triangle the same way you would study something that has physical existence. You deduce the properties of mathematical entities, you don't observe them.

So you study them by deducing them.

Money, of course, can be the physical thing...like a dollar bill. That physical aspect is no different from the physical aspect of a pig. But the physical aspect of money is not what makes it 'money'. What makes money money is the fact we all agree to a sort of social contract where we pretend that money represents actual value so that it can be used to trade for other things that have actual value.

Okay. So does money exist?

At this point. it would seem that you agree that it exists as a social construct.

In the same way, race is absolutely a thing that exists. But different cultures have different laws and customs relating to race. Those laws are not the same thing as race just like a piece of paper with stuff printed on it is not the same thing as what gives value to money.

Race exists the same way money does: as a social construct.

So when you say that we claim it does not exist, that is incorrect and as stupid as saying that we are saying money does not exist.

[QatzelOk]

...I believe white people are a legitimate people and I want us to have the right to exist and to have sovereignty over some piece of land on earth.

There are dozens of "white" countries in Europe. Does this count as "whites having their own country?"

And your structure - of defining "white" as a distinct and unified "race" - resembles another movement of this type that rose in the 19th Century among racist Europeans called Zionism.

Your agenda is so painfully obvious and it is just more zionist shilling

And yet you are the one who (accidentally?) legitimized Zionism by soliciting the same type of "land without a people" for your White Tribe. Which aslo don't exist as a people.

By the way, I am Acadian by way of my father. Acadians were Europeans who mixed with the Mi'qmaw of the Atlantic provinces. They formed a hybrid culture, and were métis. And then they were ethnic-cleansed (pushed onto boats, families broken up) in order to stop "evil" race-mixing. The Acadians were then replaced by boat-loads of white people from Scotland and Ireland.

Is this the kind of program you're promoting?

[FiveofSwords]

There are dozens of "white" countries in Europe. Does this count as "whites having their own country?"

And your structure - of defining "white" as a distinct and unified "race" - resembles another movement of this type that rose in the 19th Century among racist Europeans called Zionism.



And yet you are the one who (accidentally?) legitimized Zionism by soliciting the same type of "land without a people" for your White Tribe. Which aslo don't exist as a people.

By the way, I am Acadian by way of my father. Acadians were Europeans who mixed with the Mi'qmaw of the Atlantic provinces. They formed a hybrid culture, and were métis. And then they were ethnic-cleansed (pushed onto boats, families broken up) in order to stop "evil" race-mixing. The Acadians were then replaced by boat-loads of white people from Scotland and Ireland.

Is this the kind of program you're promoting?

There is no country for white people. Not a single one of the various historically white countries care in any way about the survival or the specific interests of their white population. Every single one explicitly cares more about representing anyone who isn't white.

Would I be okay with deporting nonwhite people from a white country? Of course I would. It is no different from Gandhi kicking the English out of india.. and the fact we literally have no country at all means that we face a very serious existential threat and any level of brutality would be perfectly justified to ensure our survival and sovereignty.

[Potemkin]

There is a contradiction if you are insisting that the only way to identify race is via some internal attitude. Race has to be identifiable by something physical and genetic or else nobody could manage to be 'racist'.

If people decided to just throw all white people in death camps, for example, then Taylor swift would not be able to be safe by claiming that she isn't white. She clearly is white and there is nothing she can do about that.

I suppose she could get extensive cosmetic surgery to try to appear non white and maybe she would fool people that way...but that's the thing: she would be fooling people. She woukd be misrepresenting what she 'really' is because he 'really' is white. That is in her dna. It is a real thing.

During WWII, the Nazi Party ideologists in Germany designated the Japanese as ‘Honorary Aryans’. What do you think that meant, @FiveofSwords? Were the Japanese genetically Aryan all of a sudden? Or were the Nazi ideologists treating race as a politically and socially useful tool, in other words, as a social construct?

[Verv]

Are you arguing that it is incorrect to say that “race” is arbitrary, variable, and humans cannot be organized into distinct subgroups through genetics?

Yes, more or less. But, more specifically:

- Race can be arbitrary, but it doesn't have to be. The problem would be that certain measures would be arbitrary or insignificant when dealing with a certain issue, but would be relevant for other issues. Race has a way of changing scope and definition because its relevance actually can vary based on the situation...

So it is ultimately arbitrary in the grand scheme of things, but very relevant when we hone in on things...

- Yes, humans vary by race, but we also have to admit that these variations are not absolute. Blacks are overwhelmingly more likely to have sickle cell anemia, but of course many don't. The Dinka have a very high chance of being tall, but not all Dinka are tall. Finns have a relatively very high rate of being blond, but there are plenty of Finns with brown or black hair...

And it is the case that blacks without sickle cell anemia, short Dinka, brown haired Finns, etc., may be carriers of genes/SNPs that will also be more likely to produce sickle cell anemia, tallness, or blondeness.

The chance of a brown haired Finn mating with a blond haired Finn and having a blonde daughter is exponentially higher than the chance of a Dinka mating with a blonde haired Finn and having a blonde daughter.

Which goes back to this:

@Verv. If you read this thread or the other it would be clear that nobody is saying that phenotypical patterns do not exist - just that they are not certain, and consequently, that grouping certain people together because of a few phenotypical similarities is arbitrary (your Fang from Gabon and an Aborigine from Australia would present as the same race in the US despite little genetic relation).

Patterns can exist - but "race" is a piss poor way of differentiating between people groups or genetic heritage.

I am not that sure everyone agrees with you and me as much as you think...

And, to some extent, we always honor the relevance of race when it comes to the very pervasive issue of racism in soceity, and everyone also acknowledges the dangers and power of spontaneous ethnonationalist movements... But they also want to downplay the importance of differentiating between people... Because that fits their own "ultimate" view of what race means, but... THey gladly concede that race becomes a very important factor in the differentiation of people in contemporary politics.

IDK, these are nuanced points, and we may struggle to establish a worthwhile clash between our perspectives.

[Verv]

During WWII, the Nazi Party ideologists in Germany designated the Japanese as ‘Honorary Aryans’. What do you think that meant, @FiveofSwords? Were the Japanese genetically Aryan all of a sudden? Or were the Nazi ideologists treating race as a politically and socially useful tool, in other words, as a social construct?

I think it meant that the Japanese have Aryan characteristics in their race.

I think this was not incongruent with German views of race, since the real focus was antisemitism and antiziganism and, to an extent constantly downplayed, Slavophobic hatred.

Which also reminds me of how a lot of Mediterranean Fascists viewed their race as an ongoing project... By this I do not mean "Muh White Race" across Europe, but the Italian, Spanish, and Portuguese races as constantly unfolding biological collectives.

Salazar went so far as to postulate that the reason why Portuguese imperialism and colonization projects were always so peaceful and orderly was because of the African admixture into their genes.

One can also imagine the Spanish and Italians actively wanting to incorporate and embrace Berber elements in their own bloodline as part of their heritage in the Mediterranean. It seems insane to say it, but is it inconceivable that some subsection of Italian nationalists wouldn't celebrate marriages between attractive & noble looking Ethiopian women and Italian men? It's very avant-garde and futurist.

It would also really highlight what Fascism was to many of these people: industrialized romanticism. The future is not static...

Of course, I absolutely believe that the non-Italian, non-Spanish admixture would be critically appraised, just as how the gypsies and hobbled peasants among them would be taught a certain amount of shame when standing in the shadow of some aristocratic Fascio Milano member... Notions of aristocracy are never far away... But yeah, you could see this as eventually being an inevitable position of the futurists within the Fascist ideology.

Nat Socs were unyielding and wild, though, I think they would probably be completely against any form of miscegenation. Germans always have a stick up the rumpus, and also are very un-spiritual...

While the very Catholic Spaniards & Portuguese, whose regimes themselves were religious, and the Orthodox Romanians, would be actually forced into perhaps a cautious support of interracial marriage simply by their clergy, which would completley break open a sort of 'racial progressive' group in their Fascism.

... This actually does happen with Brazilian integralism/Lusotropicalism..! I am not being ahistorical and you all know it.