|
|
|
Filling the empirical gap
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":
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.
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:2
Posted by Captainchaos on Mon, 25 Aug 2008 04:20 | # 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’. 3
Posted by the badger on Mon, 25 Aug 2008 04:55 | # 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. 4
Posted by Guessedworker on Mon, 25 Aug 2008 10:25 | # 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. 5
Posted by Captainchaos on Mon, 25 Aug 2008 11:23 | # 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.” 7
Posted by James McGrath on Mon, 25 Aug 2008 14:54 | # 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! 8
Posted by Fred Scrooby on Mon, 25 Aug 2008 15:22 | # 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. 9
Posted by Red Mercury on Mon, 25 Aug 2008 18:17 | # 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. 10
Posted by Fred Scrooby on Mon, 25 Aug 2008 19:49 | # 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. 11
Posted by Dubai Exile on Mon, 25 Aug 2008 21:34 | # 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? 12
Posted by Fr. John on Mon, 25 Aug 2008 23:43 | # 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 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. 13
Posted by Guessedworker on Tue, 26 Aug 2008 00:14 | # 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. 14
Posted by Friedrich Braun on Tue, 26 Aug 2008 02:46 | # “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:
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. 15
Posted by Captainchaos on Tue, 26 Aug 2008 02:51 | # “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. 16
Posted by Captainchaos on Tue, 26 Aug 2008 03:49 | # 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. 17
Posted by Friedrich Braun on Tue, 26 Aug 2008 04:41 | #
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 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
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. 18
Posted by Captainchaos on Tue, 26 Aug 2008 05:29 | # 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. 19
Posted by the Narrator... on Tue, 26 Aug 2008 08:25 | #
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… 20
Posted by Guessedworker on Tue, 26 Aug 2008 09:18 | # 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. 21
Posted by Bill on Tue, 26 Aug 2008 10:43 | # 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. 22
Posted by Fred Scrooby on Tue, 26 Aug 2008 11:23 | # 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. 23
Posted by Fred Scrooby on Tue, 26 Aug 2008 11:37 | # 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. 24
Posted by the Narrator... on Tue, 26 Aug 2008 12:08 | #
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 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… 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.
It seems there is the America that is, and the America that is presented to be… 25
Posted by Bill on Tue, 26 Aug 2008 12:25 | # National Socialism - Concentration Camps, Communism - The Gulag, Liberalism - Freedom inside a cage. Some choice - Eh? 26
Posted by Captainchaos on Tue, 26 Aug 2008 22:08 | # “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)”
27
Posted by Captainhchaos on Tue, 26 Aug 2008 23:02 | # “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
“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%. 28
Posted by Friedrich Braun on Wed, 27 Aug 2008 00:05 | # 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 29
Posted by Fred Scrooby on Wed, 27 Aug 2008 00:14 | #
True. 30
Posted by Al Ross on Wed, 27 Aug 2008 00:15 | # 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. 31
Posted by Fred Scrooby on Wed, 27 Aug 2008 00:17 | # 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. 32
Posted by Fred Scrooby on Wed, 27 Aug 2008 00:27 | #
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. 34
Posted by Al Ross on Wed, 27 Aug 2008 01:04 | # 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. 35
Posted by Captainchaos on Wed, 27 Aug 2008 11:10 | # 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. 36
Posted by Al Ross on Wed, 27 Aug 2008 11:47 | # Then please feel free, without necessarily informing rational MR supporters, to resort to Tolkien’s fairy tales, where doubtless you will be psychologically accommodated. 37
Posted by 123 on Wed, 27 Aug 2008 22:00 | # 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 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 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? 38
Posted by Dave Johns on Wed, 27 Aug 2008 22:40 | # 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! 39
Posted by wjg on Wed, 27 Aug 2008 22:53 | # 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. 40
Posted by Dave Johns on Wed, 27 Aug 2008 23:12 | # Let me amend my previous post. Al Ross is an asshole. 41
Posted by Desmond Jones on Wed, 27 Aug 2008 23:30 | #
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 42
Posted by Guessedworker on Thu, 28 Aug 2008 01:03 | # 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! 43
Posted by Captainchaos on Thu, 28 Aug 2008 01:50 | # 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. 44
Posted by Friedrich Braun on Thu, 28 Aug 2008 05:39 | # 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.
How Germans decide to order their society shouldn’t be any of your business.
A Brit would know a thing or two about the “appropriaton of other peoples’ homelands.”
The “world”? You mean Britain, of course. 45
Posted by the Narrator... on Thu, 28 Aug 2008 08:15 | #
Tolkien was no less susceptible to propaganda then than we are today.
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. 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. And that leaves us today waiting and hoping for a resurrection…
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… 46
Posted by Guessedworker on Thu, 28 Aug 2008 10:02 | # 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. 47
Posted by Captainchaos on Thu, 28 Aug 2008 11:21 | # “As I said, life is filled with more sorrow than joy, yet most sane people believe life is preferable to death. 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? 48
Posted by Desmond Jones on Thu, 28 Aug 2008 19:21 | # 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.
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. 49
Posted by Guessedworker on Thu, 28 Aug 2008 20:21 | # 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. 50
Posted by Captainchaos on Thu, 28 Aug 2008 20:27 | # “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.
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. 51
Posted by Desmond Jones on Thu, 28 Aug 2008 22:04 | # 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.
And of course, for those who bother to do the research, it was Gobineau who was attacked by Hirschfeld. It was a view 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? 52
Posted by Desmond Jones on Thu, 28 Aug 2008 22:21 | # 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”. “
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.
53
Posted by Guessedworker on Thu, 28 Aug 2008 22:36 | # 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. 54
Posted by Captainchaos on Thu, 28 Aug 2008 23:08 | # “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. 55
Posted by Desmond Jones on Thu, 28 Aug 2008 23:11 | # 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.
All indecent men and women, no doubt. 56
Posted by Desmond Jones on Thu, 28 Aug 2008 23:25 | # 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.
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. 57
Posted by wjg on Fri, 29 Aug 2008 00:03 | # 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. 58
Posted by Guessedworker on Fri, 29 Aug 2008 01:29 | # 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. 59
Posted by Friedrich Braun on Fri, 29 Aug 2008 03:08 | # 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 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: 60
Posted by Friedrich Braun on Fri, 29 Aug 2008 03:39 | # 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 61
Posted by the Narrator... on Fri, 29 Aug 2008 07:50 | #
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. 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?
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.
Ironic, is it not, that the American Revolution offered neither. Which is true? Perhaps both. The real world has more Grey than the Black and White of fiction.
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… 62
Posted by Guessedworker on Fri, 29 Aug 2008 11:53 | # 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. 63
Posted by Guessedworker on Fri, 29 Aug 2008 11:59 | # Sorry, Chamberlain died in Bayreuth in 1927. Not, I think, a household name in Ruislip and Auchtermuchty. 64
Posted by Captainchaos on Fri, 29 Aug 2008 12:15 | # “Ironic, is it not, that the American Revolution offered neither. 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. 65
Posted by Captainchaos on Fri, 29 Aug 2008 12:55 | # 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? 66
Posted by the Narrator.. on Fri, 29 Aug 2008 14:10 | #
I agree. Perhaps we should forward the sentiment on to the British Monarchy and the Catholic Church.
I’ve never seen it.
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. Take a look around you at the post-Allied-Victory ruled West. Like what you see?
Intra-White struggle over resources pretty much dominates European history. World History. 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.
This is where you make your greatest, and most mistaken, assumption about me. ... 67
Posted by Fred Scrooby on Fri, 29 Aug 2008 14:57 | # [blockquote)“I am not a believer in the Holocaust. 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. 68
Posted by Fred Scrooby on Fri, 29 Aug 2008 15:04 | # and 3) it’s a lie, and 4) it’s an unspeakable slander on the German people. 69
Posted by Guessedworker on Fri, 29 Aug 2008 15:09 | # 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. 70
Posted by the Narrator... on Fri, 29 Aug 2008 16:05 | # 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. This political America hated British global hegemony, and saw its destruction as morally deserved and strategically central to own hegemonic ambitions. And do you not think this is the real reason the British went to war with Germany, declaring their destruction to be morally deserved?
I don’t want you to get the wrong idea Guessedworker. I am not one who believes all evil roads lead to the Jews. I think they were clever (and slimy) enough to take advantage of Western altruism at the right moment by bundling it up with their own media created definition of the Third Reich. Sunic has a point about the gifts of Homo americanus. Yes and no. Again, we are told America is both the birthplace of egalitarianism and simultaneously a bubbling cauldron of racism, xenophobia and isolationism. The truth is, our (ideological) dragon is eternal and we must be eternally slaying it. You say Germany was not The West burned in effigy, yet does it not strike you as a bit odd that any and all movements towards Western nationalism/patriotism, European genetic(folk) cohesion, or simply celebrations of White culture are first and foremost denounced as Nazism? Deny them (those who seek our destruction) their twisted version of what Nazi Germany represented, and you will have removed the biggest noose from around our necks ... 71
Posted by 123 on Fri, 29 Aug 2008 17:52 | # GW, you say “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.” I assume you are aware, that even Churchill stated, despite his (now I phrase it very politely) dislike of national socialism and/or Germany, shortly after the end of WW2 “we have slaughtered the wrong pig”. Seems to me, that you are very far behind the curve. 72
Posted by Captainchaos on Fri, 29 Aug 2008 18:34 | # “I’m guessing you assume I’m a proponent of National Socialism. Sounds good to me; we are on the same page.
Sure, competition is healthy, but there is nothing healthy about the death of fifty million Europeans. Try out your philosophy when nuclear weapons are added to the equation. “This is where you make your greatest, and most mistaken, assumption about me. I never assumed that about you, in fact the opposite. I, also, do not believe there was a program for the mass extermination of Jews - Germar Rudolf cinched that for me. The point I was trying to get across is given that is the case, all moral considerations aside, was that not a failure of nerve on Hitler’s part? If the only mandate that “should” is the advancement of EGI I think Hitler’s failure TO NOT ACTUAULLY HAVE tried to exterminate the Jews WAS as failure of nerve. But then again, I DO take morality into consideration and NOT just the advancement of EGI. BTW, what if Germany had been defeated by the Soviet Union without the West having lifted a finger in either direction and later Russia conquers all of Europe. There has not been the massive race-replacement in eastern Europe as there has been in Western Europe. If the only consideration is which whose victory led to race-replacement then wouldn’t be okay if the Soviets had conquered all of Europe? In fact preferable to the Americans coming to dominate it? 73
Posted by Guessedworker on Fri, 29 Aug 2008 23:09 | # Narrator: A claim for which I have, to this day, seen very little real evidence. So you have not heard of The Drive to the East and the Generalplan Ost which sprang from it, and which required 50% of Czechs, for example, 25% of Ukrainians and 25% of Belarusians to be “cleansed”? You know nothing about the regimes which were established in the Baltic States, Eastern Poland and the Ukraine to commence this work? What do you think would have happened there if the Red Army had been defeated, and the Germans had been free to do as they pleased? Do you really believe that Hitler did not intend the Aryan masters to settle the land and rule over the remaining Untermenschen? National Socialist Germany was not our spiritual friend or political teacher, and it had to be defeated. That defeat is a different issue from the genocidal consequences for Europe which have followed. American hegemony - it’s power elitism, its Judaisation, its egalitarian anti-racism, its far too free enterprise - has been the primary cause of that. A few corrections:- Britain and France went to war with Germany because they had no political options remaining. Hitler was implacable in his will to Drive to the East, and the old powers were bound to try to prevent Germany from developing into a powerhouse fueled by land-theft and slavery. The Irish Potato Famine of 1845-49 was caused by potato blight, a disease which ravaged crops all over Europe. The British political response to it was there, but it was not radical enough and it’s effects were limited. There is no parallel with the deeds of the Wehrmacht in the East, and to suggest otherwise is a very cheap shot to take. The British Empire was not run along the brutal lines of, say, the Germans in East Africa or the French in the North and the Belgians in the East. On a day-to-day basis the Raj scarcely involved the British, who found it eminently more agreeable to support princes, where possible, than to fight them. 74
Posted by Friedrich Braun on Sat, 30 Aug 2008 05:37 | # Go to my blog to access sources: http://www.thecivicplatform.com/2008/08/29/guessedworker-anti-german-nutbar-english-chauvinist/
I thought that you were talking about Germans (or simply “Krauts” as you prefer to call them), no matter the time frame. In any case, an empirically false and religious idea is not more respectable for being advocated in the 19th century rather than the 20th. It was a respectable idea held by many Western intellectuals and, in light of numerous German scientific and cultural achievements, empirically sound. Nineteenth century German prestige This dark image of a sinister, aggressive, predatory, and militarily regimented Germany only became prevalent in the present century. The English historian, Frederic William Maitland, has described the once characteristic attitude toward the Germans: … it was usual and plausible to paint the German as an unpractical, dreamy, sentimental being, looking out with mild blue eyes into a cloud of music and metaphysics and tobacco smoke.1 The French writer, Madame de Stael, romantically portrayed for the Napoleonic world of the early nineteenth century a Germany utterly unlike the grotesque image later drawn by the Allied propagandists of two World Wars. Madame de Stael’s Germans were a nation of “Poets and Thinkers,” a race of kindly, impractical, other-worldly dreamers without national prejudices and, strangely, in the light of later propaganda, “disinclined to war.”2 In America too, a similarly warm view of things German predominated. It is difficult to exaggerate the constructive impact of German institutions upon American life and the cordiality of the reception accorded them in the century or so from Frederick the Great to Bismarck. The story of this golden age of German-American relations has been magnificently chronicled by a very thorough and gifted American scholar, Henry M. Adams, in his recently published Prussian-American Relations, 1775-1871.3 In the cultural and intellectual spheres as in the political sphere the relationship was one of immense mutual profit. The Prussian system of higher education and the cultural flowering which characterized Prussia in the era of regeneration following the Napoleonic wars all left a distinct mark upon America. The list of American scholars and writers — George Tichnor, Edward Everett, Joseph Cogswell, George Bancroft, John Lothrop Motley, Henry E. Dwight, Washington Irving, Henry W. Longfellow, and James F. Cooper, to mention only some — who went to Prussia to secure inspiration for their life’s work is a most impressive one. Thus, to Americans too, “whether seen in their newly united nation or in this country, the Germans were generally regarded as methodical and energetic people” indeed as “models of progress,” while “in their devotion to music, education, science, and technology they aroused the admiration and emulation of Americans.”4 It is evident then that Germans in the nineteenth century ranked quite high in the esteem of their European and American neighbors. Two unrelated historic factors seemed to conspire at the time to give widespread currency to views of this sort. First, there were the truly monumental achievements of Germans in every sphere of cultural, intellectual, and scientific creativity. It could hardly have seemed amiss to speak of a nation of Dichter und Denker when one thought of the contributions to literature of Goethe and Schiller, the historical works of Ranke and Niebuhr, the philosophical studies of Kant and Hegel, the great scientific achievements of Alexander von Humboldt and Röntgen, and the varied musical achievements of Beethoven, the Strausses, and Wagner. The second factor which seemed to support this attitude toward the Germans was their military and political weakness before their achievement of national unification in 1871. One cannot imagine a more vivid contrast than that between de Stael’s Germans and the stereotyped image of monocled, burr-headed, heel-clicking, mindless robots which Hollywood did so much to popularize in the thirties and forties. Possibly even more difficult to grasp, for those whose thinking has been shaped by the propaganda of recent years, is the fact that throughout the nineteenth century France rather than Germany was cast in the role of international bully and villain.5 Had not Louis XIV and Bonaparte repeatedly made a battleground of Europe? Could anyone forget that French arms had rolled at high tide across the entire continent of Europe, threatening to engulf even the vast empire of the Russian Tsars? Or could anyone forget that it had required the combined resources of Austria, Britain, Russia, and Prussia, assisted by the fortuitous intervention of nature in the form of the Russian winter, to shatter the might of the Corsican conqueror? Source.
You consistently take an anti-German stand in your posts. Although I have yet to see you use such ethnic slurs as “Nigger” or “Kike”, etc. “Kraut” seems to roll off your tongue regularly and with great ease.
I’m exposing the various hoaxes that pass for Third Reich (and W.W. II) scholarship in the West and that you frequently peddle on your little blog. In its anti-German rhetoric, MajorityRights is indistinguishable from Free Republic or Little Green Footballs. Whether you’re conscious of it or not, you’re hawking a Jew-financed worldview. 75
Posted by Friedrich Braun on Sat, 30 Aug 2008 05:39 | # Continuation:
Anonymous authority. The above paragraph is fictitious in nature, complete with bogus percentages. However, we know what actually did take place: I found this new release in the bookstore today. It’s the first English language source that I have seen since James Bacque’s Other Losses about the postwar Allied occupation of Germany. MacDonogh also reaches the conclusion that millions of German civilians died between the time of V-E Day and the Berlin Airlift. Friends of mine, even published historians, have often told me that the Germans ‘deserved what they got’ in 1945: it was a just punishment for their behaviour in occupied lands and for the treatment of the Jews at home. This book is not intended to excuse the Germans, but it does not hesitate to expose the victorious Allies in their treatment of the enemy at the peace, for in most cases it was not the criminals who were raped, starved, tortured or bludgeoned to death but women, children, and old men. What I record and sometimes call into question here is the way that many people were allowed to exact that revenge by military commanders, even by government ministers; and that when they did so they often killed the innocent, not the guilty. MacDonogh, xiii I’m on page 55 of 618 right now. I want to gag. He obviously wasn’t joking about exposing the brutality of the Allied occupation. Here are a few selections: In Danzig it was open season for the Russian soldiers once again. They raped, murdered and pillaged. Women between the ages of twelve and seventy-five were raped; boys who sought to rescue their mothers were pitilessly shot. The Russians defiled the ancient Cathedral of Oliva and raped the Sisters of Mercy. Later they put the building to the torch. In the same hospitals both nurses and female doctors were subjected to the same outraged after the soldiers drank surgical spirit. Nurses were raped over the bodies of unconscious patients in the operating theatres together with the women in the maternity ward. Doctors who tried to stop this were simply gunned down. The Poles behaved as badly as the Russians. Many Danzigers took their own lives. The men were rounded up, beaten and thrown into the concentration camp at Matzkau. From there 800 to 1,000 were dispatched to Russia twice daily. Ibid., 55 Ships fared no better. They were sunk as they left the harbour of Pillau outside Konigsberg. Hundreds of thousands of refugees trekked across the ice that covered the inland seas of the Frisches and Kurisches Haff in heavy laden carts and proceeded toward Danzig. The Russians warned them that they would fire at the ice from their warships on 15 February. The shells ht men and horses. Where the ice was smashed, the trekkers put temporary bridges and persevered. The night was pitch black. All they cold hear war ‘Shooting, screaming and screeching’. When dawn broke they realized the full horror: body upon body, man and horse; and every now and then the chassis of a cart sticking out of the thin ice. Those who succeeded in making it to the thin strip of land that borders Haff and Nehrung had a choice of heading north to the ships at Pillau or south-west towards Danzig. Ibid., 47 For the Russians, Berlin - even in its ruinous state - was the picture of sophistication. They thought that the light was captured in lightbulbs and unscrewed them to send them home. They were fascinated by lavatories with flushes - and allegedly used them to wash their potatoes in. Little things, like cigarette lighters, were not only new, but utterly enchanting to them. . . . The Woman saw her liberators discard a collection of classical 78s, including Lohengrin and Beethoven’s Ninth, in favour of a record playing an advertising jingle from C&A;in the Spittalmarkt. . . . The Russian inability to master anything technical was ‘an inexhaustible chapter’. They stole all the bicycles they could find. The Woman saw them take them up to a street near the Hasenheide where they practised riding them. They sat ’stiff on the saddles like chimpanzees in the zoo’. They frequently fell off before they mastered the use of the two-wheeled beast. Ibid, 97 Rape was most common amongst the Russians and French, less so amongst the Americans and British, in that order. I spent last night reading about the unbelievable savagery of the Czechs. I had always wondered why you hated them so much. It makes sense now. The resistance had been wiped out as early as the autumn of 1941, and was unable to re-form until 1943 and 1944, when there was an uprising in Slovakia. Nazi brutality was measured: apart from the massacre at Lidice - provoked by the British-masterminded assassination of the deputy protector Reinhard Heydrich - there were no startling atrocities. The country was hardly touched by the aerial bombardment that struck terror into the rest of Europe. The French bore far worse, and behaved better towards the defeated Germans; but then again, the French were not considered to be racially inferior. . . . The insurgents captured the radio station and began broadcasting the slogan ‘Smrt Nemcum! Smrt vsem Nemcum! Smrt vsem Okkupanten!’ (Death to the Germans! Death to all Germans! Death to all occupiers!). There was to be no mercy for old men, women or children - even for German dogs. Margarete Schell’s was stoned by Czech children and had to be shot. It was the first day of the Revolution … Women too were forced to were forced to clear the barricades. Helene Bugner was first beaten by the porter of her block of flats, then a Professor Zelenka drove her and twenty other women off to clear the streets. ‘Here, I have brought you some German sows!’ said the professor. Both men and women died from the beatings. A large crowd of Czechs stood by and cheered whenever a woman was struck or fell. At the end of their work they had to tread on a larger picture of Hitler and spit on it. Margarete Schell saw people being forced to eat pieces of such pictures as she too was put to work on the barricades. As they were driven off, one woman heard a Czech tell another, ‘Don’t hit them on the head, they might die at once. THey must suffer longer and a lot more.’ When Helene Bugner returning that evening she was unrecognizable to her children. Marianne Klaus saw her husband alive for the last time on the 9th. She received his body the next day - the sixty-six-year-old had been beaten to death by the police. On the same day she saw two SS men suffer a similar fate, kicked in the stomach until blood spurted out; a woman Wehrmacht auxillary stoned and hanged; and another SS man hung up by his feet from a lamppost and set alight. Many witnesses attested to the stringing up and burning of Germans as ‘living torches’, not just soldiers but also young boys and girls. Most were SS men, but as the Czechs were not always too scrupulous about looking at the uniforms, a number of Wehrmacht soldiers perished in this way too. … The Ministry of Education, the Military Prison, the Riding School, the Sports Stadium and the Labor Exchange were set aside for German prisoners. The Scharnhorst School was the scene of a massacre on the night of the 5th. Groups of ten Germans were led down to the courtyard and shot: men, women and children - even babies. THe others had to strip the corpses and bury them. Alfred Gabauer saw female SS employees forced to roll naked in a pool of water before they were beaten senseless with rifle butts. There were as many as 10,000-15,000 Germans in the football stadium in Strahov. Here the Czechs organized a game where 5,000 prisoners had to run for their lives as guards fired on them with machine guns. Some where shot in the latrines. The bodies were not cleared away and those who had used the latrines later had to defecate on their dead countrymen. As a rule all SS men were killed, generally by a shot in the back of the heard or the stomach. Even after 16 May when order was meant to be restored, twelve to twenty people died daily and were taken away from the stadium on a dung wagon. Most had been tortured first. Many were buried in mass graves at Pankrac Prison where a detachment of sixty prisoners was on hand to inter the corpses. Another impromptu prison was in a hotel up in the hills. This had been the Wehrmacht’s brothel. A number of Germans were locked up in the cellar, and the whores and their pimps indulged in a new orgy of sadism and perversity. German men and women had to strip naked for their treatment. One of them was Professor Walter Dick, heard of a department at the Bulovka Hospital. He was driven insane by his torturers and hanged himself on a chain. Ibid, 125-134 It goes on like this for thirty more pages and becomes even more graphic. I haven’t gotten to the part about the POW camps or the expulsions from Poland yet.
Happily, Guessedworker views are in the minority among conservative British and American authors (i.e., his purported ideological camp). The prevailing sentiments of that cadre agrees with Professor John Charmley: Charmley’s scholarship…finds Churchill’s early years powerful and compelling, but believes that Churchill’s alternative to appeasement was unrealistic and his actions as Prime Minister in World War II were a failure. The resulting collapse of the British Empire and the rise of the United States and the Soviet Union Charmley sees as disastrous in all three areas. While Charmley never states outright that as Prime Minister Churchill should have allied with Nazi Germany in 1940, he believes it to have been possible to do so honourably and that it would have safeguarded the British Empire better than an alliance with the anti-colonial U.S. President Roosevelt. Charmley does outright recommend “disengaging” from the war against Germany, and letting Stalin and Hitler whittle away each other’s power rather than risk Britain’s resources.
This is false. Britain and France didn’t declare war on Germany because of “land-theft and slavery” or because of a fictitious “Ostplan.” [T]he British Government agreed: Danzig should be returned. For of all the amputations of German lands and peoples at Versailles, European statesmen, even Winston Churchill, regarded Danzig and the Polish Corridor that sliced Germany in two as the most outrageous. The problem was the Poles, who refused to discuss Danzig. Then, in March, Czechoslovakia suddenly began to fall apart. The Sudetenland had been annexed by Germany. Hungary had taken back its lost lands, and Poland had annexed the disputed region of Teschen. Slovakia and Ruthenia now moved to declare independence, and Prague began to march on the provinces. Hitler intervened to guarantee the independence of Slovakia and gave Hungary a green light to re-annex Ruthenia. Czech President Hacha [made] his nation the German Protectorate of Bohemia and Moravia. Chamberlain, now humiliated, mocked by Tory back-benchers, panicking over wild false rumors of German attacks on Romania and Poland, made the greatest blunder in British history. Unasked, he issued a war guarantee to Poland, empowering a Polish dictatorship of colonels that had joined Hitler in dismembering Czechoslovakia to drag the British Empire into war with Germany over a city, Danzig, the British thought should be returned to Germany. It was not Munich. It was the war guarantee that guaranteed the war that brought down the Empire, and gave us the Holocaust, 50 million dead and the Stalinization of half of Europe. Source. There is no parallel with the deeds of the Wehrmacht in the East, What are the chances that Guessedworker bothered to read: Joachim Hoffmann, Stalin’s War of Extermination 1941-1945. Planning, Realization, Documentation. Franz W. Seidler, Crimes Against the Wehrmacht (2. vols.) Walter Post, The Defamed Wehrmacht. Nil. Of course.
“It says so in this book I’ve read written by an apologist of the British Empire!” Guessedworker engages in deception and self-deception. Who out of those people that the British Empire exploited, raped, enslaved, and murdered for decades and centuries would want the British yoke back? I don’t hear the natives clamouring for a return of glorious Raj, do you? The historic benevolence and magnanimity of the British in exotic and far away places is well known to the world. We’re talking about White people here, not wogs.:
Source. 76
Posted by the Narrator... on Sat, 30 Aug 2008 09:59 | #
It’s not a philosophy, it’s just the reality of existence, even European existence. (on a side note, notice that after the plague had died down, European leaders weren’t advocating the importation of thirty million arabs and africans into Europe to replace the lost work force)
I doubt very much Hitler was attempting to exterminate any people. I’d say he eventually planed on forcibly deporting the jews out of Europe and back to their native habitat, the deserts of the middle-east.
The reason Eastern Europe has (thus far) escaped mass non-White immigration is because of the economic stagnation which was brought about by decades of Soviet Rule. But remember the Soviets did not aspire towards European Empire. Russia was merely to be the starting point of a global revolution wherein racial, ethnic and religious difference would be forcibly set aside in favor of ‘Global Citizenship’. That and make anti-semetism the greatest of all crimes.
I’ve seen he claims but not those specific numbers. But I tend to take such claims, which originated from the Soviet Politburo, with a grain of salt.
Yes, I believe he did intend those things. He was competing against that role with the “jewish master race”, which won and has gone on to pursue their goal of ethnically cleansing all Europe of all Europeans.
Land theft and slavery? Canada…America…Australia…New Zealand…South Africa… These places weren’t gifts from the natives.
I wasn’t really even talking about that. I’m not taking cheap shots Guessedworker, for if I were, I’d be taking them at myself and my own nation as well.
National Socialist Germany was the spiritual offspring and political student of both Great Britain and the United States. That is why after their star pupil was soundly defeated, they too were philosophically/ideologically attacked and dismantled. As I said before, the claim that America is the birthplace of egalitarianism strike White Americans as a bit odd, since we are incessantly scolded for our unprecedented racism, xenophobia and isolationist tendencies. When we White Americans are being shamed for our bigotry, do you know what is held up (and has been held up for decades) as the paragon of tolerance and diversity? Europe! As I said before, there is the America that is, and the America that is presented as being. The same is true with the Third Reich. And I apologize for the slow responses (and bad grammar). My good computer is down and I’m on my old reliable, decade old, computer which is giving me fits as well. The above is a condensed version of the response I wrote and lost twenty minutes ago… 77
Posted by Darren on Sat, 30 Aug 2008 10:16 | #
Wow. I’ve heard all I need to hear. Thanks for that “gem”. 78
Posted by Alaric on Sat, 30 Aug 2008 10:48 | # Wow. GW is completely friggin’ bonkers. What a loser. 79
Posted by Guessedworker on Sat, 30 Aug 2008 10:54 | # Narrator, James Cook claimed the east coast of Australia under instruction from King George III of England on 22nd August 1770. The Aboriginal population in the entire land-mass at that time is estimated at 48,000. The Maori population of New Zealand in 1840 is estimated at under 100,000. There is a legend that these fine people ate the survivors of shipwreck. Are you seriously suggesting that the Britain of the 20th Century should have withheld its hand from opposing the German land-theft in the east on the basis of equivalence? Forgive me, does this really seem realistic to you, or are you just continuing this argument for its own sake? In any case, Hitler’s Lebensraum involved genociding Europeans - our Europeans. The antecedents for this do not lie in British Empire but in the tribalism that characterised all Europe before the Roman era. Should we have wished to return to that, and toss aside all the instruments of state which arose over the centuries to lift ourselves out of such behaviour? Revolutionary America was, of course, egalitarian. The revolution itself was against the claim of the British Crown. But it had its intellectual grounding in the French Revolution. So we see the myth of boundless progress, and the dignity of the common man imbued with “rights”. One-man-one-vote democracy was unthought of in Britain in 1775, and its principal gift has been the political rubric of equal opportunity. But read Sunic, who is an American citizen by the way, and who devotes an entire book to the subject. 80
Posted by the Narrator... on Sat, 30 Aug 2008 12:11 | #
And of North American natives and the slave trade? And lest you think I’m condemning the British and other Europeans for their adventuring, I’m not (I’m the proud descendant of some of them). They represented the European side battling against the Asiatic side for supremacy of territory and won. All I’m trying to do Guessedworker, is point out the bizarre sermonizing of the Allies to the Germans for these (alleged) very same things. And if, as I believe you alluded to earlier, that America was already judaized to the hilt and bearing an egalitarianistic Trojan horse when she entered the war, then why defend her actions (along with Britain’s) against Germany?
And what do you think is happening NOW? POST AXIS DEFEAT? If the war was to stop the Germans from genociding Europeans, then why, after the Germans were defeated, has the genociding of Europeans actually occurred with increasing speed and gusto?
The basis of equivalence of The West with those “evil, dastardly Nazis”, is the reason why you and I find it hard to get our voices and views heard in the market place of ideas today. Simply saying, ” I am proud to be White” will bring a whirlwind of vindictive reproach down about you, wrapped in anti-Nazi (and by extention, anti-White) global brotherhood jingoism. If, as I have stated, we can show that those “evil and dastardly” Germans were not in fact evil and dastardly, then we can not only take away much of the anti-White hyperbole used against us, but can then proceed to reclaim the rest of our history as something of honor, and without shame.
I haven’t viewed this as an argument at all, but rather a friendly, interesting discussion.
And before that? And Sunic’s model, to me, fails in that, post-Confederacy defeat (and the Confederacy -the South- was held up as a racist, bigoted, backwards and even dangerous place) America became MORE Racist, not less. Racialism entered the Mainstream like never before. And Patriotism, Nationalism, Xenophobia, and Isolationist Views were magnified a hundred fold. Something completely different happened post WWII where the opposite occurred. The West took itself to the gallows in 1945… 81
Posted by Guessedworker on Sat, 30 Aug 2008 12:58 | # Narrator, You have not answered the thrust of my question about the equivalence of European expansionism and German expansionism. Are they or are they not equivalent? My Darwinian answer is that while the land of America, Australia etc had potential for vastly higher carrying capacity, and therefore Europeans had a human right to expand into it, the rights of the indigenes are not worthing nothing. They have the right to defend their genetic interests. They also have a right which is implicit in the moral make-up of the European to be respected, and not treated as a slave. This, damnit, is why slavery was ended by the British - a process that began as early as 1878. On this basis I see no equivalence between British history - the British experience of Empire - and the Hitlerian crimes against the European peoples to the east. Pray tell me how I can be wrong. As to the nature of Western philosophy from Descartes on, I consider your view altogether too sweeping and dismissive. Think in terms of the battle of the organic and the manufactured, because this has been the true character of Western philosophical development over the last half-millenia. It is not untrue that something changed in 1945, as it changed in 1867 with Das Kapital and in 1827 with the end of last truly Conservative administration in Britain. But these are mere mileposts in a long line of intellectual history, and it behoves us to be aware of the origins in that of everything that preceded the “Hebreic” postmodern. Your understanding that America experienced bouts of reaction does not disqualify this history but, on the contrary, proves that ideas hold dominion in the field of organised political struggle, while instincts only have the power to protest. There is no dominion of instinct, and perhaps has not been one since the first tribal king declared war in his own name, rather than that of his people. Don’t turn your back on intellect in favour of instinct. We can never win that way. 82
Posted by Fred Scrooby on Sat, 30 Aug 2008 13:56 | #
Voltaire, Diderot, Montesquieu, the French “Encyclopedists,” and the great French intellectual ferment of the mid-1700s were the intellectual grounding of the French Revolution and a large part of the intellectual grounding of the American Revolution, the latter of course preceding the former by nearly a decade-and-a-half. (File under Niggling) 83
Posted by the Narrator... on Sat, 30 Aug 2008 14:27 | #
Whether it is within Europe or without, no, there is no difference. I mean just off the top of my head, the name Napoleon comes to mind….Joan of Arc and something about an English invasion of France.
1878? At any rate, 1863 or 1878 is not that long ago in the long history of European Civilization.
But I don’t agree with your basis for the simple reason that actual European genocide has been ongoing post 1945. I mean look Guessedworker, I’ve avoided the obvious here which is that those very same Allies which you claim were fighting “Hitlerian Crimes” against eastern Europeans handed off eastern Europeans to the Soviets to be mass murdered post WW II. How many eastern Europeans were mass murdered by Britain and America’s fine ally the USSR? It still boils down to the pot calling the kettle black.
And that is not inconsistent with all that I’ve said.
America is perhaps the only nation on earth that was created as an implicitly racist nation. And this is a fact that liberals never hesitate to throw in our faces and why they are hellbent on altering it. You can explain to a White person why they should care, but even understanding it will not necessarily make them care enough to react.
I never claimed otherwise. 84
Posted by Guessedworker on Sat, 30 Aug 2008 15:23 | # Typo, sorry. The first public meeting of those seeking to introduce anti-slavery legislation at Westminster was on 22nd May 1787. I grant that the Spanish were appallingly cruel in the Conquista. But even there, Cabeza de Vaca was able to return eventually to Spain and argue - unsuccessfully - for the humanity of the Mezo-American tribes. Are you really trying to argue that Spanish cruelty in pursuit of stealing gold justifies the German’s Drive to the East? Is that the rapine natural law you wish to live under, whereby no man’s property may be defended by right or tort from an invader who can excuse his covetousness and genocide on the grounds that others have done it? This cognition of fellow-humanity that Cabeza exemplifies is one of the graces of the European mind. It is more powerful than the instinct to seize whatever you can, and destroy all obstructions in your path, for otherwise we would be living in an African state of disorder. We are not Africans. We do not wish endless disorder upon ourselves. For you, now, to claim that Germany’s behaviour to its neighbours to the east is excusable on the basis of “The Rule of Mayhem” is profoundly un-European. There is no moral justification for Germany to be got from history. A lesson, however, is there, and it is to treat palingenesis with extreme caution. 85
Posted by the Narrator... on Sat, 30 Aug 2008 16:10 | #
I’m merely pointing out the unbelievable hypocrisy of America and Britain saying to Germany, “Do as we say, not as we do.”
As opposed to the Allied sanctioned Soviet drive into central Europe, swallowing up the east on its way?
I said nothing about “The Rule of Mayhem”.
Moral Justification, of the kind you are implying, did not factor into the War, on one side or the other. 86
Posted by Captainchaos on Sat, 30 Aug 2008 16:35 | # “I doubt very much Hitler was attempting to exterminate any people. I’d say he eventually planed on forcibly deporting the jews out of Europe and back to their native habitat, the deserts of the middle-east.” - the Narrator Yes, but you’ve dodged my question. Presumably, by your standards, moral consideration for out-group members must ALWAYS take a back seat to the advancement of group EGI. What is more effective to PERMANENTLY neutralize a threat to the group: deportation or extermination? Hitler failed the test (presumably by your standards). What a pussy.
“The reason Eastern Europe has (thus far) escaped mass non-White immigration is because of the economic stagnation which was brought about by decades of Soviet Rule. But remember the Soviets did not aspire towards European Empire. Russia was merely to be the starting point of a global revolution wherein racial, ethnic and religious difference would be forcibly set aside in favor of ‘Global Citizenship’. That and make anti-semitism the greatest of all crimes.” - the Narrator Oh? What was that little dispute between Stalin and Trotsky about then? Something having to do with “socialism in one nation” versus “global revolution”? And by-the-by, Stalin just loved those Jews didn’t he? Would never have thought of damaging a single hair on a single Jews head. And, why not further the further the “global revolution wherein racial, ethnic and religious difference would be forcibly set aside” via an act of the will: import non-Whites. “Temporary” (in the communist mind) setbacks economically didn’t stop them from pursuing communism otherwise they wouldn’t have stuck to it. So why not absorb another “temporary” setback and bring on the negroes? (Side-note: Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels were racists. They used the word “nigger” in their personal correspondences. They would have laughed in Trotsky’s face.) Now, Russia and eastern Europe display the most vigorous identity of “people-hood” of all Whites. Are you sure that race-replacement would have been inevitably if the Soviet Union reigned supreme in Europe? Point being, if we only argue for what “should” have been based upon the consequent race-replacement (assuming an Allied victory made it inevitable, which I do not) why a preference for a Germany victory over a Soviet one? Could it be that National Socialism is just what YOU happen to like? Are you sure YOUR OWN prescriptions are as free from the childish idealisms that you criticize others for? “I mean look Guessedworker, I’ve avoided the obvious here which is that those very same Allies which you claim were fighting “Hitlerian Crimes” against eastern Europeans handed off eastern Europeans to the Soviets to be mass murdered post WW II. How many eastern Europeans were mass murdered by Britain and America’s fine ally the USSR?” - the Narrator But what is hypocrisy to an immoralist? Maybe you should just give up on Guessedworker, Narrator. He obviously doesn’t have “the right stuff” to be a ruthless immoralist like yourself. Perhaps is would be prudent to harvest finer crops from more fertile soils? “I would rather see a world in which some Whites flourish than the one in which all Whites perish.” - the Narrator Well, from the perspective of non-race-replacement and nationalist sentiment this HAS taken place as a result of WWII: in the East. Heil Stalin! 87
Posted by Captainchaos on Sat, 30 Aug 2008 17:24 | # Wow. GW is completely friggin’ bonkers. What a loser. Posted by Alaric on Saturday, August 30, 2008 at 09:48 AM Dude, have I got an offer for you! Limited time only: send in a proof of purchase from your Heinrich Himmler and Joseph Goebbels action figures and get a limited edition Blondi - will go swimmingly with your Berghof play-set. 88
Posted by the Narrator... on Sat, 30 Aug 2008 18:03 | #
Nowhere, here, have I outlined “my standards”.
Presume would be right, because gain, nowhere here have I outlined “my standards”. I’m just pointing out that the atrocities that you keep attributing to the Germans never happened.
So that wasn’t Stalin that took half of Europe after WWII?
So you’re say what here? That Stalin holocausted the jews as well?
One continent at a time, perhaps? Or maybe they were to economically preoccupied with the Cold War.
Karl Marx was a jew, not a White man. That, as a jew, he hated all gentiles, be they black or White, is par for the course.
I’ll have to take your word on that.
Pretty sure, yeah.
You tend to put an awful lot of words in my mouth. I’ve never said I preferred a German victory . I’ve never said I “liked” national Socialism. Nazi Germany, its ideologies and history, was one small, non-indistinct part of European history that has been mutated into the brick wall against which all Whites are currently stood in front of for the multi-culti firing squad.
Captainchaos if I’ve appeared impolite to you, it was not intentional. So please, stop with the assumptions about me and my values, standards and/or morals. Debate what I say, not what you “assume” I’m saying.
But by that logic Captainchaos, how White was Nazi ruled Europe vs. the “Liberated Europe” of today? 89
Posted by Captainchaos on Sat, 30 Aug 2008 19:48 | # “Nowhere, here, have I outlined “my standards”.” - the Narrator Then, here, now, I cordially invite you to do to. Please. I have stated mine in this thread. “I’m just pointing out that the atrocities that you keep attributing to the Germans never happened.” - the Narrator I keep pointing out that I don’t believe those “atrocities” (the Holocaust myth) either; you “presume” that I do so believe and “presume” that I think you so believe: it is not so. But no attrocities, none, whatsoever, as an expedient of Lebensraum land-grabbery? “And if you’ve actually read what I’ve said, you would have noted that I have repeatedly stated that “the threat” is an eternal one for which we must be eternally struggling against.” - the Narrator Okay. Then what is your prescription to counter the “eternal” “threat” in the most muscular, lasting way possible? National Socialism? Yes? No? What? “So that wasn’t Stalin that took half of Europe after WWII? Yeah, that was Stalin. Yeah, that was him too. But was it Stalin that imported millions of Chinese and Koreans in conquered Europe? Or did that not happen? “So you’re say what here? That Stalin holocausted the jews as well?” - the Narrator So what are you saying here? That Stalin didn’t kill a lot of Jews in his purges? Not exactly the actions of a died-in-the-wool philo-semite. “One continent at a time, perhaps? Or maybe they were to economically preoccupied with the Cold War.” - the Narrator One continent at a time? Okay, sounds plausible. But if his preoccupation with the Cold War is what kept him from moving to the next, inevitable in your opinion, stage of race-replacement in Europe, with the part he did indeed get and in my proposed hypothetical, all of Europe, why would have race-replacement have happened? America would still have been standing, so the Cold War would have gone on; therefore, he would have been preoccupied with it and not proceeded with race-replacement (at least according to what you propose). “Karl Marx was a jew, not a White man. That, as a jew, he hated all gentiles, be they black or White, is par for the course.” - the Narrator Karl Marx thought that White men were suitable for socialism. Blacks? Not so much. Some grudging respect for whitey. “I’ll have to take your word on that.” - the Narrator Please, and of course, thank you. “I’ve never said I preferred a German victory . I’ve never said I “liked” national Socialism.” - the Narrator I’ve never said I preferred a Soviet victory. I’ve never said I “liked” communism. You haven’t said you “dislike” National Socialism, either? What are your true feelings towards it? “Nazi Germany, its ideologies and history, was one small, non-indistinct part of European history that has been mutated into the brick wall against which all Whites are currently stood in front of for the multi-culti firing squad.” - the Narrator Well then, lets have a statement on your behalf of the merits and demerits of National Socialism so we can sort this thing out. “Captainchaos if I’ve appeared impolite to you, it was not intentional. So please, stop with the assumptions about me and my values, standards and/or morals. Debate what I say, not what you “assume” I’m saying.” - the Narrator Clearly articulate your “values, standards and/or morals” and no one will “assume” or guess. “Yeah between the mass murders, artificial famines and Soviet Occupation it was a real patriot fest for eastern Europe.” - the Narrator That was then, this is now. It’s the consequences that count. “Do you really believe that Hitler did not intend the Aryan masters to settle the land and rule over the remaining Untermenschen?” “Yes, I believe he did intend those things.” - the Narrator, in response to GW Sounds like a “real patriot fest” for those eastern Euros. “Soviet rule ended there just 17 years ago and already America is taking her place.” - the Narrator One “dragon” has been slayed; time for the next one. “But by that logic Captainchaos, how White was Nazi ruled Europe vs. the “Liberated Europe” of today?” - the Narrator How White was the Soviet ruled eastern Europe of yesteryear vs. that of today? “How White would it have stayed?” - the Narrator How White would the Soviet ruled eastern Europe have stayed if the Soviet Union had not fallen and eastern Europe not been absorbed into the EU? 90
Posted by Frederick Brown on Sat, 30 Aug 2008 20:48 | # “It says so in this book I’ve read written by an apologist of the Third Reich!” Oh, scratch that…: “It says so in this low-brow, unsourced, emotion-laden poorly designed spin website uploaded by an apologist of the Third Reich, one that relies heavily on actual Nazi propaganda, i.e. the propaganda of a totalitarian regime!” The war guarantee was stupid, but so was invading Poland. I strongly dislike excessive, parochial criticism of Germany, which I rightfully recognize as being Europe’s most important state, but do not confuse the entire German nation with the National Socialist regime controlling it, headed by tiny amount of Germans. Guessedworker does not use the word ‘Kraut’ in the decrepit way you accuse him of. He was paraphrasing common military British banter concerning ‘The Enemy’, employing something known as ‘wit’. Why did it not occur to NSDAP thinkers that perhaps Eastern Europe had developed more slowly than the West for reasons [i[other than genetic inferiority? Take a peek at the Topcoder rankings, Freidrich. And a map of R1a frequencies in Europe. 91
Posted by Fred Scrooby on Sat, 30 Aug 2008 21:24 | #
I couldn’t see it. I was a kid in my mid-twenties, and my anticommunist Vietnamese friend Chinh (I had both kinds of Vietnamese friend, anticommunist and communist) was yelling at me in exasperation, trying to make me see that the photos of happy, healthy, well-fed, laughing Chinese peasants and workers joyously going about their hard labor with greatest ease in the Communist-Chinese magazine I subscribed to through the Belgo-China Association were not a realistic depiction of peasant life in China under communism, but were staged propaganda photos. In many ways left-leaning, I believed lots of the communist boilerplate. Still left-leaning in exactly the same ways (that’s using the standard terminology: today I deny “left/right” terminology as anything politically meaningful, preferring “normal/degenerate,” something everyone knows the meaning of), I understand better how the world works, an unsought education thrust piecemeal on me over years and decades mostly with my jaw dropped to the floor, so shocking was it at each step. Back then, before my education in the matter of how the world works began, the good Walloon who was to become my father-in-law breathed only the strongest condemnation of the name Léon Degrelle and the Walloon Rexists as vilest Nazi scum, a disgrace to Wallonia. You could almost imagine him spitting in disgust whenever he even mentioned the Rexists. But I’ve had my unsought, unwanted education since those days, and I now know Degrelle to have been a great and good man, just as I know those photos of Chinese peasants to have been staged (which if I ever run into Chinh again, he’ll be relieved to learn, I hope) and, unfortunately, lots of other stuff which I never wanted to learn but, too bad, I’ve got it now, got it figured out, had it seared into my brain, from where it won’t ever leave. MR.com blogger Robert Reis of course posted an entry about Degrelle not long ago. Here the great man talks about the gargantuan task of societal reconstruction that lay before the National Socialists the night of January 30, 1933:
92
Posted by Guessedworker on Sat, 30 Aug 2008 21:25 | # 123, I just want to respond quickly about the wrong pig. In 1938-9 there was only one pig at market. If the “right” choice for Britain and France was to let that pig ravage the East in order to deal with another pig we did not then know about, I think it would have taken a pretty hard-headed, not to say ruthless statesmen to go with that. As is the way with politics, what was done was done on the basis of the evidence that was crowding in on British and French minds at the time. The virtue of hindsight is probably not the most just basis on which to fault the real decisions that were made. 93
Posted by Fred Scrooby on Sat, 30 Aug 2008 21:53 | #
Small men don’t write words like that; don’t think thoughts like that. 94
Posted by Guessedworker on Sat, 30 Aug 2008 22:01 | # Narrator, You mention the “Allied sanctioned Soviet drive into central Europe”. There are two words which answer that. They are Molotov and Ribbentrop. But even so, the Allies did not “sanction” the drive into central Europe. The Red Army was throwing off the Wehrmacht and driving it to extinction in the ruins of Berlin. That’s war. Nobody “sanctioned” it. Your argument appears to be that the actions of the <strike>British Establishment in India</strike> <strike>the Spanish Conquistadores in South America</strike> <strike>the Russians in eastern Europe</strike> the Allies in WW2 were morally equivalent to the policies of National Socialism towards its neighbours in the east, and therefore criticism of the latter is hypocritical. Now you give us Britain and America in Georgia. All this is justification for a rather small point: that National Socialism wasn’t so bad, really, and our lives under the Third Reich would, as it turns out, have been better than under American hegemony. But regardless of whether one answers “yes” or “no” to that, what, actually, happens next. Nothing very much, I think. We arrive at a position of simple dogma, don’t we? Let’s return to what I actually wrote at the beginning, which was that National Socialism was damned by its philosophical divorce from English or French empiricism. In other words, there was no counter-balance to or moderation of the mad and destructive dreaming that inhabited the NS movement. Mad and destructive dreaming is useless to us today because of the march of modern science. “Is it true” is now the gold standard of white nationalist thought, and we cannot turn our backs on it. However, I cast doubt on whether a European Restoration can be constructed out of empiricism alone. The issue which confronted Kant - how to synthesise thought and experience - remains to be pulled, like Excalibar from the stone, towards a resolution. It was certainly not my desire or intention to re-fight WW2 here, which I regard - still - as a trivial employment of our time. 95
Posted by silver on Sun, 31 Aug 2008 02:36 | #
I don’t. There’s no more effective a tool at shattering po-mo’s foundations than raw empiricism. You just need to keep at it, GW, like a salesman keeps making calls on his prospects until they cave. The Guardianistas you joust with don’t really have anything holding them except a fleeting determination that things not be as horrible as they seem, and, you know, if you look at it this way it’s really not horrible at all, in fact it’s quite brilliant. That’s all a mushy Peter Thatchell enunciation that only pluralists can lay claim to being successors of enlightenment thought is. Just keep bashing away. But throw them a few carrots, too. Liberalism grew out of empiricism so clearly not everything in it is wrong. Give them that. Don’t steamroll them like a Pat Buchanan. They’re human fucking beings, not ethereal philosopher-gods. Deal with them as humans. No one wants to be wrong, dead wrong about anything, let alone the most important of life matters. Fred, revolutionary zeal isn’t sustainable. 96
Posted by Captainchaos on Sun, 31 Aug 2008 07:36 | # “You just need to keep at it, GW, like a salesman keeps making calls on his prospects until they cave.” - silver I can’t stand telemarketers. “Liberalism grew out of empiricism so clearly not everything in it is wrong. Give them that. Don’t steamroll them like a Pat Buchanan.” - silver Time to throw some shrimp on the barbi. “They’re human fucking beings, not ethereal philosopher-gods.” - silver Whose fucking what, now? “Fred, revolutionary zeal isn’t sustainable.” - silver Wogs have a bizarre way of expressing affection.
I like gold. 97
Posted by the Narrator... on Sun, 31 Aug 2008 08:33 | #
I have neither the time nor inclination to lay out what would necessarily be a thesis length outline of my standards. But the applications of the standards which you have appealed to, are those of exceptional hypocrisy. You have demonized the Germans for what THEY DID NOT DO.
I take it then, you’ve never heard of Manifest Destiny.
The complete and total dismantling of the belief in Equality by Whites.
Yep that happened, courtesy the victorious Allies.
Because jews (the current and greatest incarnation of our foe) hate Whites above all other things.
I’ll have to take your word on that.
Actually I have stated “my true feelings” towards it if you’d payed attention. I’ve stated clearly that it was an indistinct part of European history. That it was merely the spiritual offspring and political student of both Great Britain and the United States. It was however turned into the effigy of all Europe, post Allied Victory, and is continually derided and burned as a representative of White culture and civilization.
And I’ve already stated this as well. It, alone of all nations then, fought exclusively and unabashedly, for the White man. That’s one helluva merit in my book!
There are three realistic options for eastern Europe. And those three have never given a damn about the fate of east Europeans as demonstrated by their indifference to the Soviet slaughter of them. And that is my point Captainchaos. It is the Allies, not Nazi Germany, that destroyed Europe.
You’re comparing the ever changing eternal vs. the indistinct constant. The Soviets representing the former and the Nazi’s the later.
I agree Guessed worker, “That’s War”. But what we in The West are doing today is judging Nazi Germany for not holding to a constantly redefined standard which we ourselves do not or have not held. And the Allies had two choices going in. And they knew the outcome of either one, as it was rather obvious. 1. Attack both Germany and the USSR. Just as Britain knew that Western Europe would be handed over to the Americans. Her economies, her nations, her armies etc… all under the thumb of America and/or USSR. Europe gained nothing from the war. What she lost, is everything.
The presence of (ever growing) millions of non-Whites and the islamization of Europe, presently occurring, are not hypotheticals Guessedworker.
Mad and destructive reasoning seems to be impetus for the egalitarian and equalitarian policies currently driving Western governments in their push for “multiculturalism” and “equality”. By comparison, National Socialism seems a rather sane, if not an outright bland, ideology. Although I agree with much of what you are getting at, it should be tempered with that age old adage, “no need to re-invent the wheel.”
I agree. 98
Posted by Captainchaos on Sun, 31 Aug 2008 09:23 | # “But the applications of the standards which you have appealed to, are those of exceptional hypocrisy. You have demonized the Germans for what THEY DID NOT DO. Two ships passing in the night. “I’ve stated clearly that it was an indistinct part of European history.” - the Narrator, on National Socialism “The currently third world swamped West is a CONSEQUENCE of Allied victory.” - the Narrator, on the defeat of the West’s last, best hope (National Socialism) Hmmmm? “And I’ve already stated this as well. It, alone of all nations then, fought exclusively and unabashedly, for the White man. That’s one helluva merit in my book!” - the Narrator, getting something off his chest We have an endorsement, at last. “You’re comparing the ever changing eternal vs. the indistinct constant. The Soviets representing the former and the Nazi’s the later. Can’t wait for the full-length version. 99
Posted by Captainchaos on Sun, 31 Aug 2008 10:10 | # “Forgive me, does this really seem realistic to you, or are you just continuing this argument for its own sake?” 100
Posted by Fred Scrooby on Sun, 31 Aug 2008 13:35 | #
Amen to both those comments by Narrator. Regarding “the Red Army’s drive into Central Europe”: it was political, not just military, in the sense that Gen. Patton was ready, able, and champing at the bit to advance his army through Germany up to the Russian border before the Russians had entered Central Europe, and so assure the occupation of the whole of Central Europe by the U.S. and British forces alone, with the Russians kept on their side of their border. The Jews, communists, and Stalinist agents in D.C. wanted the Russians in on the occupation, however, so ordered Patton to halt and wait for the Russians to take East Prussia and Berlin. When Patton grumbled they had him assassinated. The Red Army drive into Central Europe was political in that sense. Had the Jews and communists not been in complete control of the Roosevelt Administration the Red Army wouldn’t have set one boot in Central Europe. 101
Posted by Guessedworker on Sun, 31 Aug 2008 14:17 | # From Wikipedia, tainted as it is:-
So, is the contewntion here, Fred, that Gay and Woodring and Technical Sergeant Robert L. Thompson were all agents of the Forces of Darkness, and actually Patton was despatched in the woods, his body carried to the military hospital in Heidelberg and kept warm for 12 days, until his death was announced? Sometimes accidents happen, and they are convenient for certain people. Narrator, The rubric of the unfettered will is obviously palingenic in character, and unempirical. But we critique liberalism freely. My point is that our way out from under it, and from under the Forces of Darkness which shelter within it, is NOT a wholly palingenic construction like NS. 102
Posted by Fred Scrooby on Sun, 31 Aug 2008 14:19 | # See the comments on WW II by “A Finn” in this thread. 103
Posted by Fred Scrooby on Sun, 31 Aug 2008 14:28 | # Good point, GW, of course, but no, I don’t buy the official account as repeated in Wikipedia. When I was a boy, I heard men who’d served in Patton’s Third Army say it was common knowledge among the ordinary soldiers that he was assassinated on D.C.‘s orders because he wanted to go against the Russians, and until disproven, those men’s impression is plenty good enough for me, in view of all that we know was happening and has happened since. Plenty good enough. 105
Posted by silver on Mon, 01 Sep 2008 04:27 | # Cap, what’s with the mindless attack? Do you really think remaining isolated on the nutjob fringe (make no mistake that is where you are) is doing you any good? You demonstrated greater intellect and compassion in the foregoing discussion than I would have credited you with (what, with your inexplicable inability to respond rationally (and solely rationally) in our discussion of Israel and your uber-nutjob count-your-chicks plan to “reconquer” the entire US in the event of a partition). You can prefer “gold”, diamonds or mint juleps all you like; a nigger for a grandson-in-law is what you’re on course to get and nearly every thought out of that nervous wreck you pass off as a mind of yours only increases—not decreases, not by a long shot—the odds you’ll arrive at your destination. But don’t mind me, keep being the walking, talking irrelevancy you evidently prefer. *Shaking head* A greater pack of wankers, I charge, one will be hard-pressed to find. Hey, GW. Seems Rob Lindsay’s singing a different tune about Samoans. No more “roly-poly Islanders,” it seeems. Was it a Grand Unified Philosophy of Racialism which did it? Or the repeitition of unvarnished empricism? You decide. 106
Posted by The Monitor on Mon, 01 Sep 2008 04:37 | # Speaking wholly as an outsider, this is one of the most fascinating discussions Ive seen on a Right Wing web site in years. 107
Posted by The Monitor on Mon, 01 Sep 2008 04:41 | # Palingenesis (from Greek palin-, again, + genesis, becoming, birth), is a term used in philosophy, theology, and biology. In philosophy it denotes in its broadest sense the theory (e.g. of the Pythagoreans) that the human soul does not die with the body but is born again in new incarnations. It is thus the equivalent of metempsychosis. The term has a narrower and more specific use in the system of Schopenhauer, who applied it to his doctrine that the will does not die but manifests itself afresh in new individuals. He thus repudiates the primitive metempsychosis doctrine which maintains the reincarnation of the particular soul. The word palingenesis or rather palingenesia may be traced back to the Stoics, who used the term for the continual re-creation of the universe by the Demiurgus (Creator) after its absorption into himself. Similarly Philo spoke of Noah and his sons as leaders of a renovation or rebirth of the earth. Josephus used the term of the national restoration of the Jews, Plutarch of the transmigration of souls, and Cicero of his own return from exile. In the New Testament the properly theological sense of spiritual regeneration is found, though the word itself occurs only twice; and it is used by the church fathers, e.g. for the rite of baptism or for the state of repentance. In modern biology (e.g. Haeckel and Fritz Müller), palingenesis has been used for the exact reproduction of ancestral features by inheritance, as opposed to kenogenesis, in which the inherited characteristics are modified by environment. The doctrines which are used to comprise the political ideology of Fascism often move to describe it as a Palingenetic Ideology, primarily as a result of the notion that Fascism itself is the rebirth of a state and/or empire in the image of that which came before it - thus, the ancestral political underpinnings. The best examples of this can be found with both Fascist Italy and Germany - Italy looking to establish a palingenetic line between the 20th Century regime under Mussolini as being the second incarnation of the Roman Empire, while Hitler’s ‘Third Reich’ was seen as being the second palingenetic incarnation - beginning first with the Holy Roman Empire (First Reich) then with Bismarck’s Germany (Second Reich) and then resulting in [the Third Reich.] (EB1911 as filtered through Wikipedia.) 108
Posted by silver on Mon, 01 Sep 2008 05:10 | # Monitor, it’s a discussion as fascinating as it is useless and counterproductive. No wonder “economism” attracts so many; spiritually, much is lost, but considering what it innoculates against, it’s a trade-off many have been willing to make. 109
Posted by Captainchaos on Mon, 01 Sep 2008 05:20 | # “You demonstrated greater intellect and compassion in the foregoing discussion than I would have credited you with…” - silver, giving vent to his inner demons No, no, no. “...a nigger for a grandson-in-law is what you’re on course to get and nearly every thought out of that nervous wreck you pass off as a mind of yours only increases—not decreases, not by a long shot—the odds you’ll arrive at your destination.” - silver, responding to the better angels of his nature Now that’s the silver I know and love. 110
Posted by silver on Mon, 01 Sep 2008 05:29 | #
The silver you don’t know and hate, however, bears malice towards none, with charity for all. 111
Posted by Captainchaos on Mon, 01 Sep 2008 05:51 | # “The silver you don’t know and hate, however, bears malice towards none, with charity for all.” - silver Keep spinning your wheels, bro. Sooner or later you’re bound to get some traction. 112
Posted by snax on Mon, 01 Sep 2008 10:36 | # In the meantime
113
Posted by Frederick Brown on Fri, 05 Sep 2008 04:18 | # “Nazi Germany was a [virtual paradise on Earth!]” Perhaps advertisements of the time would convince you of such, but you have to look further, beyond the pristine banner-emblazoned streets in the colour films of pre-war Nazi Germany, and the choreographed movements of ecstatic civilians within them. The regime secured the German people’s livelihood, that is for certain. No longer were they hounded by faceless, selfish forces of capitalism, communism or powerful Jewish intrigue. It was a state where the ethnic interests of the German people were put first and foremost. In this way, Germany was clean and healthy, yes, as healthy as could be. But in other matters? No, I can’t believe it was particularly nice having a gigantic all-encompassing state reaching deep into one’s sphere of living. There was no real economic improvement, only the appearance of such through artificial employment and autarky. The foul effects of the Versailles Treaty had long worn off before Nazi takeover, while any downturn left to be remedied was the result of the worldwide Depression. Perhaps it was shiny brilliance for most, but you do not convince me. Totalitarian regimes create propaganda. In this sense they are untrustworthy sources of information concerning their own turf, let alone the hate-mongering portrayals of foreign lands soon to POLANDbe annexed. Polish workers in Britain are reliable, polite, exceptionally hard-working and honorable, not to mention being attractive blonde folk. They are certainly more amiable than the native, dole-queuing chav population (a phenomenon, by the way, which is both genetic and limited to this island, caused by a mismatch of Celtic and Germanic peasantstock that inbred down the line. It has nothing to do with being raised in a certain way). This is a world away from the beastly, swarthy Tatar hordes beyond Silesia that would excitably devour a German whole at short notice. Given this, I think Guessedworker was right in suggesting Nazi Germany *was* warmongering and impatient in its desire to drive eastward into Soviet territory, and that he does know his history. I dare say the average Pole is even more Nordic than the average German person, speaking from personal observation of both Poles and genetic maps, and I can’t for the life of me imagine the same Polish people I have seen in the UK gutting a German man, decapitating him and placing the skull in his belly, as was recorded as ‘fact’ in a Nazi propaganda publication, among other gruesome stories. Of course, Friedrich, it helps to remember that most people here, especially myself and - from what I can tell - Guessedworker, do not lump the entire span of the regime into one odious bundle. Prior to Kristalnacht, and the Polish fiasco, we can separate the state into two forms: the stereotypically beastly, genocidal war-machine of 1939 and beyond, and the rejuvenated, industrious, orderly expanse of 1933 to ‘39. No white person in their right mind would have wanted the latter to have been ‘stopped’. But if I was a soldier at the time of the former, I - being a human, woefully limited in my scope - would want to stop something creeping up in the distance that everyone feared might conquer and enslave us all, like what was happening in Poland. At the time, Guessedworker’s parents were doing the right thing (and it was Nazi Germany which first terror-bombed European cities, and their denizens, into rubble first, including East London; the Western Allies reacted in kind). They were following orders. They weren’t fighting for Jews, or for greed, or for multiculturalism. None of that. They were fighting a foggy, menacing beast on the horizon that ate up all of Europe, and enslaved millions. So no, they shouldn’t have been shot between the eyes, crazy spikey-helmeted one, any more than Alan Turing should have been shot for working with British and Polish cryptographers. You - like the regime itself did - accuse civilized, human yet poor Czech and Polish Europeans of unverified demonic activity, yet deny Nazi Germany had a a plan for conquest and slavery and ethnic cleansing in the East (it did). You deny Nazi Germany the title of ‘warmonger’, yet you are warlike in both the literal and behavourial senses of the word. Kindly get a grip. (I do, however, want to discuss Anglospheric attitudes towards German culture, British parochiality, British blunders during WW II [fucking White Paper of 1939!! What did they put in their tea??!] and how dangerous it can be to pass by the importance of German culture, but some other day.) 114
Posted by Lurker on Fri, 05 Sep 2008 06:08 | # Fred - our lumpen chav population is such a recent development that I feel its must be partly cultural/environmental. I cant ascribe just to genes. 115
Posted by Frederick Brown on Sun, 07 Sep 2008 01:31 | # Lurker: Can’t ascribe it to genes. Hmm. Can’t ascribe IT to genes. How about that. Two pictures of British people, courtesy of imageshack.
...and…
Look at the shape of their skulls.
There is something uniquely, eerily ill about the indigenous foundation on which the German element sits upon in Britain. 116
Posted by Lurker on Sun, 07 Sep 2008 01:47 | # So rise of the lumpen chavetariat is not just the effect of liberal policies regarding crime and education. Its also those coupled with various dysgenic policies. 117
Posted by Frederick Brown on Sun, 07 Sep 2008 04:40 | # Polish immigrants flying over here to work come from a country that, thanks to being distant and backward because of its geographical location and recent Soviet rule, are extremely hard working and friendly. Poland’s murder rate is around that of Wales’. Britain, unlike Poland, is supposed to be one of the three major European powers, along with France and Germany. It is the second richest. And yet you get the most spiritless, monstrous, parochial atavist excuses for humans, let alone whites, among the chav layer. I say ‘layer’, because I fear that the English are built upon a base that can all too easily become too base. Victims of harassment are deemed as being ‘silly pricks’, ‘daft cunts’, ‘airy fairy’, ‘high in the clouds’, ‘fukin greebos’ and other deplorable character traits that cannot be tolerated by their hyper-utilitarian ogrish standards. Can you understand the relevance of this? Britain is thought of as being oddly predisposed to mercantile, pragmatic anti-metaphysical modes of life and labour, and for being arrogant and directionless. This is why there are so many featureless brick terraces built everywhere. You rarely get this in the continent. Chavs are this element in its purest, concentrated, ghastly form, devoid of any foresight or inclination to beauty. This is not to say you can get degenerate Germans, basically being living metaphors for Teutonic vice, such as that Austrian bloke who imprisoned an entire family in his house. But I fear the small chav that lives inside every Englishman like an uncouth gold-chain wearing dead foetus, no matter how hidden away or shriveled, has cumulatively caused a lot of trouble for this world. Has anyone stopped to wonder why Britain always turns its back away from the continent toward the US, and is now bullying the uneasy EU into conforming with the US-Israeli position on the Russo-Gerogian conflict? What people on this blog need to do is: change perspectives for a bit. View these crises not simply from the axis of the Anglosphere but from continent. Trust me, the differences are enormous and essential. The focal point for European Man’s survival relentlessly drifts Eastward across the Channel, toward a Russo-German axis, one that opposes United States - and thus British - power as it stands. Wean Britain off from America. Reattach it to Europe. Allow for pride and humility, over heritage and reflection on its place among its cultured brothers respectively. Then, take an affirmative stance against America - hopefully while honorable white Americans take a stance against America too. Why couldn’t Mosley win… 118
Posted by Lurker on Sun, 07 Sep 2008 05:35 | # “But I fear the small chav that lives inside every Englishman like an uncouth gold-chain wearing dead foetus” Grim, though amusing, thought. I like to think it doesnt reside in every Englishman. Sometimes the crude empirical response is refreshing - “I refute it thus!” That was Dr Johnson? But its true, Ive rarely seen the worst excesses of chavdom outside the UK. The lumpen youths shambling around the streets seem almost non-existent in mainland Europe. The particular horror I notice now is the adoption of twatois by the lumpen boys - thankfully this seems confined to London & SE England. Its meant to sound like a sort of black patois/accent. Viz comic coined the term. *Historical note* Viz were also the first publication, that Im aware of, to use the term ‘vibrant’ in its current ironic sense. This was way back in the ‘90s. 119
Posted by Guessedworker on Sun, 07 Sep 2008 10:42 | # Frederick Brown, The geopolitics aside, that’s a very uncharitable view. It is true that the chav tendency is historically real, having appeared in the past in more noble forms, such as the laddish piracy of the Elizabethan privateers. But the degredation of today’s chav is in no ways unconnected to the effects of social liberalism, economism, the immigration-led smashing of traditional community, and, especially, culture war. The phenomenon itself has it founding in the schismatic effects of the Norman Conquest, and takes its rude energy from the moral illegitimacy of the invaders. Only in Elizabeth’s time was it finally possible for ordinary English men and women to love the monarch without a little fear - and perhaps then only because the schism had been put at one remove, into the realm of faith. As regards the difference between this “vibrant”, awkward-squad Englishness and that lot over the Channel, you might recall that the Germans who came here had, to a man, turned their backs on their insufferable tribal competitors. Two fingers has always been part of the Saxon code. Which reminds me, before you grow too respectful of our continental brothers, you might like to reflect on the fact that virtually all the familiar expletives in our tongue are Dutch in origin. There are less than angelic elements in the continental European populations, too. As for the geopolitical element in your remarks, no, I don’t see us grasping for Marriane’s petticoat. Whacking French heads together is far too ingrained. Or perhaps I am being a chav as well. 120
Posted by Frederick Brown on Sun, 07 Sep 2008 18:52 | #
o_O <img scr=“http://img125.imageshack.us/img125/1989/maxwellmy1.jpg”>
Look at their heads. It’s genetic as can be. In older times these people may have been forced to remain small in number and obscure. I am not saying English people are by nature evil or flawed. Absolutely not. True Anglo-Saxon Englishmen are no more criminally prone than the German or Swede, and the unique contributions of England come from this unique mixture of Brythonic and Germanic. The ‘inner chav’ poses no problems at all, and is in fact beneficial, if well hidden and small. Except I don’t think the invading Saxons and Normans were predisposed to loutishness, shallow comedy, mistaking popular for high art, lack of stylishness and frequenting bingo halls. You certainly aren’t, nor am I. Even if I take your word for the Dutch swearword exchange, modern Dutchmen and women do not suffer from the above problems.
Absolutely not!
I was thinking further along the road to Spikey-helmet Land. Seriously sir. Britain is viewed as being woefully out of touch with the continent. Its tourists have a reputation of being the worst in the world in Europe. If we don’t put ourselves in their shoes - or clogs, whatever - then we screw up the world. Simple as. This is what Mosley had talked of with his ‘Europe a nation’ slogan. 121
Posted by Fred Scrooby on Sun, 07 Sep 2008 19:54 | #
Notice their hand gestures in that photo: they’re doing their best imitations of the Negro hand gestures seen on the rap videos the U.S. Jews are sending across the ocean to brainwash them with, and your homegrown British Jews, instead of throwing them in the garbage, are broadcasting.
That’s because the Brits, being English-speakers, have been Kwamerikwanized way more than the non-English-speaking continent. Give credit and lay blame where credit and blame are due, Frederick. Don’t leave the United States of Kwamerikosher out of the equation. 122
Posted by Eyedealizt on Tue, 07 Jul 2009 03:08 | #
But all of that is true. All of it is real. Cutting edge racial science of the day was used by the Third Reich anyway, I don’t see how relying on nothing but that would lead anywhere. Those with the coolest helmets tend to have the moral highground, this is what life has taught me. 123
Posted by PF on Tue, 26 Jan 2010 21:06 | # I LOLed at this thread so many times. Captain Chaos advising someone purchase a “Berghof play set” with Blondi doll included. GW replying to Narrator:
Oh “The Rule of Mayhem”! LOL! 124
Posted by sidney da silva on Wed, 09 Jan 2013 01:38 | # “Look at their heads. It’s genetic as can be.” (—Frederick Brown just above) Notice their hand gestures in that photo: they’re doing their best imitations of the Negro hand gestures seen on the rap videos the U.S. Jews are sending across the ocean to brainwash them with, and your homegrown British Jews, instead of throwing them in the garbage, are broadcasting. “Seriously sir. Britain is viewed as being woefully out of touch with the continent. Its tourists have a reputation of being the worst in the world in Europe.” That’s because the Brits, being English-speakers, have been Kwamerikwanized way more than the non-English-speaking continent. Give credit and lay blame where credit and blame are due, Frederick. Don’t leave the United States of Kwamerikosher out of the equation. Post a comment:
Next entry: “I never really understood what was going on until I was interviewed the next day”
|
|
Existential IssuesDNA NationsCategoriesContributorsEach author's name links to a list of all articles posted by the writer. LinksEndorsement not implied. Immigration
Islamist Threat
Anti-white Media Networks Audio/Video
Crime
Economics
Education General
Historical Re-Evaluation Controlled Opposition
Nationalist Political Parties
Science Europeans in Africa
Of Note MR Central & News— CENTRAL— An Ancient Race In The Myths Of Time by James Bowery on Wednesday, 21 August 2024 15:26. (View) Slaying The Dragon by James Bowery on Monday, 05 August 2024 15:32. (View) The legacy of Southport by Guessedworker on Friday, 02 August 2024 07:34. (View) Ukraine, Israel, Taiwan … defend or desert by Guessedworker on Sunday, 14 April 2024 10:34. (View) — NEWS — Farage only goes down on one knee. by Guessedworker on Saturday, 29 June 2024 06:55. (View) Computer say no by Guessedworker on Thursday, 09 May 2024 15:17. (View) |
Posted by Fred Scrooby on Mon, 25 Aug 2008 01:59 | #
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.