Life on the Eastern Front

Posted by Golem on May 06, 2005, 03:38 PM | #

Quite astute. I find it ironic how many White Nationalists hold National Socialism up as an ideal of an “ethnocentric” state, yet Hitler and his policies ended up killing millions of whites.

Posted by JW Holliday on May 06, 2005, 04:08 PM | #

All these neo-Nazi idiots - losers who wouldn’t even have been let into the Wehrmacht – talk about “the white race” - well, wasn’t every single person Hitler killed white? Talk about black-on-black crime! The Nazis were the ultimate in white-on-white massacre”.

In a previous thread, I got harshly critiqued by one neo-Nazi type who was offended that I agreed with some of Salter’s own sharp critiques of the German National Socialists, in their unrealistic disjunctive view of race (e.g., Germans and Slavs as virtually different species - see Irving’s “Hitler’s War” for more on that) and their aggressive and maladaptive foreign policies.  Thus, I essentially agree with the War Nerd here, if his aim is to similarily critique the hostility of the Nazis toward Slavs and other European peoples, as well as the idiocies of present-day specimens who consider any and all criticism of the Hitlerite regime as some sort of blasphemy.  I do hope though that the War Nerd is not one of those PC types who conflate all white nationalist sentiments with “neo-Nazi idiots.” Hitler was not a “pan-Aryan” or a “white nationalist”, he was a jingoistic German nationalist, pure and simple.  And his foreign policy disasters cost the German people dearly, both in the past as well as today.

However, the War Nerd is not being honest when he states that “wasn’t every single person Hitler killed white?” This goes back to the fact that “white” is such a vague term.  Neo-Nazis would probably not consider Gypsies nor Jews to be “white”, according to the Nazi definition; thus, criticism of hypocrisy in that direction by the War Nerd is unwarranted.  It would be more accurate, from the standpoint of “neo-Nazi idiots”, to say that most of the people killed by Hitler were white.

Of course, the foreign policy decisions of the western democracies were to blame as well, and Stalin was hardly blameless in the lead-up to war.  WWII was a tragedy for the European peoples, and all the leaders of that era have responsibility for bringing that on.  Of course as well, in the long run, immigration and multiculturalism will end up destroying “the white race” more completely than any war (will the War Nerd comment on this demographic war?).  To the extent that the excesses of Nazism helped bring on the current “death-wish” amongst Europeans, then that too can be put into the equation.

But let us not ignore the fact that the enemies of the Hitler regime are no friends of western survival.  On the one side we have irrational hyper-nationalism that brought on the ruination of the very thing it was alleged to defend; on the other hand, we have anti-majoritarian, anti-western policies brought on by leftists, globalist elites, and self-interested ethnics.

I myself endorse the defensive “universal nationalism” of Salter as a third way which eschews both extremes.

Posted by Guessedworker on May 06, 2005, 04:27 PM | #

Excellent points, JW.  We should, by now, be sufficiently detached from the ghosts of our past to wish to revise the myths of Hitler and Nazi Germany.  As much as any other historical figure Hitler merits a scrupulously honest assessment.  But the political reflexes and language of our own, marxian time prevent this as effectively as ever did the (more undestandable) post-war overhang of extreme anti-Hitler sentiment.

For our own deliverance from intellectual oppression we need to deal with this. That means not only striding beyond the easy and safe caricatures of Hitler and Nazism to find the truth, it means dealing with the holo-business.  It means freeing us from the pervasive ideology of permanent, guilt-giving Jewish victimhood.

We are not strong enough for this yet.  But nor shall we ever be until we try (sorry Mr Sailer).

Posted by JW Holliday on May 06, 2005, 04:34 PM | #

Golem,

We need to distinguish between the Hitler regime’s domestic policies and its foreign policies.  The latter, as I’ve stated, were indefensible.  The former, while not perfect in every aspect, did have defensible points.  Would it have been possible to have National Socialism without the excesses of Hitlerism and without an aggressive foreign policy that harmsed closely related ethnies?  I’m not sure, but I do know that if the basic principles of National Socialism - domestically at least - boil down to a collectivist racialism (what Celine would dub “Aryan communism") there may well be some lessons there to be learned by today’s generation of hyper-individualistic (yet, paradoxically, hyper-conformist) deracinated whites.

I find the name Golem interesting as well; I am somewhat familiar with that story.  I wonder if certain ethnies will find that their promotion of multiculturalism will indeed mirror the golem legend and backfire to their detriment.  Long term survival of groups - particularly those who are numerically small (albeit powerful) - may ultimately depend on an acceptance of universal nationalism, rather than upon universalist globalism.

Posted by Fred Scrooby on May 06, 2005, 04:36 PM | #

I agree with what JW Holiday is driving at.  Whatever the War Nerd meant to say by that comment, he either didn’t say right, or he was dishonest, or he was being PC (a way of being dishonest), given what’s happening in today’s world.  I’m not talking about Hitler’s world.  In today’s world there’s a stealth war of genocide ("stealth" only to the clueless, such as women voters, a certain category of Christians, and so on; blindingly obvious to those with eyes) being waged against the white Christian race.  Given that stark truth in regard to what’s happening in today’s world, War Nerd should’ve said what he said differently.

I suspect War Nerd is not above being PC on issues of race.  This makes at least the second time, maybe the third, that I’ve seen a suggestion of that in his stuff. 

No matter how good the War Nerd is on the other issues he writes about, he belongs in the trash bin if he can’t either be honest about race and what’s going on with race-replacement today all over the West, or shut up about it if he’s scared of the forces out to punish those who speak truth on this topic.  A few more insinuations straight out of PC central casting and he’ll put himself in the category of those pundits who can safely be totally disregarded and ignored.

Honesty is not too much to expect of a pundit.  Is there anyone here who actually reads, for example, someone like George Will?  I wouldn’t expect so.  If War Nerd isn’t careful he’s headed for the same dung heap Will is wallowing in.

Posted by Fred Scrooby on May 06, 2005, 04:42 PM | #

“Quite astute. I find it ironic how many White Nationalists hold National Socialism up as an ideal of an ‘ethnocentric’ state, yet Hitler and his policies ended up killing millions of whites.” (—Golem)

Golem, I don’t know anything about White Nationalism but the Nazi atrocities of WW II don’t invalidate ethnic nationalism in the slightest.  Have Israel’s policies “ended up killing millions of whites”?  Are they expected to any time soon?  There’s a war going on right now, a genocidal war.  White Nationalists aren’t the ones waging it, Golem.  On the contrary—they’re the ones trying to stop it, as I understand.

Posted by Phil Peterson on May 06, 2005, 04:43 PM | #

JW,

The War Nerd is actually quite brilliant in goring sacred cows indirectly.

For example, he says here:

The trouble with this nice clean automated-war scenario is that nobody wants to play with us. The US can play that game, but who else can? The Israelis? They’re the only real combat-tested RPV-using army. And if it came to a US vs. Israel war, let’s face it: the US Congress would back Israel all the way, and the US’d have to surrender before a shot was fired.

He slaughters a lot of holy cows. His detailed descriptions of African wars, his description of the sheer stupidity of the US Government, the religious fanaticism of the Moslem - its all there.

But he tries to write in a non-biased sort of way. So he doesn’t take active sides etc. I think he is a very very valuable writer. God knows we need some honesty in today’s world. I say this with a bit of pain seeing that smiling, lying pixie get re-elected to run this country for another five years.

Posted by Phil Peterson on May 06, 2005, 05:01 PM | #

Fred,

The War Nerd gores one of the holiest cows of our time - the idea that all peoples, tribes, religious groups, nationalities are one (just different skin colour). All people on this planet just want a little TV and some good sex. Everything he writes dispells that notion - cuts a giant hole through that sort of logic.

Political Correctness can be destroyed in numerous ways. Talking about race replacement is one way but it isn’t the only way (incidentally, how does one destroy the power of PC by only talking of race replacement when the idea that everyone is just the same has such a powerful pull for the West’s Cognitive Elite(*)?). Ultimately, PC rests on lies and ubfuscation. Anyone who destroys these lies is useful in my opinion.

(*) Ive had conversations with decent, smart Americans at Uni. About 90 percent saw nothing objectionable about race replacement - total race replacement. Also, none of these students were Jewish. One guy in particular, a very staunch liberal was from Pennsylvania (from a very devout Protestant family). Actually most of these guys were from the mid-west (not many from nutty Liberal places like the North East or the “Left Coast"). About 15 percent said race replacement would be objectionable only if it destroyed the culture. The 10 percent who didn’t agree with race replacement didnt say that they were opposed to it, merely that they did not know enough about it to comment or that its effects were exaggerated by interested parties.

Posted by Fred Scrooby on May 06, 2005, 05:03 PM | #

Golem, since JW Holiday brings up the legend of the Golem, I’ll ask you, are you Jewish?  If by chance you are, are you a supporter of the (ethnic-nationalist) state of Israel?  If so, where do you come off disapproving for other ethnicities what you support for your own, i.e., an ethnic-nationalist state?

Posted by JW Holliday on May 06, 2005, 05:13 PM | #

Here are comments by David Lloyd George on Hitler and his regime:
http://www.rense.com/general43/lloyd.htm

Now, the second half of this, the comments on foreign policy, we now see as laughably misguided based upon subsequent events.  Hitler indeed was an imperialist who threatened Europe.

However, the first section, on domestic affairs, was as accurate as the second half was wrong.  For most ethnic Germans (except leftists, etc), the pre-war Hitler regime was not a bad deal.  Particularly since Germans did not have the same Anglo-Saxon history (today so sadly eroded) of freedoms, the dictatorial aspects of the regime did not weight too heavily on the population.  Of course, minorities did not fair well, but, what can be expected of a collectivist racialist state?  Without the war, emigration may have solved that problem.

Posted by Golem on May 06, 2005, 05:13 PM | #

JW: Perhaps “Aryan Communism” may not be as undesirable as Nazism, but as far as I know of, it’s never been tried before--the closest thing I can think of is Nazism, which didn’t work out very well, as we’ve established. I’ll withold judgement on the idea until I actually see it in practice.

Fred:
No, I’m not Jewish--I just chose the name “Golem” because I like the sound of the word. I think you misunderstood my point. The Nazis did NOT have the best interests of the White race at heart. Any White Nationalist who admires Hitler is a fool, in my view. His “ethnocentric” state and its crusade against the Slavs did more harm than good for the ethny it was created to defend.

Posted by Phil Peterson on May 06, 2005, 05:28 PM | #

I’m not sure, but I do know that if the basic principles of National Socialism - domestically at least - boil down to a collectivist racialism (what Celine would dub “Aryan communism") there may well be some lessons there to be learned by today’s generation of hyper-individualistic (yet, paradoxically, hyper-conformist) deracinated whites.

The problem with communism (of any kind) is that it doesn’t work.

There is nothing wrong with individualism if it is accompanied by a deep sense of peoplehood. It works best in the long term because it would not invite economic disaster.

Note that on the “individualism” point, the US is pretty individualist while Sweden is packed with dyed in the wool socialist types. But on matters of race and race replacement, the US and Sweden are one.

Posted by Svigor on May 06, 2005, 05:34 PM | #

I suspect War Nerd is not above being PC on issues of race.  This makes at least the second time, maybe the third, that I’ve seen a suggestion of that in his stuff.

No matter how good the War Nerd is on the other issues he writes about, he belongs in the trash bin if he can’t either be honest about race and what’s going on with race-replacement today all over the West, or shut up about it if he’s scared of the forces out to punish those who speak truth on this topic.

My impression of the WN is that he knows a great deal about war and writes well about it, and that he holds more than a few received leftist wisdoms about race and politics and thankfully writes little about them.

It’s hard to get a read from that little, but my guess is he’s probably a somewhat realistic (cynical) leftist.

As for Hitler and the Third Reich, I think comparing them incessantly with White Nationalism is somewhat silly for the reasons outlined above; national particularism is quite distinct from (and in this case, contrary to) racial particularism.

As for hating or admiring Hitler, I do neither.  I find it impossible to blame Hitler or Germany exclusively or even mainly for WWII because a) I’m not a historian, and one needs to be to sift through all the b.s. and get at the truth of the matter and b) in light of a), common sense must be my guide and it tells me that weaker parties are seldom wholly to blame for fighting stronger parties; b) also tells me that the participants in an event are far more intimately connected to and aware of it than historians, the clarity of hindsight notwithstanding.

Posted by Svigor on May 06, 2005, 05:41 PM | #

In any critique of Nazism, I try to keep in mind McDonald’s analyses in Separation and Its Discontents.

I should also add that I disagree that a lack of honesty (knowledge) on racial issues diminishes the Nerd’s strong points.  He knows more about war than I’ll probably ever know, and the fact that I know more about race than he’ll probably ever know doesn’t militate against his usefulness.

Posted by Svigor on May 06, 2005, 05:45 PM | #

One more thing: accepting the Shoah business at face value for the purposes of argument, Stalin killed tens of millions of his own citizens prior to WWII, and Hitler killed none.  Shouldn’t Britain and the United States have been helping him invade the Soviet Union?

Mightn’t that have saved millions of lives?

Posted by Phil Peterson on May 06, 2005, 05:46 PM | #

Svigor,

I don’t think the War Nerd is a leftist. He is ruthlessly cynical yes, but a leftist no. To be a leftist, one would need to keep lying and uttering universalist pieties day in and day out. He is knowledgeable not just about war but about History.

From the articles I have read so far, he appears to be someone in one of the intelligence agencies. He wrote about trouble brewing in Beslan two weeks before the attack.

My guess is that he is a very disgusted individual. He sees the bureaucracy and the red-tapism of the military establishment and how it simply invents things to justify its own existence.

For example:

Nobody in DC really believes that Saddam and his two million mustache-clone slaves could really threaten a nest of ants, much less America. They peddle that stuff to the suckers, but they don’t believe it themselves. They don’t believe the crap they throw out about Iraq as a haven for terrorists, either. No Arab militant would be seen dead with Saddam; they hate him as much as we do. Saddam couldn’t even persuade Abu Nidal to work for him, for Christ’s sake! Abu died in Baghdad last month, and by all accounts he was offed on Saddam’s orders, because he wouldn’t set up the agent networks Saddam wanted. When a dictator can’t make Abu Nidal start up terror networks, folks, then that dictator is just not a competent manager of “human resources,” as my asshole Christian boss would say. I think it’s pretty clear by now that ol’ Saddam is about the worst personnel manager since Jeffrey Dahmer started trying to figure out how to make his tricks stay the night. Fact is, Saddam as terror-monger is a joke. If Iraq is a threat to America’s big cities, then I’m a 29” waist........

It’s a classic matchup: Yemen vs. the USA—a dirt-poor little country with no government at all vs. a big rich superpower with so much government it can’t seem to get anything done.

As for being anti-Hitler, the more European Nationalists distance themselves from the ghost of that man, the better it would be for all of us.

Posted by Golem on May 06, 2005, 05:56 PM | #

Svigor,

I doubt it. Remember, Hitler’s conception of the Slavs was just as vermin to be exterminated to make room for German “Lebensraum.” If he succeeded in his invasion of the USSR, he probably would have committed the same atrocities Stalin did.

P.S: In all fairness, saying Nazism was responsible for fewer deaths than Communism isn’t really such a magnificent argument in its favor. Robert Mugabe only has the blood of a few thousand whites on his hands, so wouldn’t that mean his ideology is preferable to Nazism and Communism? Of course not. Similarly, just because Nazism didn’t result in as many deaths as Communism did does not make it a desirable social system on its own merits.

Posted by JW Holliday on May 06, 2005, 06:09 PM | #

Golem,

If your main point is that white nationalist Hitler-worship is foolish, for the stated reasons, then I agree with you.  I also agree with Guessedworker that we need a more objective view of the Hitler era.  The hysterical reactions toward this issue (Hitler is routinely voted, by far, the most hated and feared person in human history...why not Stalin?) indicate that history is being viewed through a Jewish/leftist lens.  They hate Hitler more than any other figure, so that is endlessly drummed into the masses.  Now, maybe Hitler was the worst figure in history - but let us approach that from the perspective of our interests, and stop internalizing the interests of others.

Phil’s comments about white unconcern about replacement are disturbing and, I believe, 100% accurate.  GNXPers would argue that this lack of concern means that white racial replacement is OK (based upon the assertion that a lack of recognition of EGI means that EGI are not important).  I, of course, disagree.  Every group has an ultimate vested interest in its genetic continuity.  The problem is that every other group understands that, at least instinctively, but European-derived whites have the white man’s disease of being unable to recognize group interests, or being unable to appreciate these interests, or act upon them.  Can even a ‘dumbed down’ version of Salterism, spoon-fed to the ignorant masses, counter-act this racial masochistic madness?  I am pessimistic.

Posted by Golem on May 06, 2005, 06:13 PM | #

JW,

We’re in agreement. I despise Hitler, but I despise Stalin as well.

Posted by Phil Peterson on May 06, 2005, 06:17 PM | #

JW,

Our worst problem by far is that the Cognitive Elite appears to be very comfortable with the idea of total race replacement (at least the American elite).

Of all the smart Americans I have spoken to, I’d say about 60 percent characterised themselves as liberals. The remainder as “conservative”, “mildly right wing” or whatever. Among the liberals, race replacement is a matter for celebration. Many seemed quite cheery about the prospect of it all, to be honest. Among the “non-liberals”, there were concerns about tax-cuts, de-funding of the military, delusions of super-wealth created by a more perfect Capitalism etc. There was no real concern about what is happening now - on the ground as we speak across an entire nation.

I have spoken with Canadians too. And they do not even deserve a mention I would say.

The only fiesty ones I talked to were a smattering of English, French, Swiss, Italians and some Germans. Actually, they outnumbered Americans for good sense by a ratio of 100:1 (man for man).

Posted by Phil Peterson on May 06, 2005, 06:28 PM | #

One particularly hilarious moron at Uni went to the extent of saying that he saw nothing wrong with Mao-type (or Stalin type) rule to control a racially fragmented America.

So I naturally asked him, “But why import the problem at all? if you don’t import the problem, you wont need Mao”. He said that would be “Racist”. LMAO

Note that this guy was no ignoramus. He was pursuing a Ph.D in History at one of Britain’s finest Universities. The other amazing thing was that he was a totally normal guy. There wasn’t one thing I could pin-point about him that was abnormal. even though he was a serious liberal, he never participated in any of the zillions of demonstrations carried out by the campus loony left. He liked watching American football and baseball, was not contemptuous of ordinary Americans as leftists tend to be. He actually despised the Harvard elitists.

But he felt very bad about “racism”. Amazing.

Posted by Phil Peterson on May 06, 2005, 06:36 PM | #

Here is a particularly insightful example of the extent to which the race PC madness has gone in America. Collective insanity out of control I say.

Posted by Svigor on May 06, 2005, 07:01 PM | #

As for being anti-Hitler, the more European Nationalists distance themselves from the ghost of that man, the better it would be for all of us.

Oh, on practical grounds I agree completely; WNs and the like who openly admire Hitler are first-rate idiots. 

I don’t think the War Nerd is a leftist. He is ruthlessly cynical

He is ruthlessly cynical, but the few exceptions I’ve noted in his writing have been of the leftist variety, including on race.

Svigor,

I doubt it. Remember, Hitler’s conception of the Slavs was just as vermin to be exterminated to make room for German “Lebensraum.” If he succeeded in his invasion of the USSR, he probably would have committed the same atrocities Stalin did.

So, it’s not reasonably conceivable that Britain, the U.S.A., and Germany might’ve destroyed the Soviet regime on grounds of preventing genocide, after which Germany might (or might not) have tried to follow in Stalin’s footsteps, after which Britain and the U.S.A. might’ve destroyed the Nazi regime on grounds of preventing genocide?

Better yet, in terms of realpolitik and national self-interest, might it not have been best to let the two destroy one another?

P.S: In all fairness, saying Nazism was responsible for fewer deaths than Communism isn’t really such a magnificent argument in its favor.

It isn’t really fair to say Nazism “was responsible for fewer deaths than Communism” either.  10 million isn’t just “less” than 100 million.

As for your arguments about ideologies and body counts, have fun with them, as I’m not arguing in favor of Nazi ideology, I’m arguing in favor of a balanced view of history.  The bit where we all sit in theatres and in front of our televisions to be propagandized year in year out to hate the Nazis and forget (or, occasionally, love) the Commies pisses me off to no end.

Can even a ‘dumbed down’ version of Salterism, spoon-fed to the ignorant masses, counter-act this racial masochistic madness?  I am pessimistic.

You shouldn’t be.  Make no mistake, the current white “deracination” is wholly a matter of media power.  You should be pessimistic about western man’s chances for getting the monkey off his back, but I think pessimism about his ability to absorb positive media indoctrination is totally misplaced.

The only fiesty ones I talked to were a smattering of English, French, Swiss, Italians and some Germans. Actually, they outnumbered Americans for good sense by a ratio of 100:1 (man for man).

That’s because Americans have been snookered into absorbing race-suicide into their sense of nationalism; they believe that race-realism is unAmerican.

Posted by JW Holliday on May 06, 2005, 07:10 PM | #

Phil very accurately describes the problem.  My experiences in life have been the same.  I myself cannot understand people so unconcerned about their own group interests.  Is it possible that this is to some extent controlled by genetic factors modulating behavior?  Was it always thus that most whites had no interest in group survival, but that conditions were such that the issue never came up?  Was it that self-interested elites (kings, nobility) forced the commoners to fight for nation even though the people could not have cared less?  But then, there has always been self-sacrificial heroism in conflict, and yes, amongst whites as well.  But then, was that the group-centered minority who produced the heroes while the masses were herded into whatever direction the elites wanted?  Is then the problem that the white gentile elites have abandoned any and all interest in their co-ethnics and are just maximizing proximate selfish interests? And, what can be done about any of this?

I have no doubt that at some point in the future, a predominant number of whites will agree with the sentiments of this blog.  The problem will be that this will occur decades past the time when the situation was irreversible (if it is not already).

I can imagine a group of white helots in the future, slaving away for their Asian and Jewish overlords, and then one of the white guys gets a “brainwave”: “hey, I think our ancestors should have defended their group interests, that would have been the adaptive thing to do.” And before he can share this wisdom with his fellows, he collapses from exhaustion and is replaced with another.

Posted by Phil Peterson on May 06, 2005, 07:19 PM | #

Svigor,

One particularly smart German friend who’s a die hard Christian Democrat was discussing the inclusion of Turkey into the EU.

I said, “Whats the big deal? Just another 15 million unempolyed for the German welfare state to feed, eh?”.

He said, “15 million? That low, eh?”. LMAO

At the dinner table we had three Americans as well. Not one of them could understand what the fuss was all about.

Posted by Phil Peterson on May 06, 2005, 07:24 PM | #

War Nerd excerpts:

Think of Latin America is as a psych ward. Panama would be the sociopath con man.. Argentina’d be this suicidally depressed old bag with delusions of grandeur. Brazil would be a classic nympho slut...and Colombia would be the one who giggles to himself in the triple-locked cage at the end of the high-security corridor, the guy who likes to BBQ his victims and make “Kiss the Cook” aprons out of their skin......

So how about a little truth for once.....

That doesn’t sound like a leftie to me!

Posted by Golem on May 06, 2005, 07:39 PM | #

So, it’s not reasonably conceivable that Britain, the U.S.A., and Germany might’ve destroyed the Soviet regime on grounds of preventing genocide, after which Germany might (or might not) have tried to follow in Stalin’s footsteps, after which Britain and the U.S.A. might’ve destroyed the Nazi regime on grounds of preventing genocide?

Better yet, in terms of realpolitik and national self-interest, might it not have been best to let the two destroy one another?

The scenario you postulate never happened, and I don’t think it would have. Genocide was Germany’s aim in the eastern front, it wouldn’t have started a war to prevent it.

In terms of realpolitik, I don’t think “staying out of it” would have been such a great strategy in the long run. One power or the other would have emerged triumphant--Hitler came close to conquering Russia before the winter set in, so had he been luckier, all of Europe could very well have been conquered. And in the other scenario, if the USSR won, the Red Army would have rolled over all of Germany and then Europe as well. You could say that Europe would be even more worse off under Communist rule than Nazi rule, and while I’d agree with that, I’d say that what actually happened, where Hitler’s Germany was crushed and the USSR was contained by NATO until it finally fell, is preferable to the alternatives. The Nazis and the Soviets wouldn’t have just “destroyed each other,” one or the other would have won.

It isn’t really fair to say Nazism “was responsible for fewer deaths than Communism” either.  10 million isn’t just “less” than 100 million.

As for your arguments about ideologies and body counts, have fun with them, as I’m not arguing in favor of Nazi ideology, I’m arguing in favor of a balanced view of history.  The bit where we all sit in theatres and in front of our televisions to be propagandized year in year out to hate the Nazis and forget (or, occasionally, love) the Commies pisses me off to no end.

Fine, I’d agree with you there. As I said, as much as I despise the Nazis, I find Communism even more reprehensible. ust because Nazism is the lesser of two evils doesn’t mean it’s a good thing, is all I’m saying. If you think that’s correct, then we are in agreement.

Posted by Guessedworker on May 06, 2005, 08:17 PM | #

Phil,

Thanks for the Frontpage link.  The situation it describes is not, of course, restricted to the USA.  I have seen dozens of PeeCee deceits in my daughter’s school text books.

JW,

I believe I can offer an answer to your question: Is it possible that this is to some extent controlled by genetic factors modulating behavior?

The answer is no.  Th strange modern capacity among our people to deny EGI is wholly environmental - or, to be more precise, an issue of personality.  Specifically, the factor you are not taking into account is the eternal problem of human suggestibility.

Picture the sloping, treeless ground of Balaclava. It is 25th October 1854.  You are observing a senior officer of the 13th Hussars mounted and leading his men in a measured advance down into the valley.  Now he is leaning forward in the saddle, sword drawn and pointing directly at the puffs of smoke from the guns ahead of him.  He digs his spurs hard into the beast’s withers and, bellowing like a mad thing, disappears into the smoke and fire.

For the sake of the argument let’s call him Colonel John Smith.  Perhaps he rode through the cannons and widowed his wife behind the lines.  Perhaps he didn’t make it that far.  It doesn’t matter.  He is not a whit different when viewed through a four-colour fluorescence detector to your neighbour, Professor John Smith, Professor of Cultural History in Harvard University Faculty of Arts and Sciences.

But the one lived his life by principles of honour, devotion and sacrifice because these things were inherent in the general culture of his times - and should be so.  The other ... does not.

Prof Smith has not had that advantage in his life.  He has lived in modernity and within the prevailing and most telling political zeigeist of advanced liberalism.  It is not available to him to live and feel as his forefather did.  He has been robbed of that possibility.

To understand Man in any age one must understand how small and insignficant he is in his personality.  He is not great, independent and free and, ordinarily, can never be so.  Freedom requires certain inner qualities one does not attain simply though “life in general”.  No blame attaches to Prof Smith, therefore, that he adheres meekly to common-or-garden definitions of political and personal freedom which the Colonel would have cursed.  Such ideas are everywhere in the zeitgeist, though it goes without saying that nobody has ever met a free man.  There are no free men.

In this regard it would be a mistake to place the honourable Colonel above the sophisticated Harvard professor.  All men are equally the slaves of their noumenal worlds (upon escape from which influence much insight might flow incidentally - but still that is not quite freedom).

The mess we are in can only be fixed by changing the zeitgeist.  Politics isn’t enough.

Posted by Phil Peterson on May 06, 2005, 09:36 PM | #

Svigor,

Check this quote:

Burma is one of these multi-ethnic places, and that usually means trouble. My Social Studies teachers used to talk about the wonderfulness of multiethnic stuff, but let’s be honest here: what “multiethnic” really means is if your car breaks down in the wrong neighborhood, you get beaten to death with your own tire iron.

Posted by Svigor on May 07, 2005, 12:51 AM | #

Phil, I stand corrected.  I’ll have to see if I can find the passages I’m thinking of when I’m back on my computer.

Posted by seelow heights on May 07, 2005, 03:09 AM | #

True, a lot of things about NS Germany will turn your stomach or make you scratch your head in bewilderment. But what was it that made the victorious Western Allies(and here we’re primarily referring to the US and UK-but their influence dominates the entire West) launch their current very long-running program of self-destruction? We’ve all heard the excuses. The defeated Nazis somehow caused them to do it. Cold War competition with the most murderous regime in history made it necessary. Or it was Jewish subversion. All pretty rotten excuses. Maybe what makes NS so attractive to the perplexed WN is that the Anglo-Saxon(broadly construed) mentality tends to take everything as a f-king joke and leaves the serious thinking to others-with the result we see all around us today. You could call it the curse of pragmatism.

Posted by Phil Peterson on May 07, 2005, 06:23 PM | #

Svigor,

It gets better. This one’s hilarious:

The story didn’t say who the “activists” were, but I like the idea of a bunch of Europeans fanning out in the jungle with little “Don’t Eat A Pygmy” kits—you know, armbands with a little pygmy in a red circle, trying to be sensitive to the local culture, then losing it when they walk into a village and see the local bigwigs just finishing a teeny arm or leg: “You savages! Oh no, did I say that?” I guess your typical “activist” would have to go off into the jungle and shoot himself if he got caught saying something politically incorrect like that. But hey, that wouldn’t end his problems, not if the locals really had a taste for Long Pig. You might be cremated the long, slow way, in a crockpot with some yams.

Posted by Phil Peterson on May 07, 2005, 06:24 PM | #

Further:

Thing is, picking on pygmies is pure discrimination—Heightism. Maybe you could get Dustin Hoffman to do a charity visit. All those Hollywood liberals like to talk about “all the little people”—see how they like it when Dustin’s suddenly one of the appetizers.

Posted by Phil Peterson on May 07, 2005, 07:01 PM | #

Here’s another classic:

Black-African coups generally specialized in drama and big talk, not high casualties. Lots of times, the officers planning the coup took advantage of foreign visits by the head of state to stage their pint-size revolution. It was really easy to do that back in the 60s, when Africa was still considered cool, revolutionary and “developing”—before people realized it was developing like a case of smallpox, not like Singapore.

Posted by Phil Peterson on May 07, 2005, 07:11 PM | #

Another beauty:

All that’s happening now is that the army wants to put his son, a fat guy named Faure, in power. No killing, no shooting up the radio station, no mobs looting—no fun at all. Faure even promised to hold elections one of these days. What more can you ask?

Let’s not pretend we care what happens in Togo. It’s the kind of place you’d sell your watch to get out of, if you ended up there. And let’s not pretend that making the locals do some lame imitation of an election is going to turn the place into Switzerland. Africa is a mess, and it’s going to stay that way a long, long time.

Posted by Fred Scrooby on May 07, 2005, 09:57 PM | #

Phil, that excerpt you posted a couple of comments back on the pygmies being hunted and eaten is no joke of course—exactly that is what was being done to them the year before last by the normal-height Bantus who live in their area of Africa.  (Hat tip to Modern Tribalist.)

(Here‘s what’s going on in Africa right now, by the way ...)

Posted by Phil Peterson on May 07, 2005, 10:44 PM | #

Fred,

I agree. Cannibalism is no joke. That said, he brings out the absurdity of the euro liberal with such panache, he had me in splits:

I like the idea of a bunch of Europeans fanning out in the jungle with little “Don’t Eat A Pygmy” kits—you know, armbands with a little pygmy in a red circle, trying to be sensitive to the local culture, then losing it when they walk into a village and see the local bigwigs just finishing a teeny arm or leg: “You savages! Oh no, did I say that?” I guess your typical “activist” would have to go off into the jungle and shoot himself if he got caught saying something politically incorrect like that.

You’ve got to admit the guy’s a riot.

Posted by Phil Peterson on May 07, 2005, 10:57 PM | #

Fred,

On a side note, an interesting question would be: were Pygmies eaten by other tribes before Europeans landed in Africa? My guess is that cannibalism was not unheard of in Africa before colonialism. They didn’t get that habit from Europeans you know.

Posted by Fred Scrooby on May 08, 2005, 02:21 AM | #

“were Pygmies eaten by other tribes before Europeans landed in Africa? My guess is that cannibalism was not unheard of in Africa before colonialism.” (—Phil)

Phil ... that’s a pretty bold claim.  Are you saying whites didn’t invent cannibalism and force it on Africans?  Have you checked your facts?  Let me get this straight—are you completely certain whites didn’t invent cannibalism and impose it on reluctant African natives as an unwanted custom in order to keep them down as a race and make them look uncivilized?  I mean, given that the Euro peoples invented slavery, scalping, the Patriarchy, racism, capitalist oppression, Big Macs, cutting down trees, environmental destruction, the hole in the ozone layer, global warming, Ronald Reagan, the notion that there are only two sexes, and AIDS—all the worst things that ever existed—I’d imagine they MUST have invented black African cannibalism too.  Hadn’t you better go back and check your sources, Phil?  I think you must be somewhat off here.  That’s unlike you, Phil—usually you’re very careful in your assertions.

Posted by Phil Peterson on May 08, 2005, 09:17 AM | #

chuckle

Posted by Guessedworker on May 08, 2005, 09:32 AM | #

I often eat pygmy.  Indeed, I organise a pygmy hunt locally, though there isn’t as much pygmy on the South Downs as there used to be.  That hasn’t stopped us from attracting new members, especially since the ban on fox-hunting. There is no shortage of tall people interesting in shooting short people.

It’s a great shame, to my mind, that so few of the new talls actually partake of the flesh - something to do with the inedibleness of the fox, I suppose.  They are happy to have a few stuffed pygmies decorating the old baronial hall and what-not.  But they don’t see themselves as cannibals and so they are too indisciminant as hunters.  They don’t really understand the need to preserve the pygmy in the wild.

I worry that the next generation of Englishmen won’t have this wonderful old tradition to enjoy, and another irreplaceable part of English life will have slipped away for ever.

Posted by Phil Peterson on May 08, 2005, 10:23 AM | #

“Burundi: Heightism rears its ugly head”:

A thousand years ago the only people in Burundi or Rwanda were the pygmies. It’s too bad they didn’t get to keep the place. It’d be a blast, nothing but gorillas and pygmies. But it was too good to last. Bantu people, taller, darker tribes who raised cattle and farmed crops, came down from the North and started killing off or enslaving the pygmies, chopping down the forests, and multiplying. Most of the time, farmer-tribes end up defeating hunter-tribes, because farms make more food, so the farmers outnumber the hunters in a generation or so. So the Bantu farmers outnumbered the Pygmy hunters in a few generations.

The first Bantu tribe to elbow their way into Rwanda-Burundi was the Hutu, the famous “short people” in the tall/short war in Rwanda. The other Bantu tribe, the Tutsi, showed up around the time Cortez was taking down the Aztecs. The Tutsi were even taller than the Hutu, who were already way taller than the pygmies.

In fact, what happened is a clear case of Heightism, a new prejudice the liberals haven’t caught onto yet. First the really short pygmies get killed by the pretty-tall Hutu, and then the really, really tall Tutsi charge down out of the North and start killing off the Hutu. Heightism rears its ugly head! Call Hillary!....

Meanwhile, the whole phony newspaper-talk about “democratic elections” and “representative democracy” was installed by the UN like one of those compulsory upgrades that’s so damn efficient it destroys all your documents. Nobody asked if the “democratic” upgrade made sense on the ground in Burundi........

Amnesty International has officially declared that both sides in the Burundi war were committing “human rights violations.” The whole point of guerrilla war is to commit human-rights violations. There are no battles in this kind of war, just massacres and ambushes. Like I keep saying, that’s what war is, most of the time, for most of the people in the world—and who’s to say that Gettysburg and Verdun are “good wars” and tribal chopfests are “bad wars”?

If there was any justice in all this mess, it’d mean giving the place back to the gorillas (no pun intended) and the pygmies. But since that’s not going to happen, you may as well get used to seeing headlines like “New Accord in Burundi” and then, about two weeks later, the other kind of headline: “Massacres Threaten Burundi Peace.” I always like they way they say peace is “threatened.” Yeah, right. Just like there’s a “threat” that the Pacific Ocean might fill up with water some day.....

Posted by dlg on May 09, 2005, 02:12 AM | #

I agree, Phil, that the War Nerd satirizes political correctness and liberal do-gooderism with a hilarious gusto and accuracy that is unparalleled. The passages you’ve quoted are some of my favorites.