Another historic Nazi poster

Posted by AD on February 02, 2006, 09:00 PM | #

I remain unconvinced.

Hitler detailed in Mein Kampf the strategy of his faction ‘taking back the streets’ from the Marxists by winning over the workers with a ‘racial Germanic socialism’. Undoubtedly they used some Marxist jingoism to initially do this. But the ideology behind this ‘Germanic socialism’ was exactly the same as the ‘revolutionary conservatism’ Spengler advocated. It was a ‘socialism’ which was free of any economic theory. It was anti-Adam Smith,anti-Marx and anti-democracy. This ‘socialism’ meant one thing, restating ‘racial solidarity’ against the tides of free market capitalism and marxist cultural nihilsm.

If you are going to label this ‘leftism’, then the whole history of European man up until the enlightement, including the early philosophy behind the early Roman Empire, was ‘leftist’ and everything since, including Marxism, Capitalism and other internationalist ideologies which base themselves in enlightenment values.....are really all ‘rightist’.

In your world, the Spartan warrior caste was ‘leftist’, and the Athenian democrats were ‘rightist’. Nietzsche was a ‘leftist’ and Chomsky is a ‘rightist’.

The world, it’s history and peoples are way more complicated than what you designate as left and right. Better to categorise people and movements between ‘weak and ‘strong’.

Posted by Guessedworker on February 02, 2006, 09:15 PM | #

Left and right refers to liberalism.  If a political movement has as its purpose the pursuit of freedom, individual or collective, it belongs within this broad spectrum.  If, however, a political movement has as its purpose tradition, fealty, faith or stability it belongs elsewhere, outside the liberal spectrum.

Nazism belongs within it.  Whether its home is on the left or the right is somewhat immaterial to those who disavow liberalism in the first place.

Posted by JW Holliday on February 02, 2006, 10:36 PM | #

Posts like this are, I hope, an antidote for those who believe that JJR’s simplistic political models have merit.  Several points:

First, JJR: “Translated, the poster reads:  “The Marshall and the corporal.  Fight alongside us for peace and equal rights.” Can you get a more Leftist slogan than that? “

This coming from a “social scientist?” Look, how many votes would Hitler have got if he campaigned on a pro-war platform?  Remember, women were voting in that election, as were WWI veterans, many not as positive about warfare as the veteran Adolf.  In addition, JJR’s comment implies that “rightists” are against peace and, hence, for war.

Well, given that he believes that Bush is a “conservative” and, thus, a “rightist”, maybe he’s right about that.  Although Bush’s enthusiasm for war is limited only to those wars fought by other people and other people’s children.  George W. was “in the National Guard” (sort of) during Vietnam, and I do not see Jenna or Barbara Jr. volunteering for Iraq or Afghanistan.  Too busy partying I guess, just like dear old dad.  But, I digress ...

Why take a campaign poster so seriously?  Because two words from a campaign poster from the 1930s matches similar words - usually used in completely different contexts (see below) from later decades - we are to believe in an equivalence of political philosophies?  How juvenile can you get?

The part about “equal rights” obviously must be seen in the context of Hitler’s philosophy in 1933 Germany.  Whether you agree or not, the NSDAP saw ethnic Germans as being second class citizens in Germany, repressed by an influential minority (e.g., see the chapter on National Socialism in MacDonald’s SAID).  Therefore, Hitler talking of “equal rights” means equal rights for the majority - in other words, “majority rights”, which is allegedly a “rightist” concept as per the title of this blog.  Of course, Hitler didn’t really want “equal rights”, he wanted the majority in the predominant position.  Thus, again, why take seriously a campaign poster?  Should the poster have read: “Fight alongside us for war and discrimination?” And, again, are those “rightist” values?  If so, should “libertarian conservatives” campaign on a “war and discrimination” platform?  If they do not, are they “leftists?”

Second, what are “rightists” and “leftists?” If person A supports a market economy, low taxes, minimal government interference in business, and is also pro-immigration and cares nothing for ethnic and cultural maintenance, are they a “rightist?” If another person is skeptical of the market and big business, but is a nationalist, is he then a “leftist?” If an aging hippie wants to turn back the clock...to the late 1960s, is he then a “right-wing reactionary?” If another person wants to establish a state never before seen in America (e.g, nationalist/eugenicist), is he a “left-wing progressive?” The original definitions of “right/left” have connotations of reaction vs revolution, and isn’t “reaction” relative?

Third, to me “rightist” and “leftist” are irrelevant labels, and they should be equally irrelevant to serious people concerned with serious issues.  Labels much more important are “right” and “wrong” , right and wrong being based on what is best for the particular people in question, genetically, culturally, etc.

Too many people view politics like a football game, between “us good guys” and “them bad guys” and they incorporate labels like “right” and “left” in their identities to such an extent that some people will actually change what they believe just so they can be labelled in the way they wish, by self-appointed “experts” of politics.

Who cares?  A pro-white “leftist” is infinitely superior to an anti-white “rightist.”

Posted by friedrich braun on February 03, 2006, 01:50 AM | #

Yawn...how many times has JJR been told on this blog that his “leftist, rightist” dichotomy is stupid, shallow, and bove all irrelevant? Only to be dredged up by him again and again.

I suggest JW Holliday save his post and simply cut and paste it every time JJR can’t repress his urge to spam MR with his tedious schtick.

Posted by Andrew on February 03, 2006, 07:14 AM | #

J W Holliday’s point is excellent and I agree for what it is worth.
Psychology is used to behold some, Knowledge is distorted by some. And people that achieve this are Parasites for their own agendas.
Psychopathologists should be having a field day analyzing N G O’s and what we call the left.
Personally in the evolutionary scale the Leftist is the absolute weaker and in History, were destined to be destroyed by their own inability to find, earn or survive with their own skills, and by Psychological means and Con, purged a place in their own Utopian universe at the expense of those that had the Knowledge to survive or produce.
Like the Animal world, the weaker are destined to be fodder for another predator, so they try change the way we think and act , and that is to me the primary answer to known Leftist Ideology, Predominantly it is a sickness and it only exists to keep them selves alive by manipulating others gained knowledge and skills. If you let them.

Posted by friedrich braun on February 03, 2006, 02:26 PM | #

“It was a ‘socialism’ which was free of any economic theory.”

This is inaccurate. German National Socialism was an organic, national (or Volkish) non-Marxist socialism. In Europe, the French thinker Alain de Benoist http://www.alaindebenoist.com/ is one contemporary proponent of this current of thought. He’s a representative of the continental New Right (not to be confused with the ex (?) Trotskyist, internationalist, “American”, “right or wrong my Israel!”, New Right of neo-con Jews...two VERY different animals). The continental New Right says “no” to the Jewish materialstic spirit, either in their Marxist or plutocratic manifestations...it says “no’ to the atomised and selfish worldview of competing and alienated individuals.

Those who read French and German can find lots of good stuff here http://www.grece-fr.net/accueil.php and here http://www.jungefreiheit.de/

And those who don’t read French or German (i.e., unilingual Anglos) can consult the following texts on the continental New Right http://foster.20megsfree.com/index_en.htm

Fred Scrooby, the real history of National Socialism Germany is yet to be written...it was a time of unprecedented prosperity, social and racial cohesion… a time when Germans were finally and fleetingly masters of their own house and destiny...simply the best years of German history...when Germany had a leader who took a poor, fractured, and humiliated nation and turned it in the space of only a few years into a military and economic super giant confidently bestriding the international scene...like never before and never since in German history...let me put this bluntly: Germans were never as happy and satisfied as during the National Socialist period...no one in German history loved the German people, the German Volk, more than Adolf Hitler! And there’s never been a leader more loved in return by his people, his Volk, than Adolf Hitler! These are facts. If you want to know what is National Socialism, I’ll tell you that National Socialism is simply Germanism in its purest or distilled form...nothing less and nothing more...it’s the system that fits the German racial character to perfection. National Socialist accomplishments on the domestic and social fronts were/are awe-inspiring, without precedent, and in so multiple ways before their time – a work detailing the said accomplishments is yet to be written...but who in today’s Jewish world will dare to write it? We, in the Judaized and perverted West, are only permitted to see the world thorough the Jewish prism.

Today, Germans aren’t allowed to learn their own history, instead they’re fed Judeo-Saxon lies and misrepresentations...the Allied war criminals thoroughly “re-educated” and “denazified” (the most relentless denazification efforts of Germany occurred in the American zone) Germans, i.e. Germans were systematically taught to hate themselves and Germany, and view their parents as criminals. This evil process has been going on now for six decades. We owe today’s anti-White, Jewish, feminist, multiracial, miscegenational, bastardized, perverted world to the Anglo-Yankee-Judea unholy alliance. Oh...how I despise today’s world!

Here are some articles that attempt to shed some truth against a torrent of never-ending lies:

How Hitler Consolidated Power in Germany and Launched a ocial Revolution by Leon Degrelle

http://www.vho.org/GB/Journals/JHR/12/3/Degrelle299-370.html

or here

http://www.johmann.net/commentary/national-socialist-germany.html

Hitler’s Social Revolution

http://home.earthlink.net/~centurion88/national_socialism/ns1203.html
Living in Hitler’s Germany

http://www.stormfront.org/forum/showthread.php?t=86516
Life in the Third Reich

http://www.overthrow.com/lsn/news.asp?articleID=3908

Posted by Desmond Jones on February 03, 2006, 08:24 PM | #

German historian, Joachim Fest, paints Hitler as an opportunist,

He was a gifted tactician who could recognize situations and detect underlying interests, discover other people’s weaknesses and engineer temporary coalitions of use to him. He was cold-blooded, cunning and always prepared to take extreme risks. Like all German nationalists after the October Revolution of 1917, he was mortally afraid of the Red Terror and profoundly skeptical of a universal process of modernization; unlike all his rivals, however, he was able to develop his fear into a program.

and the NSDAP as having a strong socialist philosphy, at least originally. Fest also mentions the stories coming from the east of priests being crucified on the doors of their churches which emphasised this mortal fear.

KMac contradicts the notion that National Socialism is Germanism in its purest form:

The influential anti-Semitic historian and political activist Heinrich von Treitschke viewed Germany’s self-conception as a Christian civilization as a critical component of his overarching goal of producing a politically and culturally unified Germany. Treitschke stated that although many Germans had ceased being active Christians, “the time will come, and is perhaps not so far off, when necessity will teach us once more to pray. . . . The German Jewish Question will not come to rest . . . before our Hebrew fellow-citizens have become convinced, by our attitude, that we are a Christian people and want to remain one”

Christianity as a unifying force was also central to another important late 19th-century anti-Semitic leader, Adolf Stoecker:

I found Berlin in the hands of Progressives-who were hostile to the Church—and the Social Democrats—who were hostile to God; Judaism ruled in both parties. The Reich’s capital city was in danger of being de-Christianized and de-Germanized. Christianity was dead as a public force; with it went loyalty to the King and love of the Fatherland. It seemed as if the great war had been fought so that Judaism could rule in Berlin. . . . It was like the end of the world. Unrighteousness had won the upper hand, love had turned cold. (In Telman 1995, 97)

Edmund Burke emphasised the link between Christian values and western tradition. For better or worse Christian values were the bulwark of Western Conservatism. A review of Charles Murray’s work reveals that the flowering of Germanic accomplishment was at its height during the period of a societas christiana.

In that regard, John’s attempt to define the politics of National Socialism is worthwhile.

Posted by friedrich braun on February 03, 2006, 09:12 PM | #

Desmond Jones: Christianity in Europe is dead...the toothpaste is out of the tube and you can’t put it back in...you might deplore it (for whatever reason) but it’s just a fact.

Posted by friedrich braun on February 03, 2006, 10:40 PM | #

For no particular reason: “In Italy for 30 years under the Borgias they had warfare, terror, murder and bloodshed, but they produced Michelangelo, Leonardo da Vinci and the Renaissance. In Switzerland they had brotherly love; they had 500 years of democracy and peace, and what do they produce? The cuckoo clock.” - Orson Welles

Posted by Al Ross on February 03, 2006, 11:48 PM | #

Many thanks to Friedrich Braun for his cogent comments on this topic. I will study the provided links with interest. Also, the views expressed by Friedrich concur with those of a close expatriate German friend ( a retired academic) who was able to express these exact points to students only because he chose to teach outside his home country.

Posted by friedrich braun on February 04, 2006, 01:06 AM | #

Here are some links that actually work.

How Hitler Consolidated Power in Germany and Launched a Social Revolution
Leon Degrelle

http://library.flawlesslogic.com/soc_rev.htm

It’s a lengthy piece by the Belgian (Degrelle was fond of saying that Hitler told him that if he (Hitler) had a son he would want him to be like Degrelle), but well worth the effort.

I notice that Germar Rudolf’s site is down...could The Traditional Enemy be at work at again while Rudolf’s in jail for not believing in the gaz chamber?

Posted by Mark Richardson on February 04, 2006, 02:21 AM | #

I don’t think we should just dismiss the left/right distinction as meaningless.

The distinction does make sense if, as GW suggests, it marks differences within liberalism.

Liberalism conceives of society as being made up of competing wills. It therefore has to answer the question of how a society made up of competing wills can hold together.

The classic, nineteenth century response was that individuals could act selfishly for their own profit within a market system and still create a good social outcome due to the regulation by the hidden hand of the market.

The “new” liberalism of the early nineteenth century rejected the market solution as inegalitarian. The new liberals wanted society to be regulated more deliberately by a class of technocratic experts.

During the course of the last 100 years the term “left” has been applied to the new, social democratic liberals and “right” to the free market classic liberals.

The distinction did not arise to cover other variants within modernist politics, such as the nazis, which is why it’s difficult to easily fit the nazis into the left or right.

However, I think JJR is correct in asserting that the nazis were closer to the left than the right.

The left/right distinction holds true most of the time, but is confused for at least two reasons.

First, the mainstream electoral parties often fight over the middle ground, so you have right-wing parties adopting parts of the social agenda of the left, and the left-wing parties adopting part of the economic agenda of the right.

If you want to find purer expressions of the left/right distinction you need to go to intellectuals not seeking public office.

Second, the liberal left and right often want to claim the mantle of true belief for their own side of politics. Therefore, they paint the other side as being non-liberal.

For instance, the left in Australia commonly portray John Howard as a genuine traditionalist who wants to preserve the Anglo ethny, when Howard in fact talks of ethnicity as a “trap” and has raised foreign immigration to record levels.

There are, though, more intelligent leftists who realise that people like Howard are not genuine conservatives, but are duping a conservative base into voting for the right.

Such leftists sometimes ponder how they can split the conservative voters from the non-conservative right-wing parties.

Posted by Mark Richardson on February 04, 2006, 02:33 AM | #

Apropos of the above, J W Holliday asks “If person A supports a market economy, low taxes, minimal government interference in business, and is also pro-immigration and cares nothing for ethnic and cultural maintenance, are they a “rightist"?"

The answer is a definite yes. They are, in fact, a very pure kind of right-wing liberal.

J W Holliday then asks, “If another person is skeptical of the market and big business, but is a nationalist, is he then a “leftist"?"

The answer to this depends on further information. If this person accepts the liberal idea that the purpose of politics is to liberate the individual from unchosen impediments to reason and will, then he is a left-wing liberal who is making an unprincipled exception to his own politics in supporting nationalism.

If, though, he does not support the underlying assumptions of liberalism, but is a nationalist because he thinks there are substantive goods which ought to be placed over and above the unimpeded individual will, then he is neither left nor right, but outside the liberal spectrum altogether.

Posted by Mark Richardson on February 04, 2006, 04:03 AM | #

Re Nazism. I remember some very interesting debates about how to categorize Nazism which took place between Jim Kalb, Lawrence Auster and a commentator called “Matt”.

Matt claimed that Nazism was a form of liberalism, for reasons I’ll explain shortly. Most of us baulked at this. Jim Kalb preferred to call it “an alternative form of modernism”. Jim Kalb wrote:

“Like liberalism Naziism abolishes tradition and the transcendent in favor of actual human will, which it views as the sole conceivable source of moral order. Unlike liberalism, however, it rejects the notion of a rational structure that equally advances the triumph of every will, no doubt correctly reasoning that such a project makes no sense.”

This is a strong position, but Matt’s view also has much to commend it.

Matt argued that the Nazis were primarily committed to the liberal aim of the emergence of a free and equal new man - the ubermensch. What was preventing this event from occurring? The activities of an oppressor untermensch, identified in the case of the Nazis as the Jews.

This is why the Nazis identified the Jews not just as ethnic rivals but as a kind of cosmic enemy, who were the root of all evil in the world.

How could the Nazis claim to be about freedom and equality and yet wish to treat the Jews unequally and illiberally? By viewing them as oppressors who had abdicated their humanity (and hence their rights) - as therefore being “subhuman”.

Over time, I have drawn closer to Matt’s view. This is because I’ve recognised what Matt is describing within modern forms of liberalism, especially amongst the more radical left-liberals (which means that I agree with JJR that there are similarities between Nazism and aspects of modern leftist politics).

In particular, it seems to me that sections of the left are still running with the idea that an oppressor untermensch is preventing the emergence of a free and equal ubermensch and must therefore be destroyed - except it is whites, or more specifically white men, who are now generally understood to be the untermensch, rather than Jews.

I recognised this when reading about Jim Jones, whose Peoples Temple movement regarded white men as a kind of devilish enemy preventing the creation of a free and equal society.

Then there are the Harvard leftists who support the “race traitor” movement. They have written that “The goal of abolishing the white race is on its face so desirable that some may find it hard to believe that it could incur any opposition” and “Make no mistake about it: we intend to keep bashing the dead white males, and the live ones, and the females too, until the social construct known as ‘the white race’ is destroyed - not ‘deconstructed’ but destroyed.”

Then there are the feminists, such as those (Higginbottom & Roy 1984) who argue that “We must learn about men and their archetypes in order to put them back in their place - they are an aberration and out of control ... Men won’t exist for much longer.”

As for treating those who hinder the creation of the new free and equal man as subhuman and without rights, this idea is found even in John Locke.

Locke believed that reason was what made us human, and that reason dictates that we be free and equal, so that anyone who tried to assert power over another lacked reason, and was therefore an animal and therefore became “liable to be destroyed by the injured person and the rest of mankind, as any other wild beast”.

To sum up, there seem to be those on the left who believe that it is white men who are the “cosmic enemy” hindering the arrival of a free and equal society and who therefore have lost their right to participate in the new free and equal order, but must be destroyed.

Even when this isn’t stated openly, it seems at times to be an undercurrent, or an unstated given, within more mainstream and respectable forms of liberalism.

Posted by Guessedworker on February 04, 2006, 09:42 AM | #

To sum up, there seem to be those on the left who believe that it is white men who are the “cosmic enemy” hindering the arrival of a free and equal society and who therefore have lost their right to participate in the new free and equal order, but must be destroyed.

One can be precise.  Really hardened anti-white racists come in two flavours:-

1) Outright race replacers, such as Ken Livingstone who sincerely believes that it is the Englishman’s honour to bestow his country upon humanity.

2) Jewish intellectual ethnocentrists who have, through the development of philosophies of culture war, turned the tables on the European ubermensch so as to become “free” themselves.

All the rest of liberalism, right and left, that does nothing to defend Western Man, but simply acquieses, does so perhaps from some vague political or moral principle, perhaps from moral squeamishness or the desire for an easy life, perhaps - like most non-awake Conservatives - because they have been subjected to a life-time of Marxist misrepresentation and are still mouthing the usual mechanical pieties ("We are all mongrels”, “… the same under the skin”, etc).

Posted by John J Ray on February 04, 2006, 12:34 PM | #

“Germans were never as happy and satisfied as during the National Socialist period...no one in German history loved the German people, the German Volk, more than Adolf Hitler!”

I am delighted to see that Friedrich is one of the very few who DOES know something of the Nazi era.  I myself have noted the importance of the “love” relationship between Hitler and Germans but this most basic fact is still virtually unknown to the non-German world.  Older Germans remember it of course.  I have talked to some of them about it.

On the boring dismissal of the Left/Right dichotomy above by several common potatoes, I once again have to refer them to the survey data on the subject.  The Left/Right dimension is as real as the IQ dimension—though neither of those awkward realities suit many theorists. 

See http://jonjayray.netfirms.com/twodim.html

Posted by Guessedworker on February 04, 2006, 12:51 PM | #

John,

The Left/Right dimension is as real as the IQ dimension—though neither of those awkward realities suit many theorists.

You are seeing only an extanct production of three centuries of liberalism.  Open your eyes a little wider historically.  The worst that can happen is that you will have to question your own Disraelian, relevantist Conservatism.

Posted by JW Holliday on February 04, 2006, 03:04 PM | #

Yeah John, if we disagree with your linear left-right model we are “potatoes” and if people disagree with you on peak oil, then they are “freaks.” If that is what passes for “social science”, then we can do without such infantile nonsense.

What I see happening is this.  Ray is hostile to National Socialism - both its specific historical German variant (Drexler-Hitler NSDAP) as well as its more generic incarnation (racialist-collectivist nationalism), as well as national-collectivist fascism.  Knowing that most bloggers and commentators here view themselves as “rightists” and “conservatives” - with an innate hostility toward anything “leftist” - he constantly (::yawn::) attempts to define “Naziism” and “fascism” as “leftist” so as to create a feeling of hostility toward those ideologies among people here.  He aims at almost an emotional response - “X” is “leftist”, everything “leftist” is bad to me because I’m a “rightist”; therefore I despise “X” and anything associated with it.

Now, of course, any thinking person may well be critical of “Nazism/fascism” based upon the actual content of those movements (and Salter critiques those ideologies in his book), but such critiques should be based upon, as I’ve stated, their actual content and not naive labels of “left” and “right.” A specific idealogy, idea, ideal, proposal may be considered either good or bad, and that should be completely independent of the label given it by someone, particularly someone who have themselves a quite large ideological axe to grind.

People should review the tenets and actions of the Hitler regime with a critical eye and make an evaluation that cares not one iota whether these tenets or actions are “left” or “right.” After all, the tenets and actions remain the same, even though the labels given them differ dependent upon the perspective of the labeller.

And, oh yes, just saying that the right-left axis is “real” doesn’t make it so.  I understand that the social “sciences” (sic) are short on empiricism and long of on self-serving politics, but ....

Grow up, JJR.

Posted by JW Holliday on February 04, 2006, 03:12 PM | #

Imagine a person who, in the entire adult luife, only had the choice of Coca Cola or Pepsi Cola to drink.  To them, the differences between the two colas would be magnified to a great extent, and taste tests designed to distinguish between these two sodas would be of great efficicacy.  Indeed, based on such tests, it would seem that a test that is built around distinguishing Coke/Pepsi would be considered “good”, and any “freak” (or “boring potato") who comes along and says they like water, milk, or orange juice would be, I assume, considered an unimportant “outlier.” Indeed, to our person of interest, the flavors of other beverages would be irrelevant, and those beverages would be outside the scope of the taste test.

If however, we wish to determine the full range of beverage flavors and, indeed, hope that by doing so we can get people to consider that beverages other than coke/pepsi exist, then the Coke/Pepsi taste test would be, obviously, inadequate, no matter how well it measures people who only know cola.

Likewise, your typical American exists in an environment in which “far right” is George “open borders, diversity, affirmative action, Turkey in the EU, amnesty for illegals, no child left behind” Bush, and Pat Buchanan is considered an “off-the scale” ultra-fascist/Nazi.” The average American probably believes they’ll be carted off by the thought police (which they may?) if they praise David Duke.  If Bush is “far-right” and Kerry is “far-left” (with Sharpton being “ultra-left”, but still permissable in American politics) then, obviously, tests that measure the Bush-Kerry continuum will be found to be “accurate”, “robust”, and “measuring most people other than those outliers.”

The problem is that Bush and Kerry are nearly identical on the most important issues, and the labels given to them have no bearing on reality whatsoever.

Tests that measure establishment propaganda and the effectiveness of limiting dissent are not, in my opinion, useful at all.

Posted by JW Holliday on February 04, 2006, 03:18 PM | #

http://jonjayray.netfirms.com/twodim.html http://jonjayray.netfirms.com/twodim.html

::yawn::
::yawn::

Person with clipboard: “Do you like Coke or Pepsi?”

The way questions are formed in polling (or “questionaires") can yield desired results.  Polling what the ignorant herd think of real politics and real options and ideology is like polling ghetto Negro rap fans on what they think of Mozart.

Useless.

“The people” regurgitate what they are spoon fed.

And, by the way, anyone who thinks that Mussolini was a “life-long Marxist” or that Hitler was a “Marxist” reveal their ignorance thereby.

Let’s all be good “conservatives” like Bushie and Ray tell us - check your stock market returns are your nations change from white to black/brown/yellow.  Who cares about that, only the green of money matters, right?

If the left-right continuum is correct, you should be able to bin people together in a way that makes sense.  Putting Hitler together with Trotsky does not make sense.

How would the champions of a 1-D system rank the bloggers at MR?  How about Jared Taylor?  Strom?  Frank Salter?  How do these compare with historical figures?

This is nonsense - a self-serving manichean view of the political world, where the “good rightists” are against the “bad leftists.” Makes a good fairy tale - but not reality.

For grown-ups, fairy tales are “boring” nonsense, from the common “potato”.

Posted by JW Holliday on February 04, 2006, 09:32 PM | #

Let’s cut to the chase here.  If JJR’s linear right/left model is accurate, it should withstand honest testing.  To me, honest testing means the ability to correctly evaluate a broad range of political opinions, and not just the clustered-around-the-center micro-disagreements of “the people” who are artificially hemmed into the establishment’s narrow political pasture.

A challenge: let’s see JJR post right here at Majority Rights the list of questions used to distinguish people as right/left, and please tell us where historical figures and modern politicians fall along this spectrum.

We would all like to see the questions, and exactly what issues - all proximate I’m sure - are considered important.  I’m sure we’ll all be interested to see how we rank on this scale, and who our ideological neighbors are.

Let’s be empirical instead of “potatoes” and “freaks.”

And no more apologia about “outliers.” Everyone on this blog has legitimate political opinions, and the purpose of this blog is to promote these opinions, not to blindly register that the herd thinks that Jorge Bush is a “far right conservative.”

What is an “outlier” today may be an important political movement in the future.  It is precisely to prevent this, and to delegitimize dissent that the establishment and their “social scientists” attempt to redefine the political spectrum to suit their needs.

No, that will no longer be accepted.  A valid political test will place a variety of opinion in their correct place on the spectrum.

Any test that cannot distinguish a Jared Taylor from a George Bush, or a Kevin Strom from a Al Sharpton (both “leftists?") is worthless.  A test whose only viability is obsessing about “capital gains tax cuts” is also worthless.

“Where’s the beef?”

Posted by friedrich braun on February 04, 2006, 09:51 PM | #

How would JJR classify Alain de Benoist? He doesn’t fit his simplistic dichotomy.

Alain de Benoist
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Alain de Benoist (born 11 December 1943) is a French academic, founder of the GRECE and head of the French think-tank Nouvelle Droite (English: New Right).

A celebrated intellectual who attended the Sorbonne, Benoist is little known outside his native France but his writings have been highly influential on right-wing anti-globalist thought. He is an admirer of Europe and paganism.

He was previously associated with different right wing persons linked with the Algerian independence war. From being close to fascists French movements at the beginning of his writings in 1970, he moved to attacks globalisation, unrestricted mass immigration and liberalism as being ultimately fatal to the existence of Europe through their divisiveness and internal faults. Against the liberal melting-pot of the USA, he is in favour of a separation of civilisations/cultures.

Benoist has said that he hopes to see free-debate and greater popular participation in democracy. He also believes in a federal Europe, in which the nation state is surpassed, giving way to regional identities and a common continental one at once.

His critics argue that Benoist has developed a novel restatement of fascism. However, he considers himself neither left nor right-wing, and has recently tried to appear less radical, in his preference for Heidegger over his first influence, Nietzsche, his support of multiculturalism rather than disappearance of immigrants’ identities (though he does not support immigration itself), his interest in ecology and a less aggressive view of Christianity.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alain_de_Benoist

Posted by JW Holliday on February 05, 2006, 12:17 AM | #

Friedrich, good point, I agree with you. Benoist is an excellent example of the real complexity of political thought, which is not covered by JJR’s scheme.

Another example is Francis Parker Yockey.

Some would airily dismiss Benoist, Yockey, etc. as “outliers.” But whose opinions are more important and influential for serious political thought among those interested in the West - the views of Benoist/Yockey or the “views” of a TV-addicted beer belly?

Although I disagree with much of what Benoist and Yockey have written (although Yockey’s central vision I see as sound), their thought merits serious consideration and any classification scheme absolutely must be able to properly interpret their views.

Another point.  If some want to label National Socialism and Fascism as “leftist”, fine, who cares, but it is factually incorrect to call them “Marxist.”

National Socialism was a biologically-oriented, ethny-based system that rejected class struggle and wished to build a homogenous, “volkisch” ethnostate.  It can be said they were extreme social Darwinists and, as Salter critiques, disjunctive racialists.  Marxism is a class-based, economically-oriented system that rejects the importance of race (Marx’s own personal racism non-withstanding); the USSR for example was a multiracial state often with ethnic minorities in high government positions (Stalin for example, a Georgian).  Lysenkoism was only possible in Marxism, given its foundation in anti-biological, aracial egalitarianism. Mussolini’s nationalism caused him to break with Marxism/Socialism during WWI.  The Fascism of the early 1920s and the Salo Republic indeed was more revolutionary and “leftist” than the reactionary dullness of 1930s Fascism, and it was the more radical form which was the real Fascism - which, like, National Socialism, was fiercely anti-Marxist.  Indeed, Hitler was supported by certain German businessmen for this reason, and there were a number of Western European conservatives who saw Germany of that time as a “bulwark against Bolshevism.”

During the Spanish Civil War, it was the “democracies” that supported the Marxists, and the “leftist” Hitler and Mussolini who supported the nationalists.  The reasons for that were as much ideological and practical.

Posted by JW Holliday on February 05, 2006, 12:14 PM | #

More absurd, simplistic tests:-

These two gave me results which do not reflect my true political views:-

http://typology.people-press.org/

http://www.iop.harvard.edu/research_political_personality_test.php

According to this one: http://selectsmart.com/PRESIDENT/

... my 2004 Presidential preferences were:-

Dean, Cobb (Green), Kucinich, Brown (Socialist), Sharpton

Hmmm, what is wrong with this picture, that a WN who supports Salterian theory gets such results?

Answer: these tests not only “reflect opinion”, they *make* opinion as well.  They are designed to actually reflect the establishment’s over-riding interest to restrict political choice to the safe plantation.

Against the Iraq war?  Then you just must be a liberal Democrat.  Have reservations about free trade and the “market”, and believe that Palestinians have a right to a state (a Salterian imperative) - then you are a Sharptonite.

I guess maybe the late William Pierce would have been a Sharpton supporter based on this test.  Where would the late Sam Francis have ended up, or Kevin Strom, or Paul Craig Roberts?  As Dean or Brown supporters?

The “political compass” is just as bad.  These tests are empirically shown to work ONLY:-

a) looking at the center, or left-center ("left" in the sense of Dean-Sharpton)

b) looking at conformists, not independent thinkers

c) looking - with a few exceptions about “immigration”, always presented in a proximate, aracial sense - at proximate issues, and, usually, mostly unimportant proximate issues at that.

Posted by jonjayray on February 05, 2006, 12:42 PM | #

“Yeah John, if we disagree with your linear left-right model we are “potatoes”

LOL

“common potatoes” was jocular for “commentators”

But it is NOT my model that I advance.  It is how the data fall out.  I did survey research (all published) for over 30 years and it is always so.

I know it is pesky of them but people DO polarize in a Left/Right way—not in the way theorists would like.

Although this is my special field of academic expertise, I do not normally stress that but instead just give you links to the relevant literature—but you obviously do not read them.  Facts obviously do not interest you—only your own preconceptions.  Very Leftist.

Fred wants the actual questions that load highly on the Left/Right centroid (or eigenvalue).  Two lots of them are here:

http://jonjayray.netfirms.com/amercons.html

and

http://jonjayray.netfirms.com/aborlife.html

Posted by jonjayray on February 05, 2006, 12:46 PM | #

There are always cases of course that do not fit ANY model or schema.  To advance them is the fallacious argument from example.  I extract my generalizations from the results of random population samples—as one should.  You need general data to justify general statements.

Posted by Voice on February 05, 2006, 03:58 PM | #

JJR,

Let’s put your theory of the left/right continuum by adding another variable to the study.

Within the study to measure where one falls in the left/right continuum add the fact for them to understand that their racial group will be faced with ,if not extinction, then oppression,abuse and savage living environment in 200 years time.

Knowing this as fact(i.e. group doing the study have to accept this as fact for the basis of study but also sit through a reasonable amount of demographic and crime rate analysis to educate group on current factual trends that most MR posters have internalised) they then answer the questions to determine where they fall in left/right continuum.

Before doing this though, ask them to take this test and decide where they fit before this racial threat is introduced.  Make the group large enough them where you can split it in to two groups.  From the two groups, split the them in identical political groups from the aspect of left/right political ideology as determined by the first test.  One group being educated and told to accept as fact their racial future while the other control group is just told to take the test again without any new information or instructions being given.

This would prove whether the left/right continium is a relevant description of political landscape or based on opinions drawn from current zeitgeist based upon imaginary threats/opportunities which don’t take into accounts man’s basic need for survival.

I have $5 here that says the left/right continiuum is relative to perceived and understood threat to one’s personal and family(race extended family) existence.  I don’t think European people have had to think this way(at least when these types of studies were undertaken) since the times when words like “racist” and “multiculturalism” even existed.

Posted by friedrich braun on February 10, 2006, 03:47 PM | #

I am delighted to see that Friedrich is one of the very few who DOES know something of the Nazi era.  I myself have noted the importance of the “love” relationship between Hitler and Germans but this most basic fact is still virtually unknown to the non-German world.  Older Germans remember it of course.  I have talked to some of them about it.

You are correct. The old generation remembers well the love that the average German felt for his Leader. This love was not a one-way street. It was fully reciprocated by Adolf Hitler. No, I will even venture to say that he loved the German people to a greater extent. Their love was mainly motivated by the economic and social miracles Hitler’s genius produced; while Hitler’s love for his people was of an altogether different variety, it was a disinterested type of love, a purer type of love, a metaphysical type of love, if you will. He didn’t love because they did something for him...no, he loved them because they were his people...his flesh...his blood.

Here’s a sample of what contemporaneous British commentators observed during the happy days of the Third Reich:

‘TWAS A FAMOUS VICTORY ...

What they once said:

“ ... There can be no doubt that he has achieved a marvelous transformation in the spirit of the people,
in their attitude towards each other, and in their social and economic outlook ... The people are

more cheerful.  There is a greater sense of general gaiety of spirit throughout the land.  It is

a happier Germany.  I saw it everywhere, and Englishmen I met during my trip and who knew

Germany well were very impressed with the change.  As to his popularity, especially among

the youth of Germany, there can be no manner of doubt.  The old trust him; the young idolize him.  It is

not the admiration accorded to a popular leader.  It is the worship of a national hero who has saved his

country from utter despondence and degradation.”

— Former British Prime Minister DAVID LLOYD GEORGE, Daily Express, September 17th, 1936

One may dislike Hitler’s system and yet admire his patriotic achievement.  If our country were

defeated I should hope we should find a champion as indomitable to restore our courage

and lead us back to our place among the nations.” — WINSTON CHURCHILL, Step by Step, p.143

Upon his return following a visit to Hitler, his daughter greeted former Prime Minister David Lloyd George,

humorously with a “Heil Hitler!” “Yes, Heil Hitler.  I too, say that, because he is truly a great man. 

I have never met a happier people than the Germans and Hitler is one of the greatest men

among the distinctly great men that I have ever encountered.”

“ ... And it only remains to watch the results of the forthcoming general election in Germany, in which

it is inconceivable that a single vote should be cast against him, even by the angriest German

Jew or German Communist.”

— GEORGE BERNARD SHAW, playwright. The Observer, November, 5th, 1933

“ ... The criminal courts have never had so little to do and the prisons have never had so few

occupants.  It is a pleasure to observe the physical aptitude of the German youth ... ”
— Sir ARNOLD WILSON, M.P.

“Germans in their country are not less well cared for than the English people in theirs, but better.”

— DOUGLAS REED

“It has undoubtedly cleaned up Germany in the ordinary moral sense of the word.  The corruption so
manifest as characteristic in the days after the war has disappeared, at any rate from public view ... “
— His Lordship, the MARQUIS OF LOTHIAN, British Ambassador to Washington, June, 29th, 1937

“Last May, I returned, bringing my family for another sojourn, after two years spent in other European
countries.  I found a Germany which has advanced miraculously from the point of 1933.  I found political
solidarity, a wholesome tone in the life of city dweller and country dweller alike.  I found living costs

materially reduced and an unmistakable optimism on every hand.  In every quarter I found the same

answer to my questioning: Profound belief in the genius of the Leader, love and admiration for him as

an individual.  My observations have covered a wide range of social classification.  I have talked with the

humblest type of labourers, with merchants, professional men.  I have yet to discover a dissenting voice

to the question of loyalty to the Fuehrer.  My two young daughters are attending German public schools

and are receiving an education which in thoroughness could be equaled in few countries.”

— JOHN L. GARVIN, The Observer

Posted by friedrich braun on February 10, 2006, 03:48 PM | #

And what they are saying today:

—— NEWSPAPER HEADLINES FROM JUST ONE DAY

The Daily Mail Tuesday, May 10th 2005

Pages by number:

1.  ‘Blair in Jobs for Cronies Reshuffle’ (Corruption in parliament)

2.  ‘Greedy British Gas Ready to Raise prices Again!’

2.  ‘Spice Supply Firm Caught Up in Second Food Alert’

3.  ‘Suburban Mother Sells Her Body to Cover School Fees’

4/5.  (More ministerial corruption)

6.  ‘Sales Slump Deepens the Gloom’

7.  ‘Schoolgirl (16) Kidnapped by Multi-racial Gang; Ravished, Tortured, Stabbed to Death’

8.  (Bank greed and corruption)

9.  ‘Hackers Steal Mum’s Identity—and Nest Egg’

10/11.  (Corruption at Britain’s foremost college)

14.  ‘Teenager Murdered with BBQ Fork’

16.  ‘Britain Out in the Cold’ (VE Day in Moscow)

16.  ‘GP (Mr Jagdeep Gossain) Makes ½ Million in Bogus Call-outs’

17.  ‘Policeman’s Killer Tricks His Way to Freedom’

19.  ‘Labour Spends £1.9 BILLION on Management Consultants (Enough to Build 100 Hospitals)’

22.  ‘Eight-year Old Coloured Girl ‘Branded a Witch and Tortured by Family’

24.  ‘19-year Old Female Hooligan Holds Neighborhood to Ransom’

26.  (Estate Agent corruption)

26.  (Soccer Brawls)

Sorry, nearly forgot page 15:

Columnist Stephen Glover ‘Sorry, But We Must Never Forget the War’, writes in praise

of the Soviet Union helping us to defeat that aforesaid Germany (I kid you not) and

whimpers that it was downhill for Britain for many years afterwards.  You mean it isn’t

now?  50 million dead so we could enjoy the contents of the Daily Mail and praise the

forces who defended our ‘freedom’ from someone who, like Saddam Hussein, never

threatened it in the first place.  In the same week a government was elected, despite

the fact that 78% of the people had not voted for it. 

Now you know what the bloody war for ‘democracy’ was all about.  World War II. 

‘Twas a famous victory. 

ENJOY! 

Michael Walsh

Posted by andrew on August 29, 2006, 06:06 PM | #

You ignorant bigots, if your traceable branch from the darwinian formulation was slightly more southern your face would be the same as those you chastise. If you wish to enter into serious conversation, first you must be aware of your own ancestory and heritage. Redundant thought like yours is what has prevented progress, and yet these tools i have employed are the very same (misrepresented) tools you employ.
ten times a day must thou overcome thyself !