Category: National Socialism

Critique of Palingenesis

by Potential Frolic

I want to explain my struggle with the idea of Palingenesis and what it has taught me about nationalism and myself.  The desire to do this flows from frequent encounters here and elsewhere with “the Palingenetic Necessity”, which I define as the conviction that no other model of political action can support white survival in our times.

Understanding the problem

Seeing the destructive forces working upon our peoples presently, and fearing very much for his own survival and that of his people, the (folkish) nationalist turns his eye to Palingenesis, which presents itself as the opposite to today’s politics of ethnic suicide. The goal of Palingenesis is to renew the values of a supposed heroic and glorious past, these values being assumed to be real and contingent even if the past in question is only a myth, and to venture towards heroism and glory in the present. 

GW has argued that advocates of Palingenesis are not necessarily good psychologists. They do not take account of the fact that the man is of the time in which he is born, decadent or otherwise, and carries only two possibilities within himself:

(i) to belong to that time and have no truck with, or even knowledge of, the truth of his Self, or

(ii) to seek out truth even at the cost of turning away - if someone tells him how - from time and place and artifice.

There is no special third option for the rebirth of the spirit as heroism and glory, according to GW.  Heroism and glory are not characteristics of the true Self but of immersion in violence.  They can only appear in time and place, therefore, and cannot be different to or better than the rest of the artifice.  They are a beautiful deception - in fact, a bastardization for the purpose of reifying political violence.

As psychology, then, Palingenesis as it appears in fascism and revolutionary conservatism is a sham, albeit an alluring one.  It answers the following two wholly utilitarian questions in the positive:

Continued...

Posted by Guest Blogger on Thursday, February 4, 2010 at 01:26 AM in National Socialism
Comments (92) | Tell-a-Friend

Hitler and a Historian

Hitler and a Historian
By
Robert E. Reis

ONE of the world’s most notorious self-proclaimed experts on the Holocaust is Professor Christopher R. Browning. He has appeared as a hired expert witness at several legal actions. 
He is now the Frank Porter Graham Professor of History at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill and a fellow of the American Academy of Arts and Sciences. He was a witness against Ernst Zündel in Canada and against David Irving in the United Kingdom.

This essay is an examination of the evidence Browning puts forth in his book The Path To Genocide: Essays on Launching the Final Solution (Cambridge University Press, Canto Edition, 1995)
The title of this collection of essays makes it clear that Professor Browning believes that a form of genocide was unleashed by responsible German officials upon the Jews of Europe and that he is convinced that he has discovered the manner in which the decision or decisions were made to perpetrate this crime. I intend to analyze this book as a work of historical scholarship to see what kind of evidence Professor Browning uses and how he interprets it in the context of his title. 

Continued...

Posted by Robert Reis on Monday, September 7, 2009 at 01:56 AM in National Socialism
Comments (19) | Tell-a-Friend

A discussion with Northerner and Desmond

Following his intervention on my Steve Jones post, and his subsequent attempt to demonstrate an Aryan genetic superiority over non-Aryan Europeans, our friend Northerner has found himself hosting a chat between Desmond Jones and myself.  For anyone who is unable to sleep, the soporific effects of a rambling, incoherent discussion about National Socialism are guaranteed effective, especially when that discussion is between such philosophical non-supremacists as Desmond and myself.

I only mention it in passing.

Posted by Guessedworker on Friday, October 17, 2008 at 10:26 PM in National Socialism
Comments (69) | Tell-a-Friend

Thoughts on David Irving

I note that The Wall St. Journal has editorialized in defence of imprisoned historian David Irving.  Excerpt:  “And just when the Danish government is under unprecedented attack for its refusal to intervene in the editorial decision-making of a private newspaper, it seems perverse to offer Muslim provocateurs an example of a European country catering to one set of sensitivities but not another”.

The WSJ accompanies this defence, however, with vast aspersions on the character and competence of Irving.  But any claim that Irving is incompetent is absurd.  I have been studying the Hitler era for over 40 years and it is clear to me that NOBODY knows the period better or in more detail than Irving does.  He was after all the only one of the many eminent historians consulted who immediately picked the Kujau “Hitler Diaries” as a fake. 

Continued...

Posted by jonjayray on Friday, February 24, 2006 at 11:36 AM in National Socialism
Trackbacks (0) | Comments (33) | Tell-a-Friend

Nazis at Cronulla?  By their flag ye shall know them

Note the report below:

“Extremist groups accused of links to neo-Nazis have admitted mobilising more than 100 people to attend the riots in Cronulla.  Jim Saleam, the New South Wales secretary of ultra-nationalist group Australia First, said his members had recruited up to 120 people for the rally but denied they were involved in violence. “We do have some local supporters and these guys mobilised their family friends, mates, work-mates, associates, every Jack and Harry, to come,” he said.

NSW Police Minister Carl Scully confirmed that extremists had taken part in the riots.  “There appears to be an element of white supremacists and they really have no place in mainstream Australian society,” he said. “Those sort of characters belong in Berlin 1930s.”

Skinheads wearing boots, braces and neo-Nazi emblems were among the mob of 5000. Three far-right organisations - Australia First, The Patriotic Youth League and the Newcastle-based Blood and Honour - handed out pamphlets.  All three are considered to have neo-Nazi links.  Australia First and the PYL deny any association”

More here

Continued...

Posted by jonjayray on Wednesday, December 14, 2005 at 04:14 AM in National Socialism
Trackbacks (0) | Comments (115) | Tell-a-Friend

Socialist Germany:  The old is new again

I believe that there was some suggestion that posts about Nazism should be strictly limited here.  I can see some point in that but I cannot see that posts which mock Nazism do much harm:

“A multimillion-dollar campaign to boost Germans’ low self-confidence has backfired after it emerged that its slogan was coined by the Nazis. The $34 million ”Du Bist Deutschland—You Are Germany”—campaign was devised to inspire Germans to stop moaning and do something good for their country. Beethoven, Einstein and the sports stars Franz Beckenbauer and Michael Schumacher have been cited in advertisements encouraging Germans to take more pride in their homeland. 

But a historian from Ludwigshafen has provoked an uproar with his discovery that the same ”Du Bist Deutschland” cry was used at Nazi rallies in the 1930s. Stefan Morz uncovered photographs of a 1935 Nazi convention in which soldiers display a banner reading, in Gothic script, ”Denn Du Bist Deutschland (Because You Are Germany).” The slogan was topped with the head of Adolf Hitler. Leading Nazis such as Hermann Goring and Joseph Goebbels attended the event.”

(Excerpt from here)

The Nazi connection is not as obscure as the article excerpted above pretends.  One of Hitler’s favourite slogans was: ”Um uns ist Deutschland. In uns marschiert Deutschland. Und hinter uns kommt Deutschland!”.  Like much of Hitler’s rhetoric it cannot be translated in a way that gives much idea of the impact of the original but it literally means:  “Around us is Germany, In us Germany marches and behind us comes Germany”.  So the basic idea behind the modern slogan and Nazi thinking is pretty similar:  Identifying the individual with the nation and making Germany a sort of mystical icon.  All very Hegelian! 

Posted by jonjayray on Sunday, November 27, 2005 at 03:22 AM in National Socialism
Trackbacks (0) | Comments (16) | Tell-a-Friend

An amazing snippet of history

I am always pointing out how Leftist Hitler was—despite the hugely successful Leftist “big lie” to brand him as a Rightist.  I am putting up a picture of a Nazi propaganda poster of the 1930s that you won’t believe unless you are aware of how readily all Leftists preach one thing and do another.  It reads “"Mit Hitler gegen den Ruestungswahnsinn der Welt”.

And what does that mean?  It means “With Hitler against the armaments madness of the world”.  “Ruestung” could more precisely be translated as “military preparations” but “armaments” is a bit more idiomatic in English.

So the preaching of “peace” by the bloodthirsty Soviet regime of the cold war period had its parallel with the Nazis too.

Posted by jonjayray on Monday, October 10, 2005 at 05:12 PM in National Socialism
Comments (7) | Tell-a-Friend

Why Hitler hated Jews

Hitler was wrong about the Jews but why he thought what he did is only a mystery if you want it to be

How do we explain Hitler’s attitudes towards the Jews?  Dietrich (1988) studied Hitler’s antisemitism at great length and concluded that Hitler’s antisemitism was only a minor part of his popular appeal to Germans.  One reason why that was so is the important but seldom stressed fact that there was nothing at all odd or unusual about a dislike of Jews almost anywhere in the world of the 1930s.  Hitler was to a considerable degree simply voicing the conventional wisdom of his times and he was far from alone in doing so.  The plain fact is that it was not just the Nazis who brought about the holocaust.  To its shame, the whole world did.  That part of the world under Hitler’s control in general willingly assisted in rounding up Jews while the rest of the world refused to take Jewish refugees who tried to escape —just as the world would later refuse many Vietnamese and Cambodian refugees and will in due course refuse to take other would-be refugees from other places.  Racial affect is now recognized as universal in psychology textbooks (Brown, 1986) and Anti-Semitism is, sad to say, an old and widely popular European tradition.  There seems to be considerable truth in the view that the Nazis just applied German thoroughness to it. 

Nonetheless, Hitler was undoubtedly more than usually obsessed by the Jews.  What made him so obsessed?  What in particular made him BECOME antisemitic?  Mein Kampf is unreliable as objective history but there can be little doubt that it is good psychological history—i.e. it records Hitler’s own history as he saw it. And what he says there is that in Linz—where he grew up—there were few Jews and he saw them at that time as no different from other Germans. So when he moved to Vienna he was horrified at the antisemitism of much of the Viennese press. As he says in Mein Kampf:

“For the Jew was still characterized for me by nothing but his religion, and therefore, on grounds of human tolerance, I maintained my rejection of religious attacks in this case as in others. Consequently, the tone, particularly that of the Viennese anti-Semitic press, seemed to me unworthy of the cultural tradition of a great nation”.

Continued...

Posted by jonjayray on Friday, June 24, 2005 at 11:11 PM in National Socialism
Comments (115) | Tell-a-Friend

Thoughts on the Hitler film, “The Downfall”

From Luis Afonso Assumpcao.  With stylistic revisions by John Ray

The great revelation of this film for me was the perception that all socialist-communist-facist-totalitarian regimes are in some degree a substitution of a “state religion” for a natural religion.  And Nazism was a substitute for Judaism—a sort of “state Judaism”.  But this “state Judaism” has in common with the original one as much as a black mass has with a Catholic mass: equal values but with a minus sign.  A satanic counterfeit of the former, in fact.  This imitation – as “ersatz” as the robotic Maria from “Metropolis” - wanted to take over the cultural and religious identity of the original model, even if the complete destruction of its model was necessary.

Continued...

Posted by jonjayray on Friday, June 17, 2005 at 08:29 AM in National Socialism
Comments (40) | Tell-a-Friend

Socialism and nationalism

I have not kept a note of it but I guess one of the readers here has:  The finding that people are more willing to share with others whom they see as like themselves.  That leads to the view that socialism will find its main support among an ethnically homogeneous population—which the Scandinavian countries were until recently.  And ethnic diversity therefore will undermine support for socialism.  I have myself commented that the frantically socialist Scots are a very brotherly lot.  And of course Frank Salter’s reasoning would support that too.

And being very anti-socialist, I think that relationship reinforces my view that SELECTED ethnic diversity (such as we have in Australia) has much to be said for it.  I am again in that very Anglo-Saxon conservative middle of the road position where I support neither totally open nor totally closed borders.

What has provoked this post is that Hitler saw the same point long before anybody else that I know.  If you go here, you will see an original 1939 Nazi propaganda placard promoting one of Hitler’s sayings.  The saying is, “Es gibt keinen Sozialismus, der nicht aufgeht im eigenem Volk”—which I translate as “There is no socialism except what arises within its own people”.  Hitler spoke a very colloquial German so translating that one was not easy but I think that is about as close to it as you can get.

I have documented at some length elsewhere the way in which Hitler foreshadowed most of the ideas of the modern Leftists but they do not see that their promoting of infinite diversity will undermine support for socialism.  Hitler did.

Posted by jonjayray on Monday, June 6, 2005 at 10:12 AM in National Socialism
Comments (16) | Tell-a-Friend

Hitler again:  Myths versus fact

Nazism was a popular, working-class movement but it was Green/Left, not “Rightist”

The fact that the recent Minnesota school massacre was done by a young admirer of Hitler will of course have the Leftist bloggers frothing at the mouth and trying to prove that conservatives are to blame—because Hitler was “Rightist”, you see.  The fact that Hitler’s most unrelenting opponent was the arch-Conservative Winston Churchill and the fact that Hitler started out his war in alliance with the Communist Stalin will not be mentioned of course.  Leftists have no trouble ignoring even the most basic facts of history.  And it has always been a mystery how Leftists can call “conservative” a man who imposed such vast changes on Germany—considering that Leftists define conservatism as “opposition to change”!

What the media is notably ignoring is that, although he was no conservative, Hitler WAS a Greenie—and the Hitler-admiring groups that the shooter was linked to were environmental extremists.

Continued...

Posted by jonjayray on Wednesday, March 23, 2005 at 02:46 AM in National Socialism
Comments (25) | Tell-a-Friend

Zionist Aspirations in Palestine

This post is to be read together with my comments on John Ray’s post on Nazism. John points out thoughtfully that Nazism and Communism had many similarities, that the Nazis were “Socialists”. My answer to that is, “So what?”. “Socialism” can take many shapes and forms. Zionism was a completely socialist movement from the outset. Is it the same as Nazism or Communism?

Some might disagree on the question of the “Socialist” element to Zionism. This is a reproduction of an excellent article by the British governor of Palestine during WWI. His observations on the “bolsheviki” element in Zionism are quite startling to the lay person but would come as no surprise to knowledgeable historians. 

Continued...

Posted by Phil Peterson on Sunday, March 13, 2005 at 12:56 PM in National Socialism
Comments (7) | Tell-a-Friend

Neo-Nazis as out-of-fashion thinkers

I have already pointed out at length that Hitler was a Leftist in terms of the Leftism of his day and that practically all of his thinking was prefigured in the thinking of Marx & Engels.

If he was so Leftist, however, how come that Hitler’s few remaining admirers in at least the Anglosphere countries all seem to be on the political far-Right?  This tiny band even refer to themselves as “The Right”, in fact.  How do I know that?  I know that because I in fact happen to be one of the very few people to have studied neo-Nazis intensively.  And I have reported my findings about them in the academic journals —see here and here.

Continued...

Posted by jonjayray on Saturday, March 12, 2005 at 11:54 PM in National Socialism
Comments (50) | Tell-a-Friend