Filling the empirical gap
“We were enraptured by war. We had set out in a rain of flowers, in a drunken atmosphere of blood and roses. Surely the war had to supply us with what we wanted; the great, the overwhelming, the hallowed experience.”
This quote is by Ernst Jünger (1895 - 1998), and it is taken from his memoir of the 1914-18 war, Storm of Steel. The sense one gets here of an intoxicating, Volkish unity shot through with a destiny of greatness is everything that is unstable and unsatisfactory about nationalist sentiment, and which the enemies of European Man exploit to our eternal disadvantage.
Yes, Jünger’s setting-out was the German nation going to war, and young men will be filled with a fearful optimism at such times. But there is no hint here of the defence of mothers and sisters, hearth and home, which lends justice to the waging of war. Jünger is pointing to something quite different. Somewhere in the Gemeinshaft, that community of simple and natural human relations, there stirred a yearning for the realisation of the national heroic.
One accepts, of course, that unity does not descend freely upon Germany’s peoples, and even less so it upon Italians and Spaniards, those other great European peoples governed by nationalism in the middle years of the 20th Century. It has to be striven for, and this striving has constantly reinforced a sense of injustice, of a destiny denied, that alone may be enough to condition the national psyche to palingenesis.
But that is to suppose that events in this respect ordain ideas, and not the other way around. The truth is that the German fascination with the palingenic takes its antecendents from that line of domestic philosophising which runs German Idealism > romantic nationalism > the völkisch movement > National Socialism. And there it remains, like a hairy mammoth in the perma-frost.
It is important for us to understand that the customary polarity of how we, as sentient beings, gain our knowledge of the world is thought <> sensation (or experience). Kant, who is generally considered as the father of the Idealists, attempted to reconcile these two. So any attempt like this one to draw consequences from an alignment of the Idealists with thought as the vehicle of knowledge and John Locke's empiricists with sensation cannot be too absolute.
But, with that caveat out of the way, it is still a philosophically valid and, from our 21st century nationalist perspective, informative exercise. It develops neatly into a model of one dynamic that led, eventually, to a völkisch movement based upon race and folklore, and thence onward into the vision of a heroic national life and destiny, and the other dynamic - the triumphant English dynamic - which led to the hyper-individualism of our lives today.
The English empiricist dynamic has not been entirely barren of national feeling, of course. But the Acts of Union of 1706 and 1707 manufactured a national entity of more than one blood and one tradition, sworn in allegiance to the Crown. The patriotism which resulted was always the handmaiden of other people's politics, and never had any connection to nationalism. For example, the political sense of peoplehood which coloured William Morris' ideas emptied in socialism.
Let's now return to the national heroic or palingenic, and establish beyond doubt what political handiwork it is apt to weave. Here are its products in the high-octane National Socialist "setting":
# Ayran supremacism (die Herrenrasse) and the “educational” propaganda associated with it.
# The cult of the Führer.
# The total state, state terrorism.
# The militarisation of society, including the establishment of the Schutzstaffel elite and the Hitlerjugend.
# Eugenics, racial hygiene.
# Slave-labour.
# Lebensraum.
It is an astonishingly extreme list, not just by our inevitably liberalistic standards today but by the standards of the inter-war era too. I have made the point once or twice with enthusiasts of this stuff that, actually, they could not have survived this ideological straitjacket, and would most likely have been the first to be lined up against the wall.
But the important thing about it for us today is not the negation of human rights, but its heavy reliance upon prescribed ideology and, frankly, pure fiction. The justification for all the excess was just dreams no more solid and actionable than those of Ernst Jünger when he boarded his train for the front in 1914.
Now let’s take a look at the contents of the völkisch movement that preceeded National Socialism, dating from the late 19th century:-
# Anti-modern reaction.
# Pan-Germanism.
# die Herrenrasse
# Nordisch theory.
# Aryan mysticism, occultism, paganism and runism.
# German youth movement (Wandervogel, Jungenschaft, Bündische Jugend, etc)
It’s the same underpinnings of non-reality, of course. Even in the 19th Century, waving the question “what is true” over these ideas would have revealed their religiosity.
As it happens, the German völkisch movement has its imitators throughout the European world today, of which the National Anarchists (who we sometimes publish) are a prime example. But National Anarchists are, from what I have seen, devotees of the spirit of race almost to a man. They are still locked into the German Idealist dynamic. The presence of runism and Odinism - at one point the FBI used “Odinist” and “white supremacist” as interchangeable terms - demonstrates the profound alienation of nationalist-minded folk from the people they seek to protect and preserve.
I had come to the conclusion when I recorded my two radio broadcasts titled The Poles of Helios that the teleological, Idealist dynamic offered us no way forward ... no underpinning for a structure of political survivalism for the present-day.
Empiricism in America, however, has offered us race-realist tools in the form of cognitive studies and genetically-derived human-bio-diversity. We have David Sloan Wilson’s group selection. We have Salter’s ethnic genetic interest. These tools belong in a 21st century world that holds scientists in far higher repute than politicians. They tell us about our investment in our own ethnic and racial distinctiveness, and our Nature-given obligation to protect it.
But the fear - near uniformly held among our thinkers - is that empiricism is too dry and incommunicable to train our people to the task of their own salvation. Their eyes must still be lifted to the horizon.
And so we arrive at the kernel of the problem: explaining ”why love” is not the same as loving! It’s the eternal emotional gap in the empirical mindset, and it has no obvious solution.
Well, no one said this business would be easy.
Comments (121) | Tell-a-Friend
The trackback URL for this entry is: Trackbacks are disabled for this entry
Trackbacks:
Comments:
GW touches on an important notion at the end of his essay: if someone doesn’t care whether Euros disappear or not, you can’t make him care, whether with or without Salter. This battle will be fought by those who already care, who are going to start coming forward more and more, to stand shoulder-to-shoulder with their blood-comrades, and PC and the Jews be damned. You’re going to see more and more of that, as our ranks start swelling with able people at a greater rate than heretofore. The other side has relatively easily peeled off the outer layers of the onion. They’re now going to start encountering the hard core, people who will not bend under any circumstances whatsoever.
The outcome of this crisis was determined a billion years ago. It’s in all of our genes.
Nietzsche and dynamite. Monsters and abyss’. Nietzsche said that he WAS dynamite, not just that his writings were. He thought of himself as, or at least strived through “will to power” to be, the living embodiment of his ideals. He strived long and hard against the shortcomings of his own physicality and ultimately death in palingenetic-pagan-heroic fashion to fight what he perceived as the slow dimming of the light of European man. European man had reached a stage of spiritual exhaustion, the natural outcome of his idealistic, empirical search for some grounding, some rational/empirical justification that he could point to ("Yes, ah ha, there it is!") for his way of life, even perhaps his continued physical existence. He thought that way of thinking was inherently masochistic. No such justification exists. He posited the “will to power” as the essence of life as a counter to Schopenhauer’s pessimism. But the scapel of his penetrating, skeptical mind surely must realized that this too cannot ultimately be ‘proved/grounded’ in the rational/empirical mode that Western man had come to demand. He probably strongly suspected it was true but ultimately “proving” it was beyond grasp. And even if one could “prove” it, why follow it? Why submit to its mandate? Because one “should”? Even the mighty Nietzsche could not defeat the necessity of the religious/normative ‘should’.
Looking out into the abyss is a terrifying prospect. Looking for meaning, a justification to go on, a justification of one’s and one’s own existence, is not for the faint of heart. What if none exists? A man in this position is utterly alone, stripped bare, beaten bloody, and has fallen to his knees, shaking and weeping. Will he have the strength to pick himself up? Can he? ‘Should’ he? Yes, if he is sufficiently strong. And strong he must be, if he is not to lash out at the ‘injustice’ that an uncaring universe has thrust upon him. He must light a candle, nay, create one, in the hopes that it will be a light to guide him and his people through the Valley of Death. He must be strong lest his candle become a stick of dynamite that will explode that which he loves and is trying to save. He must not become a monster.
National Socialism is the nuclear option. If resorted to we will have struck a match to dynamite to light our way. Could it be put out before it explodes after achieving its purpose? Will resorting to it achieve its purpose (securing the existence of our people) at all? If it comes to it, and we fail to resort to it, or having resorted to it fail in our objective will we ‘deserve’ our destruction? Yes, in Darwinian terms, yes. This was the standard of Adolf Hitler and I suspect also of Nietzsche.
May it never come to that.
National Socialism and dynamite. Monsters and abyss’.
Posted by Captainchaos on Monday, August 25, 2008 at 03:20 AM | #
An impossible hypothetical:
If the great machines of the MSM were turned off tomorrow it would probably take about a year or less for real, day-to-day, social interactions to become the major source of morals for our people, replacing the false stories of contrived social interactions which currently keep the populace in check. Is this true?
If people weren’t entertained by Hollywood movies, and if news were not filtered through and mutated by major newspapers, would the zeitgeist be able to live so healthily in everyone’s minds?
The problem, as I see it, is not the lack of a philosophical alternative to liberalism - even the most wonderfully coherent, inspirational and emperically reflective philosophy / religion for the West would not help right now - the problem is that the channels for its dissemination are all completely occupied by the enemy. The populace is being force-fed the moral instruction for its ethnic suicide.
The success of the current zeitgeist, if nothing else, shows that internal coherence, conforming with nature’s laws, and instinctive populatiry with the mind-host are not necessary ingredients in a religion. Mental effort should not be exhausted trying to formulate a new philosophy for the West. This comes in time, naturally, through the remembering and re-telling of the stories of ancestors who made good moral decisions for their people (or bad ones which led to a tragic ending). It is secondary to the saving of the people.
We all here seem to be about proposing solutions none of us can ever really hope to achieve (think GT’s easy online racialism) but I will do so none the less. New channels of mass-media need to be opened. TV and news media still carry massive moral weight due to the sheer numbers of people they reach (and thus moral supremacy: the more people that believe something, the more it must be true). Moral supremacy and high ground is a numbers game. I can think of details, but like the flaws in most of these sort of comments, I can’t think of how. Who, among us, or among the viewers of this site has within their reach the sort of capital, connections or skills required to challenge established MSM or create a new one?
Still, this is where I locate the immediate source of all our woes: a few steps removed from the NWO menace. I can’t offer much except humble suggestion that efforts should be directed at competing with the current machines of mass mind control rather than describing in finer detail the face of the global elite who are controlling the machines. When armies first brought tanks into war, their enemies did not try to work out who was driving the tanks: they worked out how to make tanks themselves. If we now know that we are at war - though a war unlike any other we have seen it is - let us adopt a similar strategy: discern the machines of war being employed against us and create and use them ourselves against the enemy.
One final point if I may: it was a Chinese poet and philoposher (can someone help me with the name?) who once said “the true purpose of poetry is to provide moral instruction”. This teaching has been forgotten, but the fact of its purpose remains. We learn through direct experience yes, but the vast bulk of our moral teaching is through the story: news stories, fictional stories, true stories in dramatic form, stories told to us about friends. It is a fundamental result of our ability as humans to communicate about abstract things - we don’t need to experience things to learn about them, we simply hear the stories of others: how they acted measured against a set of moral values, and the outcome of these actions. From the outcome we assess the moral values.
Posted by the badger on Monday, August 25, 2008 at 03:55 AM | #
Fred,
The “should” question mark remains. I don’t think we can rely upon genetic programming to cut in at some no longer bearable point, and sweep away the forces of the postmodern world.
I agree that in theory it could happen, and disillusion and wakefulness will spread among our people. I agree that a fully wire-up and operable, activist hard-core, including a putative elite, could emerge from the ranks of the disillusioned and the awake - and, obviously, is a precondition for any resistance on the ground. But I don’t think we can assume that there is some mechanical process in action by which it, and its success, “must” be generated. If you look at Flanders, France, Austria, you will see that nationalist sentiment has peaked electorally in the range of 20 to 30%, and not broken through. We cannot rely on inevitability.
cc,
Fine post. But I didn’t say that there is no way to unite thought and sensation/emotion or, indeed, physic and metaphysic. I only said it is not obvious.
There may be a way, but it is very narrow. It is consciousness of self - by which I do not simply mean racial consciousness as occurs in WN - a matter of contrast with other races. I mean a specific act of remembering, of paying attention, amid and in opposition to the mechanicity - the forgetting - that is our enslavement to postmodernity. I mean consciousness of the presence, or reality, of the European self. Thus, the teleological goal is neither reification of a mythical past or a heroic future, but awakening to our own being.
I do not yet know what’s really “in it”. There is one problem that may kill it. But in theory, at least, it fulfills the function of unity which you describe.
badger,
One of the reasons we have no power in this world is because, Mr Regnery aside, we have no resources. If we are intellectually serious, politically informed and astute, we can seek to address that. But only on that basis.
With sufficient backing, the way to proselytise is open, and it’s local. I agree that morality - in fact, the morality of survival - has to be a component in any such effort.
Posted by Guessedworker on Monday, August 25, 2008 at 09:25 AM | #
A looking within, a clearing of one’s mind, a calm, reflective search of how one’s self corresponds to some archetype of European man? I guess empirical research can give us at least a loose sketch of an archetype. The archetype seems to my mind the obvious connector between self and kind. So, how about articulating the archetype, educating the people as to it, and then saying, “Now reflect.”
Posted by Captainchaos on Monday, August 25, 2008 at 10:23 AM | #
My brain only works very slowly, cc.
Posted by Guessedworker on Monday, August 25, 2008 at 10:38 AM | #
It is not through the sham of ‘democracy’ that we can win this, it is through the seizing of power!
20-30% voting for certain parites is fine, and yes it has peaked, if you now wait until they peak at 50% and rely on 50% of the people supporting every action your future government would take, then you have already lost.
20-30% of the vote means there are millions of Europeans who don’t buy the current mess that is the postmodern world.
Out of those millions, there have to be at least a few thousand who could be trained and willing to help seize power from a treasonous government?
The governments of the west may have a lot of coercive power, but it has little in the way of moral support from it’s people.
Most coups and revolutions are instigated by a few people, hundreds or thousands at the most, we don’t need to win an election, we need to organise and strike when the time presents itself.
Seizing the Parliament building, when all the politicos are there, the head of state, the main ministries, the main MSM news stations, perhaps the police HQ and some military baracks.
All it would take is a few thousand men, armed, trained and willing!
Posted by James McGrath on Monday, August 25, 2008 at 01:54 PM | #
The American Revolution was pulled off with only 30% support among the people. Scholars estimate a third supported it, a Tory third opposed it (many of whom went to Canada during the war and after the American victory), and a third had no preference. The successful revolutionaries were a distinct minority.
Posted by Fred Scrooby on Monday, August 25, 2008 at 02:22 PM | #
The main difference being, as I can see it, is that the successful revolutionaries were willing to fight. To keep the people in line (or on side), and to ethnically cleanse the Tories or Loyalists, they used tactics that today we would label “authoritarian” and “terroristic”. Both sides in fact behaved this way. Let’s not forget, the American Revolution was an actual war, fought with musket, cannon, and bayonet. Here, today, we are just whispering in the wind. I’m not so much concerned with percentages, as I am with whether or not our people are willing to act, when the time comes.
Posted by Red Mercury on Monday, August 25, 2008 at 05:17 PM | #
Red Mercury is of course correct: speaking of “percentages,” the bolsheviks in 1917 certainly enjoyed far less than 30% support among the people but they were willing to fight and the international Jewish community was willing to pour funding into their coffers to give them the best fighting chance possible. The Jews pulled that victory off with far less than 20% percent of popular support for bolshevism.
Posted by Fred Scrooby on Monday, August 25, 2008 at 06:49 PM | #
Correct. Total numbers aren’t really an issue here. WNs who are willing to act on our beliefs probably will remain a minority for the time being. The question is, does our motivated minority possess the brutality required to suppress dissent? Will they take the necessary steps to eliminate opposition? Are they willing to get their hands bloody...er, dirty?
Posted by Dubai Exile on Monday, August 25, 2008 at 08:34 PM | #
Fred is correct. The Jews have racial identity on their side, while they have worked over a century or more to tell us that Whites have none. And, more’s the pity, we have believed them!
Nietszche was a mental defective, and all his talk of ‘will’ landed him in a nut-house -or hell, however you look at it.
I have stated it once before, and I will state it once again.
“You can’t fight something with nothing.”
You cannot fight Bolshevism, or talmudism, with a return to either Pagan Norse myths, or a scientism that denies the Almighty at every turn. You have to have a philosophy that is tied to an ethnos, as well as an ethos. The ethos has to be as noble, as visionary as the European that gave it life in the first place, and from which our civilization has its’ root.
That is European Christianity.
Not Romanism, Not Liberal Protestantism, and certainly NOT judaism, which is our mutual enemy, as is Islam. That liberals and fools, and liberal fools don’t yet know that, is proof of my first statement. But there are those who are not listening to the EP, the Vatican, or the Bedlam of Canterbury.
You will never, I repeat, NEVER succeed, until and unless you look to the “White Christ” as leader of your forces.
YOu cannot mount a successful battle against the Jews and the non-Whites (Obama and company) until you acknowledge that Christ, and He alone, is your King.
Posted by Fr. John on Monday, August 25, 2008 at 10:43 PM | #
James McGrath: It is not through the sham of ‘democracy’ that we can win this, it is through the seizing of power!
And how do you do that, citizen? White Americans have less military capability than they do media capability.
Most coups and revolutions are instigated by a few people, hundreds or thousands at the most, we don’t need to win an election, we need to organise and strike when the time presents itself.
No, you need a reality check. The total security state can see your every move.
Seizing the Parliament building, when all the politicos are there, the head of state, the main ministries, the main MSM news stations, perhaps the police HQ and some military baracks.
Well, I think that was a federal crime you committed right there. Look, if you are really serious about violent revolution it would be a pretty sound idea not to announce the fact on an open blog.
Posted by Guessedworker on Monday, August 25, 2008 at 11:14 PM | #
“It is an astonishingly extreme list, not just by our inevitably liberalistic standards today but by the standards of the inter-war era too. I have made the point once or twice with enthusiasts of this stuff that, actually, they could not have survived this ideological straitjacket, and would most likely have been the first to be lined up against the wall. “
Erm...no. You should stick to English politics and history, GW. You don’t know ANYTHING about National Socialism or the Third Reich. You’re reflexively hostile to all things German, a character trait you share with your fellow insulars, of course. At least you could do your readers a favour and stop commenting on things you don’t understand and insinctively hate anyways. I’m reminded of Ian Kershaw who in the introduction to his biography of Hitler states that he “abhors” everything about the man. How do you like that? Do you expect anything but lies and hate from such an impartial historical observer? Further in his introduction, Kershaw (who got an knighthood from the Old Dear for his efforts) writes that Hitler had no other interests beyond politics. Oh? Really? How about art and architecture? Classical music and opera? Animal welfare? Etc., etc., etc. This is the type of garbage GW reads and accepts as Gospel. You never hear an alternative interpretation. Irving couldn’t even get Goebbels published, although the work is hardly pro-Nazi. The Allies have been dissembling for 60 years now and it’s not about to stop.
Althoug you don’t like to hear it, the Third Reich was a fantastic time. It was a time when Germany was happy, healthy, prosperous, clean, homogeneous, orderly, beautiful, and a powerhouse. A time when Germany’s government had real Germans at its helm who had Germany’s best interests at heart. Simply by far the best years in German history! A magical time for Germans.
As someone commented on my blog:
Yes, indeed. My mother, who was a young girl at the time, often pities us (her children), that we did not and probably never will experience anything like it. She says it is nowadays just inconceivable and for us unimaginable. She is naturally not talking about material wealth (even so everyone finally got around after the lean years before), but about the spirit and sense of freedom and optimism regarding the furure. She always tell us, what a good time (schöne Zeit) it had been. According to her the contrast to the filth and decadence of Germany today (of which she is thorougly disgusted) could not be any bigger.
I guess you never read such views in your conformist little history books written by the same people who fire-bombed our ancient cities, “re-educated” us into oblivion after the war in a climate of deliberately imposed starvation, and gave away 1/3 of our country to our enemies...while applauding and encouraging the ethnic murder and expulsion of 16 million Germans.
I really wish you’d leave Germans alone.
Posted by Friedrich Braun on Tuesday, August 26, 2008 at 01:46 AM | #
“I have made the point once or twice with enthusiasts of this stuff that, actually, they could not have survived this ideological straitjacket, and would most likely have been the first to be lined up against the wall.” -GW
Do you mean because only fanatical, conformist toady-brutes are suited for this type of ‘work’? The kind that Einstein said the brain-stem would suffice, I presume.
Posted by Captainchaos on Tuesday, August 26, 2008 at 01:51 AM | #
Friedrich,
I’m half-German by blood, I abhor the genocidal-in-implication demonization of those, my kinsman. I abhor the inhuman brutalities visited upon the “flesh of my flesh” by the oh so righteous Allies (bitter sarcasm), but that does not excuse the Lebensraum usurpery and brutal means by which it was shorty gained and would have to have been cemented in the future were Germany’s victory won.
Arn’t you the guy who said you didn’t give a fuck what happened to the Poles and that by implication they are subhuman scum?
I don’t think any further comment of that gem is necessary.
My moral vision of a better world, for good or ill, was inculcated in me as a child from J.R.R Tolkien’s The Lord of the Rings. Some have dismissed that masterwork as childish escapism, but, to this day, it represents to me a moral vision orders of magniture superior to Mein Kampf.
Tolkien, German by blood, but English by enculturation condemned vigorously the depredations inflicted upon the conquered and prostrate Germans.
In the book, Aragorn, the rightful King, by established tradition and by personal quality, does just enough to secure the existence of his people, and those others whom he would give his life to protect. He is heroic, strong of will, a brilliant battle commander, but most importantly he is magnanimous. He is a good man. That is why his people love him, would die for him. He does not need to force them, to propagandize them to this effect.
Hitler, for all his virtues, was, I’m afraid, in the final analysis, not a good man. Therefore, in my humble, sentiment riddled opinion, he was not fit to rule.
There comes a time after victory is won that MUST be a vision of brotherhood, magnaminity, and love or else it was all for nothing.
I’ve flirted with National Socialism myself, but I have, now, come to the conclusion that that’s not where it’s at, brother.
Posted by Captainchaos on Tuesday, August 26, 2008 at 02:49 AM | #
Arn’t you the guy who said you didn’t give a fuck what happened to the Poles and that by implication they are subhuman scum?
The fact that I don’t care about them doesn not mean “by implication” that they’re “subhuman scum”, it just means that I don’t care about them.
These are the same people who got a country in 1918 thanks to Germany and, as a thank you, proceeded to ethnically cleanse and oppress their German minority. In the interwar period, they piled stupid provocation upon stupid provocation upon stupid provocation (nobody has ever accused the Poles of being smart geopoliticians. These are the same people who got their country dismembered three times in history, 4 times if you count the Ribbentrop-Molotov Pact). Going as far as killing our customs officials in Danzig (95% + German city, National Socialist before the Reich, begging Hitler to be united with it). I won’t even mention what they did after the war to German civilians...starving and freezing women and children...with the happy acquiescence of the Allies.
Some sources:
Poland from the Inside.
http://www.wintersonnenwende.com/scriptorium/english/archives/deathinpoland/dp00.html
Death in Poland
The Fate of the Ethnic Germans
http://www.wintersonnenwende.com/scriptorium/english/archives/polandinside/pfi00.html
Poland and Germany
http://www.germancross.com/Poland/Poland&Germany;.htm
Polish Atrocities
Against the German Minority in Poland
http://www.jrbooksonline.com/polish_atrocities.htm
The Image of the Germans in Polish Literature
http://www.cwporter.com/image.htm
Hitler, for all his virtues, was, I’m afraid, in the final analysis, not a good man. Therefore, in my humble, sentiment riddled opinion, he was not fit to rule.
Who cares what a Yank thinks? What a Yank (or, let’s say, the Englishman Guessedworker) thinks of Adolf Hitler is completely immaterial. Adolf Hitler set out to make Germans and Germany great and powerful, that was his sole objective. That was his life’s obsession.
Posted by Friedrich Braun on Tuesday, August 26, 2008 at 03:41 AM | #
Who cares what a Yank thinks? What a Yank (or, let’s say, the Englishman Guessedworker) thinks of Adolf Hitler is completely immaterial. Adolf Hitler set out to make Germans and Germany great and powerful, that was his sole objective. That was his life’s obsession.
Posted by Friedrich Braun on Tuesday, August 26, 2008 at 03:41 AM
Many are the woes and the cruelties of this world. When will it end? Not and never if you have your way. I guess that is where we part ways.
Posted by Captainchaos on Tuesday, August 26, 2008 at 04:29 AM | #
“My moral vision of a better world, for good or ill, was inculcated in me as a child from J.R.R Tolkien’s The Lord of the Rings. Some have dismissed that masterwork as childish escapism, but, to this day, it represents to me a moral vision orders of magniture superior to Mein Kampf.”
by Captainchaos on Tuesday, August 26, 2008
Looking at the state of affairs of The West SINCE 1945, it would seem, in retrospect, that Gondor (Britain) and Rohan (America) made the decision to ally with Mordor (Zionism) and assail Rivendell (Gemany), deposing Elrond (Hitler).
All of the policies that so many people now wring their hands over –feminism, abortion, gay rights, mass invasion of (exclusively) Western nations and the ethnic cleansing of Whites from their own lands, hate crimes, rewriting Western history to portray Whites as evil, abolition of Freedom of Association, attacks upon the traditional family, etc…didn’t began to spread like wildfire until AFTER the Axis was defeated and the Allies reigned victorious.
When WWII was over the Allies went on to implement the policies, the vision of the future, they fought for which were in direct opposition to the Axis/Nazi vision.
We’re living out their vision today.
Take a good long look at the rapidly crumbling West about you and keep in mind that all that you see represents Nazi defeat and Allied victory…
Posted by the Narrator... on Tuesday, August 26, 2008 at 07:25 AM | #
Narrator,
If you have not already done so, I strongly recommend you to read Tom Sunic’s Homo americanus. It lays out in detail the psychological and philosophical antecedents of our European self-destruction. It reflects Tom’s interest in “locutions”. It isn’t about Jewish activism, although the forward by Kevin MacDonald largely is. So it will not satisfy the advocates of a Single Jewish Cause. But the reader will certainly gain an understanding of the triumph of American egalitarianism over everything, including its Soviet parallel and, of course, all the traditional societies of old Europe.
Friedrich,
You seem to have missed the point that I am not writing about Hitler or Germany, but about palingenesis and volkishness - and ultimately about thought and experience.
Germans are the arch exponents of racial palingenisis, and I have quoted from their most extreme adventure with it, that’s all. Do you really think that the Master Race was not an outrageous idea in the 1930s, repugnant to the entire world? Or the slave-labour that flowed from it? Or the militarisation of society? Or the violent appropriation of other peoples’ homelands? Did the world want to see Germany made “great and powerful” by such means? Or do you think it might eventually be forced to resist?
For me, in this article, the exception I take is grounded in the English empirical tradition. For example, is it true that Germans are/were the Master Race? I rather doubt it, and I could be as Germanic as you.
You are today as in love with Hitler and the destiny of German greatness which he represented in his person as any shiny-eyed, uniformed kid in Munich or Berlin c 1936. You are a perfect example of Palingenetic Man. I don’t expect you to want to question your religious beliefs. But I must, because I am trying to penetrate to the core of the issues which lie beyond them.
Posted by Guessedworker on Tuesday, August 26, 2008 at 08:18 AM | #
I’m hearing more and more, what l did our fathers, uncles, brothers fight for? What the heck was it all about? People are saying we, Britain, would have been better off throwing our lot in with Germany. (or worse still - lost the war) It would be a brave person who would argue otherwise.
On another tack. For sometime now I have considered myself an awakened individual, (smug about it too) the other day I followed a link by GW to a site run by a chap Troy Southgate, whose name I hadn’t come across before, the only Southgate I could recollect was a Gareth Southgate of English soccer renown - sorry I digress.
After skim reading his site - ‘Synthesis,’ (that’s all I have time for these days - skimming and scrolling, and it shows in my posts I’m afraid!) A confirmation of a suspicion I have been experiencing for some time was cementing itself in my mind, in short, a new lexicon was beginning to form in my narrative of Race Replacement, namely a harking back to pre Christian times of paganism and other beliefs of occult - always in relation to writings concerning a movement calling itself ‘The New Right.’ (see also for instance on Lee Barnes site - 21st Century Nationalism)
All of which, I haven’t the vaguest notion.
Throughout my awakening, the one constant thought running through my head has been, where is the resistance to come from to this RR steamroller? I have been in despair from the beginning that there has been no sign, (or very little) of a serious embryo resistance to liberalism per se. Which leads me to ask, how seriously is this entity, ‘New Right’ to be taken in the scheme of things?
On a personal note, I feel that even without the threat of RR, Western civilisation is at the crossroads, what I men by this is, with external, (not man-fabricated) threats as there are, climate change, resource scarcity, population growth etc (you know I’ve said it all before) our way of life is finished anyway, and a new way of doing things (living arrangement as Kunstler would have it) is being inevitably forced on us. As we humans have never encountered anything like it before, it will be interesting to see if we, as a race can influence such gravitas events - will remain to be seen.
We’re all watching a train wreck in slow motion - as I once read somewhere.
Posted by Bill on Tuesday, August 26, 2008 at 09:43 AM | #
Narrator’s comment a few above, and Bill’s first paragraph just above, are correct in what they spell out explicitly and in all that they signify implicitly. One-hundred-percent correct.
Posted by Fred Scrooby on Tuesday, August 26, 2008 at 10:23 AM | #
I have to question GW’s reply to Narrator: America doesn’t want this, all the stuff Narrator lists. Maybe those across the ocean can’t feel it, but the genuine, normal “American egalitarianism” to which he refers, call it “Davy Crockett egalitarianism,” which reigned prior to the advent of outright Jewish hegemony in the sixties, was normal, innocent, healthy, good, not extreme, not insane, not something straight out of the worst nightmares of Franz Kafka and the most enthusiastic effusions of Pol Pot, Saul Alinsky, and Leon Trotsky all rolled into one, which is exactly what we’ve gotten without interruption since the sixties. It wasn’t like that before the sudden seismic change forty-five years ago, and Americans don’t like what’s going on any more than Brits do. Something happened in the sixties, something sudden and civilizationally awful: something latched on and refuses to let go, refuses to let things get back to normal. That something was NOT “American egalitarianiasm” but something totally alien and totally sick. America has a disease, is dying from it, and is spreading that disease throughout the Eurosphere.
I know the disease’s name.
Posted by Fred Scrooby on Tuesday, August 26, 2008 at 10:37 AM | #
“If you have not already done so, I strongly recommend you to read Tom Sunic’s Homo americanus. It lays out in detail the psychological and philosophical antecedents of our European self-destruction. It reflects Tom’s interest in “locutions”. It isn’t about Jewish activism, although the forward by Kevin MacDonald largely is. So it will not satisfy the advocates of a Single Jewish Cause. But the reader will certainly gain an understanding of the triumph of American egalitarianism over everything, including its Soviet parallel and, of course, all the traditional societies of old Europe.”
-Guessedworker
I worded it, “didn’t begin to spread like wildfire until after the Axis was defeated” on purpose. Yes the flames were already present and being stoked. But they’ve always been there.
The French Revolution....The American Revolution.....Alexander’s global vision etc…
The outcome of WWII however opened the floodgates of what up until that time had been merely an irritating trickle.
For example the outcome of the American Civil War had the opposite effect. Americans became more aware racially (and overtly racist) after The Confederacy had lost. Up until WW II the KKK had millions of members (and its history celebrated at the movies in Birth Of A Nation), Madison Grant was a respected and influential writer, Eugenics was widely practiced, politicians spoke openly of preserving America’s racial majority, Westerns were still Cowboy (Whites) vs. Indians (non-White) etc…
Racism was overt and unabashed.
Yes, that little flame was there, but it was a mere nuisance that was kept in check.
Then comes 1945 and the little flame became an all encompassing inferno which has scorched every Western nation on earth.
And the phrase “American Egalitarianism” seems a bit odd since White Americans tend be accused of being far more xenophobic, racist and isolationist than Europeans.
It seems there is the America that is, and the America that is presented to be…
Posted by the Narrator... on Tuesday, August 26, 2008 at 11:08 AM | #
National Socialism - Concentration Camps, Communism - The Gulag, Liberalism - Freedom inside a cage.
Some choice - Eh?
Posted by Bill on Tuesday, August 26, 2008 at 11:25 AM | #
“Looking at the state of affairs of The West SINCE 1945, it would seem, in retrospect, that Gondor (Britain) and Rohan (America) made the decision to ally with Mordor (Zionism) and assail Rivendell (Gemany), deposing Elrond (Hitler).
All of the policies that so many people now wring their hands over –feminism, abortion, gay rights, mass invasion of (exclusively) Western nations and the ethnic cleansing of Whites from their own lands, hate crimes, rewriting Western history to portray Whites as evil, abolition of Freedom of Association, attacks upon the traditional family, etc…didn’t began to spread like wildfire until AFTER the Axis was defeated and the Allies reigned victorious.” -the Narrator
“It is not our part to master all the tides of the world, but to do what is in us for the succour of those years wherein we are set, uprooting the evil in the fields that we know, so that those who live after may have clean earth to till. What weather they shall have is not ours to rule. (Gandalf, The Lord of the Rings)”
— J.R.R. Tolkien
Germany = Rivendell, Elrond = Hitler? LOL!
Posted by Captainchaos on Tuesday, August 26, 2008 at 09:08 PM | #
“It is distressing to see the press grovelling in the gutter as low as Goebbels in his prime, shrieking that any German commander who holds out in a desperate situation (when, too, the military needs of his side clearly benefit) is a drunkard, and a besotted fanatic ... There was a solemn article in the local paper seriously advocating systematic exterminating of the entire German nation as the only proper course after military victory: because, if you please, they are rattlesnakes, and don’t know the difference between good and evil! (What of the writer?) The Germans have just as much right to declare the Poles and Jews exterminable vermin, subhuman, as we have to select the Germans: in other words, no right, whatever they have done.” -Tolkien, from a 1944 letter to his son
“After Aragorn’s return as the King of Arnor and Gondor, the Shire became a protected enclave inside the Reunited Kingdom. He is known to have issued an edict that forbade the entrance of full-sized Men into the Shire.” -Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shire_(Middle-earth)
Salterian nationalism? Respect of EGI?
“Some have dismissed that masterwork as childish escapism, but, to this day, it represents to me a moral vision orders of magniture superior to Mein Kampf.” I stand behind that statement 100%.
Posted by Captainhchaos on Tuesday, August 26, 2008 at 10:02 PM | #
And don’t forget the big reason why the ‘Allies’ (i.e., genocidal hypocrites) need the ‘holocaust’ storyline.
Here’s a sobering list of references which make it all too clear why the ‘Allies’ of WWII need the ‘holocaust’ fraud, it’s used in an attempt to deflect and mask the very real genocidal horrors they inflicted upon Germany and others.
- Hannover http://forum.codoh.com/viewtopic.php?t=5065
from:
http://www.heretical.com/miscellx/blitz.html
Posted by Friedrich Braun on Tuesday, August 26, 2008 at 11:05 PM | #
“which make it all too clear why the ‘Allies’ of WWII need the ‘holocaust’ fraud, it’s used in an attempt to deflect and mask the very real genocidal horrors they inflicted upon Germany and others.” (—FB)
True.
Posted by Fred Scrooby on Tuesday, August 26, 2008 at 11:14 PM | #
The master race aspect of German policy was both purely Hitlerian (i.e. other national socialist leaders like Mussolini and Franco didnt emulate it) and a mirror strategy against the Jews’ ‘chosen people’ meme.
Posted by Al Ross on Tuesday, August 26, 2008 at 11:15 PM | #
The Allies (the U.S., the U.K., and the USSR) were by far the biggest war criminals in that war, and it’s not even close.
Posted by Fred Scrooby on Tuesday, August 26, 2008 at 11:17 PM | #
“The master race aspect of German policy was both purely Hitlerian (i.e. other national socialist leaders like Mussolini and Franco didnt emulate it) and a mirror strategy against the Jews’ ‘chosen people’ meme.” (—Al)
It was also necessary, Al, in order to teach ordinary uneducated classes of Germans not to miscegenate with Negroes. These classes of your race, German or otherwise, aren’t going to appreciate subtler notions, and will go out and procreate with Negroes after the next Jewish movie production they see touting blonde German (or English, or French, or what-have-you) women and Negro men black as the Earl of Hell’s waistcoat as couples. You teach them from the tenderest age they’re superior, it’ll sink in not to do that, because it’s shameful to do when you’re superior. There are PLENTY of Jewish groups out there that teach their young membership the same in regard to Jews: they’re a superior race, and it’s a shameful thing to mix with the goys. The Japs don’t have to teach their kids that, as it’s an ingrained part of their general culture already. It never occurs to any Jap to doubt their complete racial superiority and the shamefulness of mixing with other peoples. I consider Hitler’s superior race thing innocent and reasonable.
Posted by Fred Scrooby on Tuesday, August 26, 2008 at 11:27 PM | #
It’s also probably not wide of the mark.
Posted by Fred Scrooby on Tuesday, August 26, 2008 at 11:30 PM | #
Fred,in the final analysis the only test of biological superiority is the ability to survive and given that Germany (like too many White countries) sees the way to progress as requiring the wholesale importation of highly fecund, low average IQ, Third World racial aliens, we must question any notion of superiority.
Posted by Al Ross on Wednesday, August 27, 2008 at 12:04 AM | #
Intrinsic to the Master Race doctrine is a dynamic of dominance by the “superior” and a forcible subduing of the “inferior”. NOT a humble, voluntary submission to what is noble. That is not morally respectable. Hitler didn’t try to exterminate the Jews? I can buy that. I don’t think that it is arguable that the National Socialist regime didn’t exterminate some mentally ill and handicapped people. That is vile barbarism. Men like William Pierce (Turner Diaries) do advocate extermination of genetically distinct human groups. I’m willing to bet they see Hitler’s failing to do so as a failure of nerve. They, I’m willing to bet, see themselves as more courageous, more pure practitioners of the “true faith” of National Socialism. That is the Master Race doctrine taken to its logical conclusion. That is vile barbarism.
As to the supposed necessity of said doctrine to keep Whites from miscegenation I don’t by it. The vast majority of Whites don’t anyways despite the constant barrage of miscegenation propaganda. There is obviously some evolved mechanism that keeps them from doing so. If there was not, and our only salvation lay in extreme “noble lies” (in my opinion it is anything but noble) our goose would probably already be cooked.
There will be a life to be lived after victory is won; what world that? It seems that some admire the National Socialists and National Socialism because they/it were strong, not because they were good. Tolkien’s lesson to us is that strength does not require the jettisoning of decency. That is morally respectable. Is it categorically true? I doubt it.
I am willing to resort to National Socialism; but only as a last resort. However, I will not be proud of having done so.
Posted by Captainchaos on Wednesday, August 27, 2008 at 10:10 AM | #
Then please feel free, without necessarily informing rational MR supporters, to resort to Tolkien’s fairy tales, where doubtless you will be psychologically accommodated.
Posted by Al Ross on Wednesday, August 27, 2008 at 10:47 AM | #
GW,
you say “that does not excuse the Lebensraum usurpery”
I wonder why you and others always concentrate on the negatives of that era, negatives, which mostly were a result of the war hoistet upon Germany, but don’t want to see the positives. Do you really expect to get a system, which is purely positives?
Naturally Hitler was strongly influenced by the events of his time. Lebensraum is almost a synonym to carrying capacity. That was an issue not only for Hitler, but rather a general one at the time in Germany and can be understood from the following background: WW1 ended with Germany surrendering her arms against contractual affirmation by the allies, that there would be no territorial changes without consent of the involved populations. Once Germany was defenceless the former promises were conveniently forgotten by the allies and instead the Versailles dictate drawn up. In order to force Germany to sign it, a blockade was enacted causing the deaths of an estimated 800 000 Germans, as Germany did not have enough carrying capacity/Lebensraum to feed her population. Despite their promises the victors of WW1 felt free to annex large tracts of Germany with majority German population, thereby reducing the already tight Lebensraum:
northern half of Schleswig to Denmark
Malmedy Eupen to Belgium
Elsace Lorraine to France
South Tyrol to Italy
Sudeten area to Checkoslovakia
upper Silesia, parts of Pomerania, and West Prussia to Poland (and some I believe to Russia)
and in virtually all cases an immediate suppression of the Germans in those annexed parts followed, often resulting in their ethnic cleansing, and nobody else giving a damn about it . So you see, the “usurpery for Lebensraum” is nothing specific to Hitler, actually pre-dates him. One could even make the claim, that he was just reacting. As a German you could draw 2 conclusions from that:
1. if you are the winner of a war you just do as you like
2. in order to avoid a repeat of such a situation, you must have sufficient Lebensraum
All these catch-words like Lebensraum, master race (which by the way was coined by Nietzsche for the Nordic race and not specifcally for Germans) etc. which in reality were side issues, and are nowadays usually being used with the intend of denouncing, really distract only from the positives,that being the preservation and enhancement of the white race. All that is certainly not the heart of National Socialism, but of course is today generally being used to discredit it. I note, that you also push these points.
In a best case scenario, one could envision a world, where Hitler had managed to avoid the WW2 (which was the last thing he wanted and needed. Of course, once it was there he had to make the best of it) and it’s horrors. I am very sure, that in that world under peaceful conditions and with sufficient time (all of which it never had), National Socialism would have evolved into a political system, that would have been very attractive, if not irresistable to many other countries, too. But of course the biggest positive, the one that trumps all and everything, is, that us whites would generally be infinitely better off than now. And what can you say against that?
Posted by 123 on Wednesday, August 27, 2008 at 09:00 PM | #
Then please feel free, without necessarily informing rational MR supporters, to resort to Tolkien’s fairy tales, where doubtless you will be psychologically accommodated.
There’s no getting around it, you are an ALsshole!
Posted by Dave Johns on Wednesday, August 27, 2008 at 09:40 PM | #
If one is willing to impose an allegory on the LOTR, which Tolkein would have rejected in any form, one I think that fits is a mid-20th century world that should have been but wasn’t. I would argue for different associations than “the Narrator” did earlier. The closest thing I can find to a Hitlerian figure is Gandalf as the cleanser of Theoden/Rohan allowing return to its wholeness as opposed to the Saruman-addled variety. Remember how Gandalf was called a “war monger” by Wormtongue for daring to defy Saruman? Sound familiar? Even at that Gondor is a much better fit overall for Germany. In this could-have-been story Mordor is the Soviet Union; Gondor is Germany – the foremost bulwark of the West against Mordor; Rohan is the rest of the West (UK, France, USA); the Wise (Elrond, Gandalf, etc.) are the true Aryan elite of the West; Saruman is the Judaized elite with whatever Shabbaz Goy firepower could be mustered, the supposed ally who poisons the minds and spirits of all he can in ultimate service to his true master. Even though Gondor fits as Germany Denethor is the antithesis of Hitler. Again, Gandalf as the defender of Minas Tirith fits better.
If the true elite of the West had cast out “Saruman” from the “White Council” (as happened in the LOTR) it would have allied with “Gondor” in her defense from the real enemy and the West would have prevailed. The real story is that Saruman took over the White Council and purged it of dissent, both defiled Rohan and talked her into attacking Gondor from the west, which allowed Mordor to sack Gondor and massacre her people. The Numenoreans (Aryan Man) who survived the decimation of the war were then targeted for further defilement and extinction. If the current situation is any indicator Gandalf, Elrond, and Aragorn were clearly killed or driven off since there is no longer any Wise who represent the West. The Haradrim, Easterlings, Dunlendings, and Variags and other sallow, swarthy, and squint-eyed folk were then “invited” by the new “Wise” to reside in Rohan and the Shire and all other areas of those who aligned with Saruman and Mordor against Gondor.
Even if Tolkein had written the LOTR as a what-might-have-been story for us (highly doubtful in the first place) he could have never admitted it given what was clearly conveyed even in his time as acceptable thought.
For those of you who persist in claiming that America and Britain and France picked the right side, I hope you wake up soon for we are running out of time. We sided with absolute evil to kill our own brother. If we never recover from that mistake we will only be getting our just desserts. We may be favored enough (by chance, nature, God?) to escape what appears to be our fate. On the one hand I hope so but a people that keep getting handed snakes and stones from the same “friend” without ever awakening deserve extinction.
Let me amend my previous post.
Al Ross is an asshole.
Posted by Dave Johns on Wednesday, August 27, 2008 at 10:12 PM | #
# Ayran supremacism (die Herrenrasse) and the “educational” propaganda associated with it.
# The cult of the Führer.
# The total state, state terrorism.
# The militarisation of society, including the establishment of the Schutzstaffel elite and the Hitlerjugend.
# Eugenics, racial hygiene.
# Slave-labour.
# Lebensraum.
It follows the themes of American Manifest Destiny.
1. the natural superiority of what was then called the “Anglo-Saxon race”
2. American exceptionalism
3. the virtue of the American people and their institutions;
4. the mission to spread these institutions, thereby redeeming and remaking the world in the image of the U.S.;
5. the destiny under God to accomplish this work.
6. Eugenics
7. Slave-labour (racial and wage slave labour)
8. Lebensraum
Posted by Desmond Jones on Wednesday, August 27, 2008 at 10:30 PM | #
Well, I will re-state that the purpose of this post was not to revisit WW2 yet again, which is of little interest to me. In broad terms and purely for the record, I am against National Socialism for its, from an English perspective, utterly absurd palingenic dreams. I would doubtless have fought just as my father and uncles did, in whatever capacity was open to me, to help bring the Third Reich down.
But that is a supremely irrelevant issue and, given our present extremis, a self-indulgent one. We do not need to waste our time on it.
The purpose of the post was to elucidate the deep unreality of the teleological or Idealist or palingenic on the one hand, and the non-engagement of the ontological or empirical or volkish on the other. In other words, can’t live with palingenesis, can’t live without it. And, very likely, there’s no synthesis to be had, either. That’s the spot of bother we are in, and the fundamental reason why we as a movement cannot intellectualise and agree upon a unifying, foundational ideology.
Most of us don’t even understand why intellectual foundations and ideological unity are necessary!
Posted by Guessedworker on Thursday, August 28, 2008 at 12:03 AM | #
Then please feel free, without necessarily informing rational MR supporters, to resort to Tolkien’s fairy tales, where doubtless you will be psychologically accommodated.
Posted by Al Ross on Wednesday, August 27, 2008 at 10:47 AM
There once was a time when literature was an accepted moral tutor. If I had chosen the Iliad “fairy tale” as a standard would that be more to your liking?
wjg, is correct. Tolkien explicitly rejected the idea of the LOTR as allegory, yet it is close and he was certainly influenced by the events of WWII. An important lesson that can be gleaned from the book is that we get ourselves into tremendous trouble when we dispense with our decency. Everyone always scheming and trying to get one over on the next guy before he gets one over on him until tempers flair so badly we find it necessary to have a dust up. Is that good?
Hitler’s Lebensraum land snatching scheme from fellow Whites, was that morally defensible? No, seems like a no-brainer to me.
Was the present level of race-replacement immigration an inevitable result of the Allied victory? Or is that the responsibility of the people who allowed it to occur afterwards?
Is it some type of character defect on my part to only want to utilize the most extreme solution (the implementation of National Socialism) as a last resort?
Besides, what makes anyone think that the fervor and momentum of National Socialism could have been sustained? If Churchill was “the indispensable man” then Hitler certainly was as well. Who would have been the “great man” to succeed him? Heydrich? Goring? Speer? Himmler? Goebbels? LOL!
I think it goes without saying that I intend no offence to anyone in stating my opinions forcefully.
Posted by Captainchaos on Thursday, August 28, 2008 at 12:50 AM | #
Do you really think that the Master Race was not an outrageous idea in the 1930s, repugnant to the entire world?
Adolf Hitler views on race weren’t particularly “outrageous” or spectacular. And didn’t differ from those held by English eugenicists during that same period.
Or the slave-labour that flowed from it?
Nothing comparble to the British famine policy in India ever occurred at the time of Third Reich.
As B.M. Bhatia writes in his 1967 book, Famines in India: “From about the beginning of the eleventh century to the end of the eighteenth there were 14 major famines in India.” This is roughly two per century. Under the period of East India Company rule from 1765-1858 there occurred 16 major famines, a rate eight times higher than what had been common before. Then, under the period of British Colonial Office rule from 1859 to 1914, there was a major famine in India an average of every two years, or 25 times the historical rate before British rule! The rest of the world’s population was growing due to technological progress, but the population of India remained at approximately 220 million for over a century prior to 1914.
Deliberately inducing a major famine more or less every two years, was, for over half a century, the backbone of British colonial policy in India.
Or the militarisation of society?
How Germans decide to order their society shouldn’t be any of your business.
Or the violent appropriation of other peoples’ homelands?
A Brit would know a thing or two about the “appropriaton of other peoples’ homelands.”
Did the world want to see Germany made “great and powerful” by such means? Or do you think it might eventually be forced to resist?
The “world”? You mean Britain, of course.
Posted by Friedrich Braun on Thursday, August 28, 2008 at 04:39 AM | #
The Germans have just as much right to declare the Poles and Jews exterminable vermin, subhuman, as we have to select the Germans: in other words, no right, whatever they have done.” -Tolkien, from a 1944 letter to his son
Tolkien was no less susceptible to propaganda then than we are today.
“Some have dismissed that masterwork as childish escapism, but, to this day, it represents to me a moral vision orders of magniture superior to Mein Kampf.” I stand behind that statement 100%.
Posted by Captainhchaos on Tuesday, August 26, 2008
Morals are easily created and upheld in a fantasy world.
The events of 1945 were the most significant in the history of Western Civilization. The West was (ostensibly) defeated that year.
Will The West rise to fight once more?
Only if it is willing to. And to be willing to it must, without hesitation, declare, “these are our people, those are not.” -After all, I don’t recall Aragorn designating an official Orcland for the Orcs after the War of The Ring.-
To the question of whether or not Hitler fought for all Western Men, I would say yes and no.
He fought for the idea of a perfected European Man. And he would have pursued that within his realm of rule (which, in the end, would probably have resembled the boundaries of the old Holy Roman Empire).
The rest of The West (America, Britain, Russia etc..) would have been compelled to compete with German Ideas and we would have seen a push for more White births (not less) in the direction of the ideal White man.
In a post-Axis win West, European Man’s history and culture would have been held in high regard and honored.....As opposed to post-Allies won West where the imminent extinction of the White race is celebrated by governments, media and churches.
Would it be a sorrow-free world of rainbows and sunny skies?
Of course not. But at least the notion of flooding White nations with third-world peoples would have been unthinkable. The third world would have been left to wither in the disease, crime and poverty that is endemic to it’s peoples. Racial realities would have continued to be accepted and studied and miscegenation would have been looked upon as the apex of moral degeneracy.
As I said, life is filled with more sorrow than joy, yet most sane people believe life is preferable to death.
Unfortunately in 1945 the Allies of The West chose death.
And that leaves us today waiting and hoping for a resurrection…
In other words, can’t live with palingenesis, can’t live without it. And, very likely, there’s no synthesis to be had, either. That’s the spot of bother we are in, and the fundamental reason why we as a movement cannot intellectualise and agree upon a unifying, foundational ideology.
-Guessedworker
Survival is about 90% instinct and 10% reasoning. Most people live out their life and culture without ever pondering its complexities or reasons for being.
Necessity is the force behind power.
Might does not make right, necessity does…
Posted by the Narrator... on Thursday, August 28, 2008 at 07:15 AM | #
Narrator,
The world is made by ideas. We have the same “necessity” (an interest in continuity) as any previous generations of Europe’s peoples. It is the ideas associated with the Enlightenment which have opened into internationalism and anti-nationalism, materialism and the myth of boundless progress, and the atomisation of the self-absorbed individual.
Look at the material posted on our threads recently by Alex - it’s mostly drawn from the offerings of idealists and intellectuals of the 19th Century. The drive towards a European ethno-suicide was being seated in the political canon 140 years ago, when Marx was only just publishing the first volume of Das Kapital.
The point of our endeavours here, and of JWH’s at Western Biopolitics, is to map the means by which Necessity may return to its proper place in public discourse and thence, through politics, to its quiet but insistent, leading role in public life. You understand - Necessity won’t do it by herself. She must be chosen. And, for that, a corpus of new ideas counterveiling the postmodern and justifying our path out of it must be brought into being.
The last great attempt to do this was by the forty mostly French intellectuals of Alain de Benoist’s GRECE. A similar attempt might emerge from Ateney in Russia or from the New Right in London. But I fear that none of these groups are interested in the empirical, and I don’t believe that visions of the European future can be reified without a foundation in reality.
Posted by Guessedworker on Thursday, August 28, 2008 at 09:02 AM | #
“As I said, life is filled with more sorrow than joy, yet most sane people believe life is preferable to death.
Unfortunately in 1945 the Allies of The West chose death.” - the Narrator
Yes, historically, the “horse-whip” was smashed. So, pragmatically, now, today, which is the most effective tool to secure the existence of our people: the “horse-whip” or the “carrot”? The volkish or the palingenetic or some combination of the two? I don’t know, time will tell.
I’ve expressed my own personal/emotional preference for the “carrot”, yet allowed for a grudging use of the “horse-whip” if it comes to it. It says something important about the character of a man, which of these his personal/emotional preference for attaining said end would be: the “carrot” or the “horse-whip”. No?
And it is not unimportant to ask; not merely a cheap ad hominem shame-mongering gimmick to win an argument on a board on the internet. The present “elites” of the West cling to their power. If we manage, against great odds, to bring about revolutionary change in our lands, would our newly enthroned “elites” do less? Would they not also cling to power? There are not many George Washingtons out there, of course they would. What kind of men will they be? I speak of their character. Will it be the “carrot” for them and only the “horse-whip” out of necessity and with regret? Or, will it be the “horse-whip” with relish and the “carrot” left often in the kitchen?
Which of these a man has an affinity for tells of his character. Once he and his ilk are enthroned their will shall be done upon our people.
We could lie down and accept our fate; we choose not to. That is not the world in which we would wish to live. What we want the world to be is decisive, at least regarding our own actions. It speaks of our character. Once victory is achieved what world then? What world do we want to live in. I know what my preference is, which is yours?
Posted by Captainchaos on Thursday, August 28, 2008 at 10:21 AM | #
Everyone always scheming and trying to get one over on the next guy before he gets one over on him until tempers flair so badly we find it necessary to have a dust up. Is that good?
It’s evolution. Without it and natural selection, adaptiveness ends.
Hitler’s Lebensraum land snatching scheme from fellow Whites, was that morally defensible?
White then, as now, had no meaning. The Poles were not fellows of the Germans, just as the Czechs held no special place for the Poles.
And now, when every one of these aids and advantages has been squandered and thrown away, Great Britain advances, leading France by the hand, to guarantee the integrity of Poland — to that very Poland which with hyena appetite had only six months before joined in the pillage and destruction of the Czechoslovak state.
Churchill
Was the present level of race-replacement immigration an inevitable result of the Allied victory?
Race-replacement was well entrenched long before WWII. Look to the example of Altooma or East St. Louis or Boston just to name a few.
Do you really think that the Master Race was not an outrageous idea in the 1930s, repugnant to the entire world?
The problem with the analysis is that it is a retrospective view masquerading as a prospective view. It doesn’t examine what people thought in the 1930s but takes the postwar paradigm and asserts it as pre-war.
Posted by Desmond Jones on Thursday, August 28, 2008 at 06:21 PM | #
Please, Desmond, if you wish to oppose me, at least accuse me of something plausible. I am very well aware of 1930s and 40s mores, and the attitude towards those German upstarts. Sufficient of that world travelled into my childhood for me to understand it when I was old enough.
Don’t forget my age. I was raised in the bosom of a large extended family who lived and fought through the war. My Dad was a flying instructor in ‘42 and piloted a bomber in ‘44, my Mum served at Bletchley Park, and they carried their values with them and transmitted them to their children.
The notion that Krauts were the masters of the world was a bad joke, rendered hilarious by all the goose-stepping and uniforms. It was, frankly, not the sort of thing a decent man would do. It still isn’t, is it - if you are honest with yourself.
Posted by Guessedworker on Thursday, August 28, 2008 at 07:21 PM | #
“It’s evolution. Without it and natural selection, adaptiveness ends.” -Desmond Jones
No, adaptation’s aim is the stability or continuity of the genetic information in question. External conditions change so the organism or group adapts to ensure it’s continuity as best as can be had. Life’s purpose is continuity, for this it resorts to adaptation when necessary. We must not place ourselves in the position of accommodating adaptation, it must accommodate us. Anything less is nihilism. If not, then why shouldn’t we “adapt” and merge genetically with third-worlders? Our masochism seems to have, for the time being, given them the “upper hand” in the competition for survival. Maybe they have something we could use? Or is all that nihilism.
“White then, as now, had no meaning. The Poles were not fellows of the Germans, just as the Czechs held no special place for the Poles.” -Desmond Jones
You speak of “race-replacement” in America prior to WWII, what do you mean by “race” then? If not “Whiteness” then what? A new “American race” of mongrelized northwestern European origin? I have some English ancestry, along with Scottish, Dutch and German. By your standards I am not of your kin, so what concern should you have for me and mine, and what concern I for you and yours?
Are the Germans your kin, by your standards? If not, would a continent dominated by Germany be “adaptive” for the English? If it is as you say, brutal, domineering struggle to achieve life’s sole aim of “adaptiveness” why would it not be “adaptive” for the Germans to have eventually turned their “will to adaptiveness” on England even if she had initially capitulated?
Tough guys often think they can go it alone, but life has a way of humbling a man. If “we” (those of European descent - relatively speaking, pretty close genetically) cannot come together out of genuine affection then at least it is prudent to do so out of common interests. For that is need mutual respect and an honoring of agreements. Yes, character, honor, and simple decency matter.
I think “Master Rienzi” is right about a thing or two.
Posted by Captainchaos on Thursday, August 28, 2008 at 07:27 PM | #
I was raised in the bosom of a large extended family who lived and fought through the war. My Dad was a flying instructor in ‘42 and piloted a bomber in ‘44, my Mum served at Bletchley Park, and they carried their values with them and transmitted them to their children.
The triumph of the anecdotal? That’s very Jewish isn’t it?
The notion that Krauts were the masters of the world was a bad joke, rendered hilarious by all the goose-stepping and uniforms.
It is of course NOT how it was defined.
The origins of the Nazi version of the theory of the master race were in 19th century racial theories of Count Arthur de Gobineau, who argued that cultures degenerate when distinct races mix. It was believed at this time that Southern European and Eastern European peoples were racially mixed with non-European Moors from across the Mediterranean Sea, while Northern Europeans remained pure. Proponents of Nordic theory further argued that Nordic peoples had developed innate toughness and determination due to the harsh, challenging climate in which they evolved. Thus the racial ideal of these theorists was the tall, blond and blue-eyed Nordic individual.
And of course, for those who bother to do the research, it was Gobineau who was attacked by Hirschfeld. It was a view
held by both Grant and Stoddard, who were undermined by Boas and his bounty of fraudulent data. Of course Boas never went as far as Rienzi’s Rottweilers. He admitted European differences were evident. It was only when they came to the US that they suddenly transformed.
Which claim is actually being made? Or are we happy just moving the goal posts? Are we saying the desire of Gobineau, Grant, Stoddard and so many, many others, for the salvation of their people, as a unique, special entity worth preserving, is indecent?
Posted by Desmond Jones on Thursday, August 28, 2008 at 09:04 PM | #
We must not place ourselves in the position of accommodating adaptation, it must accommodate us.
Ok and how exactly will that be accomplished? Maybe the Ananoki can help? 
You speak of “race-replacement” in America prior to WWII, what do you mean by “race” then? If not “Whiteness” then what? A new “American race” of mongrelized northwestern European origin?
According to you, America had no ethnic origin, right? It was simply founded as a polyglot. That view contradicts the views of earlier “Americans”.
“
What we do claim is that the northern European and particularly Anglo-Saxons made this country. Oh, yes; the others helped. But… [t]hey came to this country because it was already made as an Anglo-Saxon commonwealth. They added to it, they often enriched it, but they did not make it…
Are the Germans your kin, by your standards? If not, would a continent dominated by Germany be “adaptive” for the English? If it is as you say, brutal, domineering struggle to achieve life’s sole aim of “adaptiveness” why would it not be “adaptive” for the Germans to have eventually turned their “will to adaptiveness” on England even if she had initially capitulated?
Except it was of course the British that declared war on Germany, as is so often forgotten.
I think “Master Rienzi” is right about a thing or two.
Rienzi doesn’t sell bad fish.
All political thinking for years past has been vitiated in the same way. People can foresee the future only when it coincides with their own wishes, and the most grossly obvious facts can be ignored when they are unwelcome.
George Orwell
Posted by Desmond Jones on Thursday, August 28, 2008 at 09:21 PM | #
Desmond, you’ve gone off on a tangent. You were trying to demonstrate that in the 1930s normal, decent people did not consider the idea that Germans were the Master Race utterly risible. Gobineau won’t help. Actually, I don’t know what will.
Posted by Guessedworker on Thursday, August 28, 2008 at 09:36 PM | #
“According to you, America had no ethnic origin, right? It was simply founded as a polyglot. That view contradicts the views of earlier “Americans”.” -Desmond Jones
Can’t unring the bell, buddy. The “genocide” happened before I was a twinkle in my father’s eye. Most White Americans are a mongrelized, “polyglot”. Deal with it. The place to protect the genetic integrity of distinct European groups is in Europe. My personal preference is for Americans of northwestern European descent to “keep it in the family.” As far as I know no one around these parts advocates mass “miscegenation” of genetically distinct European ethnic groups. Just because some recommend working together to achieve common objectives doesn’t mean we have to climb on top of each other and start fucking. Got that?
That’s my “two cents”, peace.
Posted by Captainchaos on Thursday, August 28, 2008 at 10:08 PM | #
The Germans didn’t consider the “Germans” the Master Race. They considered Nordics the Master Race. They even included the English. Even the Jews recognise that point.
The English scientist Francis Galton coined the term eugenics, meaning “good birth,” in 1883. German biologist August Weissmann’s theory of “immutable germ plasm,” published in 1892, fostered growing international support for eugenics, as did the rediscovery in 1900 of Austrian botanist Gregor Mendel’s theory that the biological makeup of organisms was determined by certain “factors” that were later identified with genes.
A growing faction, linking eugenics to race, championed the long-headed, fair “Nordics” as “eugenically advantageous” and discussed “race mixing” as a source of biological degeneration. Eugenic ideas were absorbed into the ideology and platform of the nascent Nazi Party during the 1920s.
In 1928, the Legislative Assembly of Alberta, Canada, enacted the Sexual Sterilization Act. The Act, drafted to protect the gene pool, allowed for sterilization of mentally disabled persons in order to prevent the transmission of undesirable traits to offspring.
Specifically, the Act was disproportionately applied to those in socially vulnerable positions, including: females, children, unemployed persons, domestics, rural citizens, unmarried, institutionalized persons, Roman and Greek Catholics, persons of Ukrainian, Indian and Métis ethnicity.
In 1937, an amendment to the Act was proposed by Dr. W.W. Cross, Social Credit Minister of Health, as the Act was considered too restrictive. It was accepted that sterilization was permitted for the benefit of the human race, not the individual, and as such consent was no longer deemed a requirement. At that time, Albertans, seriously affected by the Great Depression, believed sterilization would effect a much needed saving in dollars.
All indecent men and women, no doubt.
Posted by Desmond Jones on Thursday, August 28, 2008 at 10:11 PM | #
The place to protect the genetic integrity of distinct European groups is in Europe.
Distinct European group in Canada, no protection. Someone should tell the Ukrainians.
While living apart temporarily often is a necessary part of the immigration process, if only because of language, those who see cultural isolation as a permanent way of life tend to cripple their own possibilities, limit their ability to contribute to Canada, and create impregnable communities in which they can nourish their imported grievances and generate hatred for democracy and the West.
How did we get to this point?
Ukrainian-Canadians, in particular, feared the extinction of Ukrainian uniqueness.
Their homeland, part of the Soviet Union, was dominated from Moscow. Lupul, visiting Ukraine in the late 1960s, saw Moscow’s Russification policy destroying the old way of life. (He had no idea that the Soviet Union would fall apart in the 1990s and leave Ukraine to its own devices.) He and others dreamt of helping Ukraine survive in Canada.
The Ukrainians fully understood the impact of the transfer of a genetically not too distant neighbour into its homeland, however, were quite happy to aid and abet organised Jewry and its white ethnic cohorts in the displacement of the Anglo-Saxon founding people of Canada.
Got that.
Peace dude.
Posted by Desmond Jones on Thursday, August 28, 2008 at 10:25 PM | #
GW,
You say…
“But that is a supremely irrelevant issue and, given our present extremis, a self-indulgent one. We do not need to waste our time on it.”
It is absolutely NOT irrelevant. Your mindset gets to the very heart of Euro-Man’s plight - not the Enlightenment, Liberalism or some other ideology. For that mindset REPEATS itself throughout history. It will doubtless repeat itself again. And that is our susceptibility to words and our inability to see when the words are twisted against what is in our interests. The next time the Goy are whipped up into a frenzy of kosher blood lust may be with the rise of a supposedly chauvinistic brand of Russian nationalism. If the Russians have some little squabble with Poland or Finland and our masters emphasize this will you look at how the NWO is poisoning those countries even more or just at what they want you to think - that “Russia is evil”, “Russia is evil”. Until we can start thinking of what is in the interest of our Race and not about words that have been twisted to serve our masters’ purposes we have no chance. If it weren’t for the Internet I wouldn’t be at all surprised if we were now at war with Russia over their “attack” of Georgia. Likewise if there had been an internet 60+ years back Aryan Man might have been spared that possibly fatal cataclysm.
If your father and uncles were exposed to the truth and did what was in the best interests of their people and didn’t fight Germany would you now be calling them weaklings or fools since you now praise them for playing a part in destroying Germany? In other words do you think they really made the right choice or you are just sticking with them regardless of the choice since they are kin? And the decision shouldn’t be based on whether one “likes”, “prefers”, or otherwise “desires” National Socialism for their own tribe of Aryan Man. It should be based on the bigger picture of how our race can best prevail against a world where our people are both a small minority and under attack. If I could pick a perfect model to live in it would not be NS either but we live in a real world and must fight corporately against merciless foes. NS seems a very effective way to survive in the real world of today. As has been previously stated Linderian libertarianism is a useless wet noodle compared to the socialistic swords wielded by various Asiatic nations. Form must lead to function which leads to both survival and ultimately progress. Does NS achieve that or not? If not what is better?
By following in your ancestor’s ill-informed footsteps you actually dishonor them. Most of them knew no better. We do. We need to redeem the mistakes of our fathers and grand-fathers and uncles by going in the right direction henceforth. For if we do not redeem them it is because we will have continued in thrall to the same power that deceived them and in so doing extinguish both their flame and ours. I had relatives fight for the USA in WWII - fortunately none closer than great uncles - and I no longer uphold the choice they made since it was in support of evil. It is the supreme evidence of folly to not acknowledge and learn from mistakes. If there is one glaring corporate mistake the white man made in the 20th Century it was where he aligned in WWII. Yes the future is what matters. But it is clear from what you say that you would do the same thing all over again!
We are a suggestible and weak people who have been and, it is quite clear, will continue to be outwitted by an enemy that laughs as we lament the “Enlightenment”, “Liberalism”, or some other Faustian ideology which they were instrumental in corrupting. Words are tools. The enemy is he who perverts the words, not the word itself. Until he is defeated we will never prevail.
Fred and others emphasize it here and it bears constant repeating: the Jew - not liberalism - is our primary problem. Compare the writings of George Lincoln Rockwell to those of the John Birch Society to contrast Aryan edification to kosher sophistry. I hope more and more bloggers keep gravitating to the former and shun and correct the latter. Only from that will a real and bold Aryan revolutionary cadre emerge that can eventually win this war.
Posted by wjg on Thursday, August 28, 2008 at 11:03 PM | #
Desmond,
The English did not have the monumental arrogance to consider themselves “included”, which is surely the point. You are, after all, disputing what other people and peoples thought - not what the Germans thought. Stick to the point.
WJG,
I know the German-American WN crowd tend to have a different perspective on National Socialist Germany. But denying that the extremes of its palingenisis were, well, extreme is pretty banal, intellectually.
You and I will probably never agree over philosophical pre-eminence. I am not, to use a parallel term, trivialising the Jewish role in history or today. I am adding the context. It is my belief, which liberal Americans (which is practically all Americans [I exclude Proze]) seem unable to perceive, that Jewish ethnocentrism cannot function in a fundamentally conservative European society. The question, which I think Fred put earlier, is whether a profoundly liberalistic society would become conservatised by the casting out of Jewish influence, or whether it requires the conservatism first.
A political chicken and egg. I’m a chicken man. You and Fred are egg men.
I promised a post on this a while back, and I haven’t forgotten about that. But for the moment, my answer is that we are practically all liberalism, from top to toe. Without serious new ideas - and with or without Jewry - we will not have the instinctual unity and, therefore, the motive power to do what has to be done.
We are not as far apart as you might think. There is a rather distressing tendency among many of us to accentuate the differences that do exist. It could prove debilitating if it becomes habitual, ie a matter of personalities rather than principles.
WJG, I am glad to see you blogging again. Your work is good, and should be widely read.
Posted by Guessedworker on Friday, August 29, 2008 at 12:29 AM | #
The notion that Krauts were the masters of the world was a bad joke, rendered hilarious by all the goose-stepping and uniforms.
Guessedworker’s compatriot, Houston Stewart Chamberlain, and the Frenchman Arthur de Gobineau, didn’t think that the “notion of Krauts were the master of the world was a bad joke...” Unlike Guessedworker, both pre-eminent racialists of the 19th Century were Germanophiles, or, as they’ve been called: “Prophets of Teutonism.” So, contrary to Guessedworker, the thought was never a “bad joke.” On the contray, Germanism was rather the norm in many intellectual circles. Again, Guessedworker is ahistorically projecting his own anti-German feelings. The fact that it’s a joke to him doesn’t mean that strong pro-German sentiments didn’t exist among most racialist, anti-liberal European doctrinaires, authors, and thinkers of the 19th and early 20th centuries.
A great deal of Brits, Frenchmen, Americans, etc. (i.e., and not only Guessedworker’s stupid bogeymen “German-Americans") of Guessedworker’s age or generation have come to appreciate the nature of the W.W. II and the forces behind it. Guessedworker hasn’t reached that point yet. Which, in my opinion, makes him psychologically immature ("my daddy the hated them Krauts and so will I!"), and ultimately harmful to our interests as White men and women. That’s another reason why I find MR of very limited use and frequent its pages less and less. I will probably abstain altogether soon. Even a paleocon Catholic like Buchanan is better on W.W. II and the surrounding questions than Guessedworker, what does that tell you?
I think that some texts that can help to explain Guessedworker’s fequent cavalcade of insults ("Krauts") hatred and disparagment of Germans (he really can’t help himself! His outbursts are increasing in frequency, another curioso) can be found here:
Dealing in Hate: The development of anti-German propaganda
http://www.ihr.org/books/connors/dealinginhate.html
GRENFELL, Captain Russel, R.N.
Unconditional Hatred, German War Guilt and the Future of Europe
«Mr. Churchill was not a statesman seeking always his own country’s advantage amid the
twists and turns of a dangerous world. He was an international crusader preaching and conducting a holy war for the destruction of the Hitler regime and the German military power at any cost; at any cost to his own country and the rest of the world. In his own words, there was no sacrifice he would not make to get rid of Hitler, although up to the British declaration of war against Germany in 1939 Hitler had done no harm to Britain and had actually gone out of his way to placate her at some sacrifice to German pride by agreeing to keep the German fleet at a third of the strength of the British. Mr. Churchill’s war policy was not national but religious.”
http://www.vho.org/aaargh/engl/engl.html
John Ramsden’s Don’t Mention the War is also useful to understand the development of anti-German hate in Great Britain:
http://www.johnramsden-dmtw.co.uk/index.htm
Posted by Friedrich Braun on Friday, August 29, 2008 at 02:08 AM | #
Two other texts to assist us in understanding Guessedworker’s hatred of Germans:
By Prof. Emil Schlee
WW II: Whose War was it?
http://vho.org/tr/2003/1/Schlee56-62.html
Hundred Years of War against Germany
By Steffen Werner
http://vho.org/tr/2003/4/Werner373-385.html
Posted by Friedrich Braun on Friday, August 29, 2008 at 02:39 AM | #
It is the ideas associated with the Enlightenment which have opened into internationalism and anti-nationalism, materialism and the myth of boundless progress, and the atomisation of the self-absorbed individual.
-Guessedworker
I’m sure there were many 2nd century Romans who felt the same way. Rome had trudged all over the known world acquiring great wealth handing out citizenship to everybody and his uncle.
And before that it was Alexander attempting to integrate his world empire by marrying his generals off to Persian women.
Perhaps somewhere, not long ago, an Englishman was concerned about the effects of merging the English, Scots, Welsh and Irish into a “British Empire”.
In other words our predicament is an eternal one. The beast with which we struggle has been about for ages, occasionally getting the better grip on us and nearly chocking us to death. That beast will always be with us though.
The part the Jews have played of late, is to convince us not to struggle at all.
As for the Germans, surely you can see the irony in America and Britain assailing their goals, can’t you?
I mean Britain was and American became everything both accused the Germans of aspiring to be.
It’s no less hypocritical than (having just invaded three different nations in the past ten years) America telling Russia that in today’s world you don’t go around invading other nations.
You understand - Necessity won’t do it by herself. She must be chosen. And, for that, a corpus of new ideas counterveiling the postmodern and justifying our path out of it must be brought into being.
-Guessedworker
With all do respect, I simply don’t agree with the notion that Necessity must be chosen.
I’ll put it this way, faith comes easiest to the middle class who are both fat and happy enough to believe a god must be looking out for them (and therefore give little thought to tomorrow) and content enough in the knowledge they already have not to do the further studying which would erode their faith.
Doubt belongs to the rich and educated or the poor and disenchanted. Right now The West is middle class and they no not necessity enough to choose her.
Politics and ideologies have about as much relevance right now to the middle class as a lifeboat does to a passenger aboard a luxury cruise liner who believes his ship will never sink.
And despite Hollywood representations to the contrary, people actually become more rational in a calamity than they would otherwise be.
If I were to describe our task now in the interim, it would be to that as ambassadors from one age to another in a time of war calling home the expatriots.
It says something important about the character of a man, which of these his personal/emotional preference for attaining said end would be: the “carrot” or the “horse-whip”. No?
-Captainchaos
Ironic, is it not, that the American Revolution offered neither.
Just as ironic that America is at once accused of being the birthplace of egalitarianism and at the same time accosted for its historic and intrinsic racism, xenophobia and isolationist tendencies.
Which is true? Perhaps both.
The real world has more Grey than the Black and White of fiction.
Once victory is achieved what world then? What world do we want to live in. I know what my preference is, which is yours?
-Captainchaos
Utopia does not exist. The world for which we aspire is the one where our people continue the struggle from the best possible position on the high ground.
To answer your question,
I would rather see a world in which some Whites flourish than the one in which all Whites perish.
In 1945, the Allies chose the later…
Posted by the Narrator... on Friday, August 29, 2008 at 06:50 AM | #
Friedrich,
Chamberlain published Die Grundlagen des Neunzehnten Jahrhunderts in 1899. My remarks in respect to the general derision which greeted the ideas of palingenic Nazism, especially the Master Race (and in practise it was German, not Nordic), are confined to the years of National Socialist power: 1933 to 1945. The general population had no opinion on Chamberlain whatever. The man had been dead for three decades.
In any case, an empirically false and religious idea is not more respectable for being advocated in the 19th century rather than the 20th.
As for this “hatred of Germans” of mine, well ... there is something very Jewish in the way you launch a wild and innacurate attack on the morality of a critic. You must know you are not addressing the substantive issue but, instead, calling me your version of “anti-semitic”.
I do not believe you will be able to contribute intellectually or ideologically to a Restoration in any way until you can set aside this driven need you have to snatch a National Socialist victory out of the embers of the 1945 defeat. It is too all-embracing for you and far too irrational. It is in your way, and I don’t like it getting in ours.
Posted by Guessedworker on Friday, August 29, 2008 at 10:53 AM | #
Sorry, Chamberlain died in Bayreuth in 1927. Not, I think, a household name in Ruislip and Auchtermuchty.
Posted by Guessedworker on Friday, August 29, 2008 at 10:59 AM | #
”Ironic, is it not, that the American Revolution offered neither.
Just as ironic that America is at once accused of being the birthplace of egalitarianism and at the same time accosted for its historic and intrinsic racism, xenophobia and isolationist tendencies.
Which is true? Perhaps both.
The real world has more Grey than the Black and White of fiction.” - the Narrator
The Founding Fathers were well aware of the pitfalls of even a limited, republican form of “self-rule” by the people. They gave it a shot. They didn’t let us down, we let them down. Here is an interesting tidbit from Nietzsche: Master Race is as Master Race does. A strong people don’t need to resort to playing dress-up and giving themselves a hardy “Sieg Heil!” whilst looking in the mirror to remind themselves of that fact. There is more Grey than Black and White in life than you will find in Triumph of the Will.
”Utopia does not exist. The world for which we aspire is the one where our people continue the struggle from the best possible position on the high ground.To answer your question,
I would rather see a world in which some Whites flourish than the one in which all Whites perish.
In 1945, the Allies chose the later…” - the Narrator
Utopia doesn’t exist? No shit? Really? But we do need ideals or at least high standards of conduct to guide our behavior and direct our struggle towards, right? It seems that German hegemony over Europe was asserted as an ideal, didn’t turn out so well for Germany in the end did it? Once Hitler got rid of the Jews and cleaned the place up why not just call it a day? Mind those Greys now. Intra-White struggle to the death over resources is suicidal. That is the lesson of WWII. If you cannot find it in your heart to see that it is “wrong” (like I said, that’s about character), at least educate yourself to the practical benefits of so doing.
Posted by Captainchaos on Friday, August 29, 2008 at 11:15 AM | #
BTW:
What is it with all these comparisons of atrocities? Doesn’t that amount to “your turd is smellier than mine is?”
I condemn all of the above. But that’s about morality and realizing the practical benefits of not slitting my neighbor’s throat if he will return me the favor.
Another BTW:
Hitler was hard-core, right? So, if he failed to exterminate the Jews (brutal, “beyond good and evil” struggle for survival and all) doesn’t that make him a pussy? Why didn’t he? I’ll bet that if he used that good ‘ole “horse-whip” with sufficient vigor he damn well could have. Could it be that he thought that would be “wrong”? If not, then why not?
Posted by Captainchaos on Friday, August 29, 2008 at 11:55 AM | #
“A strong people don’t need to resort to playing dress-up...”
-Captainchaos
I agree. Perhaps we should forward the sentiment on to the British Monarchy and the Catholic Church.
There is more Grey than Black and White in life than you will find in Triumph of the Will.
-Captainchaos
I’ve never seen it.
I’m guessing you assume I’m a proponent of National Socialism.
Not really.
I’m a proponent of European Exceptionalism which, during WWII (which is the context of the discussion), The Axis promoted and The Allies reviled.
It seems that German hegemony over Europe was asserted as an ideal, didn’t turn out so well for Germany in the end did it?
-Captainchaos
No it didn’t. But what you don’t seem to understand is that Germany stood for, and was/is used to represent, all of The West both then and now.
The whole West was burned in an effigy in the shape of the German Reich.
Take a look around you at the post-Allied-Victory ruled West.
Like what you see?
Intra-White struggle to the death over resources is suicidal. That is the lesson of WWII.
-Captainchaos
Intra-White struggle over resources pretty much dominates European history. World History.
That is how the British Empire became the British Empire....and France, Spain, America and Russia became France, Spain, America and Russia.
BUT, not un-coincidentally, since WWII European Unity has been the motto and White Civilizational Suicide the creed.
Competition is healthy and wars (unfortunately) inevitable. But it is the Western Civilizational suicide that has been ongoing since the end of WWII that is new (post 1945) and unprecedented.
Germany (representing The West) was burned to the ground and out of its ashes was conjured a great kosher egalitarian phoenix which ascended into the ideological heavens.
Hitler was hard-core, right? So, if he failed to exterminate the Jews (brutal, “beyond good and evil” struggle for survival and all) doesn’t that make him a pussy? Why didn’t he?
-Captainchaos
This is where you make your greatest, and most mistaken, assumption about me.
I am not a believer in the Holocaust.
...
Posted by the Narrator.. on Friday, August 29, 2008 at 01:10 PM | #
[blockquote)"I am not a believer in the Holocaust.
- The Narrator
The standard version of the ©Ho£o€au$t®™ is a huge lie. It never happened. There’s an immense literature about this on the internet, definitively debunking this gargantuan deception — but even without the literature, they who pretend it happened debunk it merely by arresting and jailing any who question it: only liars do that, those with something to hide. Truth-tellers don’t do that. Here‘s a recent piece by Prof. Faurisson partly touching on the subject.
The Jews did go through a holocaust: dragged out of their homes in the east and summarily shot, probably some tens of thousands, by local Latvian, Lithuanian, Byelorussian, and Ukrainian anti-communist militias mostly as payback for their role in brutally inflicting bolshevism on the Christian populations, and millions sent to camps where hundreds of thousands died of typhus and, toward the war’s end, of starvation when everyone was starving and the camps couldn’t be provisioned. This was certainly a holocaust: around 350,000 Jews, total, died in these ways during the war. But the standard version of the “Shoah” with “extermination camps,” “gas chambers,” “six million gassed,” and so on, is a pure invention: it didn’t exist. When all the German accused at the Nuremberg Kangaroo Trials kept replying they’d not heard of it when asked about the exterminations of Jews, it turns out there was a good reason: it had never happened.
When you’re lying and you’re caught lying, the best thing to do is admit it and apologize. But the Jews are trying to brazen it out. They’ll probably never admit it: it’s now sort of part of their religion, so effectively beyond “provability”: it’s in the realm of Jewish myth now and no longer depends on evidence. In their minds it can’t be debunked. Euros must become aware of the truth, however, because 1) it’s not part of their religion, and 2) it’s being used to drive them to extinction.
It never happened.
Posted by Fred Scrooby on Friday, August 29, 2008 at 01:57 PM | #
and 3) it’s a lie, and 4) it’s an unspeakable slander on the German people.
Posted by Fred Scrooby on Friday, August 29, 2008 at 02:04 PM | #
Narrator,
Germany was not “the West” burned in effigy. Germany was burned not because it represented our “last best hope” but because it abbrogated to itself the “right” to burn other exceptional Europeans as hopeless sub-humans.
It was only in 1944, when the American administration, already Judaised to the hilt, drew up its plan for occupation, and in the harshness of the execution of that plan in 1945, that the face of the enemy in the IG Farben Building in Frankfurt became known. Germany’s victimhood status dates only from that period. And its application to us, interested as we are in the fate of Europe, is of still more recent, indeed rather late, parentage. Germany began importing Turkish and Kurdish migrants only in 1964, sixteen whole years after Britain began importing West Indians.
In both cases, the justification was labour shortage for a growing economy - in Germany the Wirtschaftswunder. But one is bound to ask whether the racial treachery towards the British, locked as we were in this period into rationing and hardship because of American loan repayment policy, was not greater than that to Germany. The two were causally different. In the years of fighting alone, Britain had delivered herself up to a political America quite detached from the friendly cousin-relationship we sentimentally presumed to exist. This political America hated British global hegemony, and saw its destruction as morally deserved and strategically central to its own hegemonic ambitions.
Was Britain, then, burned in effigy after the war, too? If so, the culprit was the same.
Sunic has a point about the gifts of Homo americanus. We should cease naming the Jew long enough to appreciate what that point is.
Posted by Guessedworker on Friday, August 29, 2008 at 02:09 PM | #
Euros must become aware of the truth, however, because 1) it’s not part of their religion, and 2) it’s being used to drive them to extinction.
It never happened.
Posted by Fred Scrooby
Good post!
Germany was not “the West” burned in effigy. Germany was burned not because it represented our “last best hope” but because it abbrogated to itself the “right” to burn other exceptional Europeans as hopeless sub-humans.
-Guessedworker
A claim for which I have, to this day, seen very little real evidence.
As the old saying goes, thieves are the most paranoid about theft.
The Germans were accused of trying to burn the Jews yet it was Germany that was burned to the ground.
The Germans were accosted for creating a racial homeland, while the Jews were given the blessing of nations for doing the very same thing.
The Germans are still denounced for their past belief in racial superiority, yet the Jews are presently given a thumbs up for it.
And is this, the claim of attempted racial genocide, not the same general claim that the Irish have made against the English? Or the Poles against the Russians? Or various other combinations of the theme?
Germany began importing Turkish and Kurdish migrants only in 1964, sixteen whole years after Britain began importing West Indians.
-Guessedworker
This might be because the British were importing peoples from their former Global Empire. And Empire building was the very thing for which Germany was attacked for attempting.
It might also be because Germany became the front lines of the Cold War, being broken into two different nations. If the Cold War had turned hot in those early years, it most likely would have turned hot there.
This political America hated British global hegemony, and saw its destruction as morally deserved and strategically central to own hegemonic ambitions.
-Guessedworker
And do you not think this is the real reason the British went to war with Germany, declaring their destruction to be morally deserved?
Posted by Fred Scrooby on Monday, August 25, 2008 at 12:59 AM | #