|
|
|
The Destruction of Ethnic Germans and German Prisoners of War in Yugoslavia, 1945-1953 By Tomislav Sunic From the European and American media, one can often get the impression that World War II needs to be periodically resurrected to give credibility to financial demands of one specific ethnic group, at the expense of others. The civilian deaths of the war’s losing side are, for the most part, glossed over. Standard historiography of World War II is routinely based on a sharp and polemical distinction between the “ugly” fascists who lost, and the “good” anti-fascists who won, and few scholars are willing to inquire into the gray ambiguity in between. Even as the events of that war become more distant in time, they seemingly become more politically useful and timely as myths. German military and civilian losses during and especially after World War II are still shrouded by a veil of silence, at least in the mass media, even though an impressive body of scholarly literature exists on that topic. The reasons for this silence, due in large part to academic negligence, are deep rooted and deserve further scholarly inquiry. Why, for instance, are German civilian losses, and particularly the staggering number of postwar losses among ethnic Germans, dealt with so sketchily, if at all, in school history courses? The mass media—television, newspapers, film and magazines—rarely, if ever, look at the fate of the millions of German civilians in central and eastern Europe during and following World War II. [1] The treatment of civilian ethnic Germans—or Volksdeutsche—in Yugoslavia may be regarded as a classic case of “ethnic cleansing” on a grand scale. [2] A close look at these mass killings presents a myriad of historical and legal problems, especially when considering modern international law, including the Hague War Crimes Tribunal that has been dealing with war crimes and crimes against humanity in the Balkan wars of 1991-1995. Yet the plight of Yugoslavia’s ethnic Germans during and after World War II should be of no lesser concern to historians, not least because an understanding of this chapter of history throws a significant light on the violent break-up of Communist Yugoslavia 45 years later. A better understanding of the fate of Yugoslavia’s ethnic Germans should encourage skepticism of just how fairly and justly international law is applied in practice. Why are the sufferings and victimhood of some nations or ethnic groups ignored, while the sufferings of other nations and groups receive fulsome and sympathetic attention from the media and politicians? At the outbreak of World War II in 1939, more than one and a half million ethnic Germans were living in southeastern Europe, that is, in Yugoslavia, Hungary, and Romania. Because they lived mostly near and along the Danube river, these people were popularly known “Danube Swabians” or Donauschwaben. Most were descendants of settlers who came to this fertile region in the 17th and 18th centuries following the liberation of Hungary from Turkish rule. For centuries the Holy Roman Empire and then the Habsburg Empire struggled against Turkish rule in the Balkans, and resisted the “Islamization” of Europe. In this struggle the Danube Germans were viewed as a rampart of Western civilization, and were held in high esteem in the Austrian (and later, Austro-Hungarian) empire for their agricultural productivity and military prowess. Both the Holy Roman and Habsburg empires were multicultural and multinational entities, in which diverse ethnic groups lived for centuries in relative harmony. After the end of World War I, in 1918, which brought the collapse of the Austro-Hungarian Habsburg empire, and the imposed Versailles Treaty of 1919, the juridical status of the Donauschwaben Germans was in flux. When the National Socialist regime was established in Germany in 1933, the Donauschwaben were among the more than twelve million ethnic Germans who lived in central and eastern Europe outside the borders of the German Reich. Many of these people were brought into the Reich with the incorporation of Austria in 1938, of the Sudetenland region of Czechoslovakia in 1939, and of portions of Poland in late 1939. The “German question,” that is, the struggle for self-determination of ethnic Germans outside the borders of the German Reich, was a major factor leading to the outbreak of World War II. Even after 1939, more than three million ethnic Germans remained outside the borders of the expanded Reich, notably in Romania, Yugoslavia, Hungary and the Soviet Union. In the first Yugoslavia—a monarchical state created in 1919 largely as a result of efforts of the victorious Allied powers—most of the country’s ethnic Germans were concentrated in eastern Croatia and northern Serbia (notably in the Vojvodina region), with some German towns and villages in Slovenia. Other ethnic Germans lived in western Romania and south-eastern Hungary. This first multiethnic Yugoslav state of 1919-1941 had a population of some 14 million people of diverse cultures and religions. On the eve of World War II it included nearly six million Serbs, about three million Croats, more than a million Slovenes, some two million Bosnian Muslims and ethnic Albanians, approximately half a million ethnic Germans, and another half million ethnic Hungarians. Following the breakup of Yugoslavia in April 1941, accelerated by a rapid German military advance, approximately 200,000 ethnic Germans became citizens of the newly established Independent State of Croatia, a country whose military and civil authorities remained loyally allied with Third Reich Germany until the final week of the war in Europe. [3] Most of the remaining ethnic Germans of former Yugoslavia—approximately 300,000 in the Vojvodina region—came under the jurisdiction of Hungary, which during the war incorporated the region. (After 1945 this region was reattached to the Serbian portion of Yugoslavia.) The plight of the ethnic Germans became dire during the final months of World War II, and especially after the founding of the second Yugoslavia, a multiethnic Communist state headed by Marshal Josip Broz Tito. In late October 1944, Tito’s guerilla forces, aided by the advancing Soviets and lavishly assisted by Western air supplies, took control of Belgrade, the Serb capital that also served as the capital of Yugoslavia . One of the first legal acts of the new regime was the decree of November 21, 1944, on “The decision regarding the transfer of the enemy’s property into the property of the state.” It declared citizens of German origin as “enemies of the people,” and stripped them of civic rights. The decree also ordered the government confiscation of all property, without compensation, of Yugoslavia’s ethnic Germans. [4] An additional law, promulgated in Belgrade on February 6, 1945, canceled the Yugoslav citizenship of the country’s ethnic Germans. [5] By late 1944—when Communist forces had seized control of the eastern Balkans, that is, of Bulgaria, Serbia and Macedonia—the German-allied state of Croatia still held firm. However, in early 1945, German troops, together with Croatian troops and civilians, began retreating toward southern Austria. During the war’s final months, the majority of Yugoslavia’s ethnic German civilians also joined this great trek. The refugees’ fears of torture and death at Communist hands were well founded, given the horrific treatment by Soviet forces of Germans and others in East Prussia and other parts of eastern Europe. By the end of the war in May 1945, German authorities had evacuated 220,000 ethnic Germans from Yugoslavia to Germany and Austria. Yet many remained in their war-ravaged ancestral homelands, most likely awaiting a miracle. After the end of fighting in Europe on May 8, 1945, more than 200,000 ethnic Germans who had remained behind in Yugoslavia effectively became captives of the new Communist regime. Some 63,635 Yugoslav ethnic German civilians (women, men and children) perished under Communist rule between 1945 and 1950—that is, some 18 percent of the ethnic German civilian population still remaining in the new Yugoslavia. Most died as a result of exhaustion as slave laborers, in “ethnic cleansing,” or from disease and malnutrition. [6] Much of the credit for the widely-praised “economic miracle” of Titoist Yugoslavia, it should be noted, must go to the tens of thousands of German slave laborers who, during the late 1940s, helped to build the impoverished country. Property of ethnic Germans in Yugoslavia confiscated in the aftermath of World War II amounted to 97,490 small businesses, factories, shops, farms and diverse trades. The confiscated real estate and farmland of Yugoslavia’s ethnic Germans came to 637,939 hectares (or about one million acres), and became state-owned property. According to a 1982 calculation, the value of the property confiscated from ethnic Germans in Yugoslavia amounted to 15 billion German marks, or about seven billion US dollars. Taking inflation into account, this would today correspond to twelve billion US dollars. From 1948 to 1985, more than 87,000 ethnic Germans who were still residing in Yugoslavia moved to Germany and automatically became German citizens. [7] All this constitutes a “final solution of the German question” in Yugoslavia. Numerous survivors have provided detailed and graphic accounts of the grim fate of the ethnic German civilians, particularly women and children, who were held in Communist Yugoslav captivity. One noteworthy witness is the late Father Wendelin Gruber, who served as a chaplain and spiritual leader to many fellow captives. [8] These numerous survivor accounts of torture and death inflicted on German civilians and captured soldiers by Yugoslav authorities adds to the chronicle of Communist oppression worldwide. [9] Of the one and a half million ethnic Germans who lived in the Danube basin in 1939-1941, some 93,000 served during World War II in the armed forces of Hungary, Croatia and Romania – Axis countries that were allied with Germany – or in the regular German armed forces. The ethnic Germans of Hungary, Croatia and Romania who served in the military formations of those countries remained citizens of those respective states. [10] In addition, many ethnic Germans of the Danubian region served in the “Prinz Eugen” Waffen SS division, which totaled some 10,000 men throughout its existence during the war. (This formation was named in honor of Prince Eugene of Savoy, who had won great victories against Turkish forces in the late 17th and early 18th centuries.) [11] Enlisting in the “Prinz Eugen” division automatically conferred German citizenship on the recruit. Of the 26,000 ethnic Danubian ethnic Germans serving in various military formations who lost their lives, half perished after the end of the war in Yugoslav camps. Particularly high were the losses of the “Prinz Eugen” division, most of whom surrendered after May 8, 1945. Some 1,700 of these prisoners were killed in the village of Brezice near the Croat-Slovenian border, while the remaining half was worked to death in Yugoslav zinc mines near the town of Bor, in Serbia. [12] In addition to the “ethnic cleansing” of Danube German civilians and soldiers, some 70,000 Germans who had served in regular Wehrmacht forces perished in Yugoslav captivity. Most of these died as a result of reprisals, or as slave laborers in mines, road construction, shipyards, and so forth. These were mostly troops of “Army Group E” who had surrendered to British military authorities in southern Austria at the time of the armistice of May 8, 1945. British authorities turned over about 150,000 of these German prisoners of war to Communist Yugoslav partisans under pretext of later repatriation to Germany. Most of these former regular Wehrmacht troops perished in postwar Yugoslavia in three stages: During the first stage more than 7,000 captured German troops died in Communist-organized “atonement marches” (Suhnemärsche) stretching 800 miles from the southern border of Austria to the northern border of Greece. During the second phase, in late summer 1945, many German soldiers in captivity were summarily executed or thrown alive into large karst pits along the Dalmatian coast of Croatia. In the third stage, 1945-1955, an additional 50,000 perished as forced laborers due to malnutrition and exhaustion. [13] The total number of German losses in Yugoslav captivity after the end of the war—including ethnic “Danube German” civilians and soldiers, as well as “Reich” Germans—may therefore be conservatively estimated at 120,000 killed, starved, worked to death, or missing. What is the importance of these figures? What lessons can be drawn in assessing these postwar German losses? It is important to stress that the plight of German civilians in the Balkans is only a small portion of the Allied topography of death. Seven to eight million Germans—both military personnel and civilians—died during and after World War II. Half of those perished during the final months of the war, or after Germany’s unconditional surrender on May 8, 1945. German casualties, both civilian and military, were arguably higher in “peace” than in “war.” In the months before and after the end of World War II, ethnic Germans were killed, tortured and dispossessed throughout eastern and central Europe, notably in Silesia, East Prussia, Pomerania, the Sudetenland, and the “Wartheland” region. Altogether 12-15 million Germans fled or were driven from their homes in what is perhaps the greatest “ethnic cleansing” in history. Of this number, more than two million were killed or otherwise lost their lives. [14] The grim events in postwar Yugoslavia are rarely dealt with in the media of the countries that emerged on the ruins of communist Yugoslavia, even though, remarkably, there is today greater freedom of expression and historical research there than in such western European countries as Germany and France. The elites of Croatia, Serbia and Bosnia, largely made up of former Communists, seem to share a common interest in repressing their sometimes murky and criminal past with regard to the postwar treatment of German civilians. The breakup of Yugoslavia in 1990-91, the events leading to it, and the war and atrocities that followed, can only be understood within a larger historical framework. As already noted, “ethnic cleansing” is nothing new. Even if one regards the former Serb-Yugoslav leader Slobodan Milosevic and the other defendants being tried by the International War Crimes Tribunal in The Hague as wicked criminals, their crimes are trivial compared to those of Communist Yugoslavia’s founder, Josip Broz Tito. Tito carried out “ethnic cleansing” and mass killings on a far greater scale, against Croats, Germans and Serbs, and with the sanction of the British and American governments. His rule in Yugoslavia (1945-1980), which coincided with the “Cold War” era, was generally supported by the Western powers, who regarded his regime as a factor of stability in this often unstable region of Europe. [15] The wartime and postwar plight of Germans in the Balkans also provides lessons about the fate of multiethnic and multicultural states. The fate of the two Yugoslavias—1919-1941 and 1944-1991—underscores the inherent weakness of multiethnic states. Twice in the 20th century, multicultural Yugoslavia fell apart amid needless carnage and a spiral of hatreds among its constituent ethnic groups. One can argue, therefore, that it is better for diverse nations and cultures, let alone different races, to live apart, separated by walls, than to pretend to live in a feigned unity that hides animosities waiting to explode, and leaving behind lasting resentments. Few could foresee the savage inter-ethnic hatred and killings that swept the Balkans following the collapse of Yugoslavia in 1991, and this among peoples of relatively similar anthropological origins, albeit different cultural backgrounds. One can only speculate with foreboding about the future of the United States and western Europe, where growing interracial tensions between the native populations and masses of Third World immigrants portend disaster with far bloodier consequences. Multicultural Yugoslavia, in both its first and second incarnations, was above all the creation of, respectively, the French, British and American leaders who crafted the Versailles settlement of 1919, and the British, Soviet Russian and American leaders who met at Yalta and Potsdam in 1945. The political figures who created Yugoslavia did not represent the nations in the region, and understood little of the self-perceptions or ethnic-cultural affinities of the region’s various peoples. Although the deaths, suffering and dispossession of the ethnic Germans of the Balkans during and after World War II are well documented by both German authorities and independent scholars, they continue to be largely ignored in the major media of the United States and Europe. Why? One could speculate that if those German losses were more widely discussed and better known, they would likely stimulate an alternative perspective on World War II, and indeed of 20th century history. A greater and more widespread awareness of German civilian losses during and after World War II might well encourage a deeper discussion of the dynamics of contemporary societies. This, in turn, could significantly affect the self-perception of millions of people, forcing many to discard ideas and myths that have fashionably prevailed for more than half a century. An open debate about the causes and consequences of World War II would also tarnish the reputations of many scholars and opinion makers in the United States and Europe. Arguably, a greater awareness of the sufferings of German civilians during and after World War II, and the implications of that, could fundamentally change the policies of the United States and other major powers. —————————————————————— Notes 1. Mads Ole Balling, Von Reval bis Bukarest (Copenhagen: Hermann-Niermann-Stiftung, 1991), vol. I and vol. II. 2. L. Barwich, F. Binder, M. Eisele, F. Hoffmann, F. Kühbauch, E. Lung, V. Oberkersch, J. Pertschi, H. Rakusch, M. Reinsprecht, I. Senz, H. Sonnleitner, G. Tscherny, R. Vetter, G. Wildmann, and others, Weissbuch der Deutschen aus Jugoslawien: Erlebnisberichte 1944-48 (Munich: Universitäts Verlag, Donauschwäbische Kulturstiftung, 1992, 1993), vol. I, vol. II. 3. On Croatia’s armed forces during World War II, and its destruction after 1945 by the Yugoslav Communists, see, Christophe Dolbeau, Les Forces armées croates, 1941-1945 (Lyon [BP 5005, 69245 Lyon cedex 05, France]: 2002). 4. Anton Scherer, Manfred Straka, Kratka povijest podunavskih Nijemaca/ Abriss zur Geschichte der Donauschwaben (Graz: Leopold Stocker Verlag/ Zagreb: Pan Liber, 1999), esp. p. 131; Georg Wildmann, and others, Genocide of the Ethnic Germans in Yugoslavia 1944-1948 (Santa Ana, Calif.: Danube Swabian Association of the USA, 2001), p. 31. 5. A. Scherer, M. Straka, Kratka povijest podunavskih Nijemaca/ Abriss zur Geschichte der Donauschwaben (1999), pp. 132-140. 6. Georg Wildmann, and others, Verbrechen an den Deutschen in Jugoslawien, 1944-48 (Munich: Donauschwäbische Kulturstiftung, 1998), esp. pp. 312-313. Based on this is the English-language work: Georg Wildmann, and others, Genocide of the Ethnic Germans in Yugoslavia 1944-1948 ( Santa Ana, Calif.: Danube Swabian Association of the USA, 2001). 7. G. Wildmann, and others, Verbrechen an den Deutschen in Jugoslawien, 1944-48, esp. p. 274. 8. Wendelin Gruber, In the Claws of the Red Dragon: Ten Years Under Tito’s Heel (Toronto: St. Michaelswerk, 1988). Translated from German by Frank Schmidt. 9. Stéphane Courtois, and others, The Black Book of Communism: Crimes, Terror, Repression (Cambridge: Harvard Univ. Press, 1999). 10. G. Wildmann, and others, Verbrechen an den Deutschen in Jugoslawien (cited above), p. 22. 11. Armin Preuss, Prinz Eugen: Der edle Ritter (Berlin: Grundlagen Verlag, 1996). 12. Otto Kumm, Geschichte der 7. SS-Freiwilligen Gebirgs-Division “Prinz Eugen” (Coburg: Nation Europa, 1995). 13. Roland Kaltenegger, Titos Kriegsgefangene: Folterlager, Hungermärsche und Schauprozesse ( Graz : Leopold Stocker Verlag, 2001). 14. Alfred-Maurice de Zayas, Nemesis at Potsdam: The Expulsion of the Germans From the East. (Lincoln: Univ. of Nebraska, 1989 [3rd rev. ed.]); Alfred-Maurice de Zayas, The German Expellees: Victims in War and Peace (New York: St. Martin’s Press, 1993); Alfred-Maurice de Zayas, A Terrible Revenge: The “Ethnic Cleansing” of the East European Germans, 1944-1950 (New York: St. Martin’s Press, 1994); Ralph F. Keeling, Gruesome Harvest: The Allies’ Postwar War Against the German People (Institute for Historical Review, 1992). 15. Tomislav Sunic, Titoism and Dissidence: Studies in the History and Dissolution of Communist Yugoslavia (Frankfurt, New York: Peter Lang, 1995) This article was originally posted at Institute for Historical Review in 2004, and was adapted from Tom’s address to the 14th IHR Conference, in Irvine, California two years earlier Comments:99002
Posted by Guessedworker on Fri, 05 Oct 2007 13:39 | # Sorry, Constantin, I had not seen your response to my question at the end of that other thread. So, in answer to the question “Do Jews generally want to stop the process of racial destruction?” you have written:- No, they do not. But neither do White gentiles. So what is the point? I am not going to follow your marching orders of treating Jews as a homogenous whole when they are clearly not. So that is an admission that Jews - or, at leas, Ashkenazim - as a group do see an advantage in the cosmopolitanisation and consequent deracination of the Western societies in which they live. How does that mesh with your stated Judeophilia? Is not an interest in cosmopolitanisation and deracination a reason to suspend it somewhat? Even drop it entirely? But instead you grasp the fig leaf that “neither do White gentiles.” But European Man does not understand the interest of Jews in our racial displacement. You know perfectly well that his mind on the subject of Jews is not his own, that he is forbidden to think freely, trained in the most Pavolovian style to discourage thinking freely, and dutifully see free-thinkers as “evil”, “nazis”, “camp guards” et al. And where did this mindset come from? Our love of cosmopolitanisation and deracination? Now, let’s look at the issue of Ashkenazic Jews as a “homogeneous whole”. How many Jews do you know who don’t support Israel. There is just that small group of highly religious traditionalists, Neturie Karta, right? Well, how many Jews do you know who don’t support open borders and free immigration? Well, there’s Larry Auster ... Paul Gottfried ... a few ex-Amren kooks like David Hart. All of them ant-Islamics. But any others? Any who support European Man for his own sake? So, how many Jews do you know who don’t support the entire Holocaust story? Erm ... not Finkelstein, who objects to the exploitation of it. There was David Cole, but he got beaten up and had to retract. Any more? No. So, it’s pretty homogeneous, then. Do you have any arguments left? I don’t think so. 99003
Posted by Fred Scrooby on Fri, 05 Oct 2007 14:19 | # I just want to say that I am the one responsible in this thread for introducing the concept of “U.S. Jewish marxism” which CvH objects to so forcefully and seems to attribute to GW. GW didn’t do it. I did, so C can stop hysterically berating him for it. (He can berate me for it all he wants, if he likes making a fool of himself ...) As for the rest of the exchange, C differs so radically from my own views on the diaspora-Jewish role in XXth-Century Aryan-nation obliteration and white-race annihilation/genocide, a role they continue to play into the new century (a central role, which has proven necessary though not by itself sufficient for the wreaking of the destruction — without allies they couldn’t have done it — and a role they won’t abandon until every single non-Jewish white man on earth has been changed into a Negro) that to respond to him would require writing whole books, so isn’t possible. It’s easy enough to assert the Pythagorean theorem in an argument until the other person denies every pillar on which it stands and puts you in a position of needing to write a book to reply to him. Then replying is no longer practical, and you stop. For me, CvH’s value lies in his opposition to the current Eurospherewide régime of forced transformation of every European-race man, woman, and child on the planet into a Negro, something for which we have the world of marxism to thank, as Vladimir Bukovsky explained in the Paul Belien interview though he didn’t explain it in exactly those words. If C opposes that forced transformation — and he does — he’s my ally, his totally blinkered views of diaspora Jewry and the nature of communism notwithstanding. 99004
Posted by mleccah on Fri, 05 Oct 2007 17:23 | # The internet allows little men to appoint themselves philosophic demagogues with no more than a few hours’ each week in self-promotion. That’s the ‘enigma’ of Big Von. Arrogant pap. Why anyone would pick through his stupid writings and go, “I agree with this, but not with this,” is beyond me — as though one thing does not share of the same essence as another. His facetious, mock-socratic sucking-up to Jews (“where are ‘the Jews’ exactly?”, asks he, feeling trenchant) is a symptom of his shallow cast of mind, though he understands it as a corrective to the admittedly more absurd reaches of lay anti-Semitism. This parasitic fool has latched onto majorityrights because the creator of the site is himself a German. So the tree grows crooked; it is to be expected. 99005
Posted by Guessedworker on Fri, 05 Oct 2007 17:47 | # “the creator of the site is himself a German” If you say so. 99006
Posted by Fred Scrooby on Fri, 05 Oct 2007 21:44 | # Mleccah, the creator of this site and its owner and editor is Guessedworker, an Englishman. 99007
Posted by Fred Scrooby on Fri, 05 Oct 2007 21:48 | # Furthermore, the last thing that would motivate Constantin to associate himself to a site is its creator being German: C appears to have no feelings of German nationalism. 99009
Posted by Oliver Cromwell on Fri, 05 Oct 2007 23:26 | # When most people speak of Marxism today, they are actually talking about a mishmash of Critical Theory, postmodern ism and the usual egalitarian claptrap. The economics of Marxism and the idea of a classless society are less important. Much of the terminology of Communism is kept around to show continuity with the Old Left. Che Guevara is the new Marx, with Gramsci, Rosa Luxemburg and Karl Liebknecht making cameo appearances. 99010
Posted by Fred Scrooby on Sat, 06 Oct 2007 00:07 | # Oliver Cromwell, it makes no difference if Karl Marx was not, shall we say, a huge fan of Negroes (Engels either, of course) (or even of Slavs, for that matter — neither of those two was especially bullish, let us call it, on the Slavs as a race ...): that makes no difference whatsoever. Moscow was from 1917 to 1991 the world center of anti-racist propaganda and the drive to eliminate nations and races from the earth in favor of creating the new Soviet Man, who was to be nationless and raceless as well as classless. CvH has found a group of Russians — this Durgin person and some others — nostalgic for what they see as Russia’s halcion days under communism, who would love to deny Soviet Russia’s anti-racist past under Jewish Bolshevism, would love to deny Jewish Bolshevism was Jewish, and love to pretend a racist communism can be born out of the anti-racist version’s ashes. Not related but I’d like to mention (especially for the German/Austrian diaspora, of which I count myself a member, especially now that the Jews have turned the United States into Negroland) a collection of Ernst Zundel videos newly posted in YouTube format. I just discovered them last night and have watched six or eight, chosen nearly at random: they’re all excellent and merit a four-star rating, each one I watched. This man Zundel (in German written with the umlaut, I believe) is a first-rate commentator and a true German patriot, an admirable personage, judging from the videos I’ve looked at so far. The honest, simple, pure, steadfast German patriotism of a man like Zündel would be spat upon by CvH. That’s one of the latter’s defects and no small one. 99011
Posted by Constantin von Hoffmeister on Sat, 06 Oct 2007 13:42 | # “The mass media—television, newspapers, film and magazines—rarely, if ever, look at the fate of the millions of German civilians in central and eastern Europe during and following World War II.” This is not true. The expulsion of the Germans from the East was the subject of a popular TV show in Germany last year, as well as TV documentaries, magazine articles and books. There was also a popular TV show about the bombing of Dresden two years ago. Constantin 99012
Posted by Slavyanski on Sat, 06 Oct 2007 15:17 | # “I know little of Tsarist Russia. But, in general, organic society is always stronger than one constructed on the pursuit of an abstract ideal. The human mind is less adept in these things than Nature.” Socialism is not an abstract ideal, certainly no more abstract than the theocratic Russian Orthodox church of that era. Tsarist Russia could hardly be described as “organic”. How can you call that a nation when the leadership allowed its people to suffer in ignorance and starvation?
Not “Jewish” at all. Marx was not a “Jew”, save for by ridiculous idiotic assertions by people who believe that Jewishness is something other than a religious identity, something that Marx’s father escaped from. Furthermore even with that ethnic issue, are we to believe that Marx’s father kept his bloodline pure from the time of the original Hebrews all the way up to meeting his mother? Absolute nonsense. You would not consider a mulatto person to be white, but a “half-Jew” is a Jew. So much for race being readily definable.
“Freudianism: Jewish” No such ideology exists. Psychoanalysis is still a recognized scientific field, despite the fact that many of Freud’s ideas are no longer recognized as accurate. “Critical Theory: Minus the very minor Habermas, Jewish (and you can add postmodernism, minus Foucault, of Queer Theory fame).” Does not have nearly as much influence on society as anti-Semites like to claim. “Second-Wave Feminism: Substantially Jewish at the intellectual/authorial end.” WTF is “Second-Wave” feminism? Feminism also has had little effect on society. I cannot remember, in my entire life, meeting one ‘feminist’. I suppose you may meet some on a university campus, but the thing about nonsense identity politics movements is that most people grow out of them once they leave school- they need to concern themselves with money and survival. “Second-Wave Libertarianism: majority-Jewish.” That’s funny because a lot of you guys push libertarian ideas some times, and one of your buddies even quoted Murray Rothbard. I guess they’re ok when they say what you want. “LBGT Rights and Human Rights: Both well-populated with Jews, the former at the leadership end, the latter legal.” Really? Prove it. Name names. “Open Borders and Immigration, American Civil Rights: Read 20th Century American history ... read Scimitar’s blog, for pete’s sake.” Name…names. You always pick out some Jewish names, and ignore the fact that these people represent a small minority. Take the Bolshevik revolution for example- the Bolsheviks in 1917 had THE LOWEST AMOUNT OF JEWS, juxtaposed against the Menscheviks and the Jewish Bund(which clearly represented Jewish interests). Yet you pick out some names, often erroneously, and claim the movement was Jewish. “Neoconservatism: Intellectually Jewish, substantially Jewish at the political end.” Serves the interests of the ruling class, which is largely gentile. Aided by thousands of Gentile academics, authors, journalists, etc. “Holocaustism: Jewish, of course. It is, btw, the exploitation of the historical fact (I am a little surprised at having to explain this to a German - or perhaps it’s only Germans to whom one has to explain this).” What the hell is this? “Pornography: pretty damned Jewish (have you read Nathan Abrams on Jews in the porn industry?)” I guess the tens of millions that buy pornography get a free pass then. “The denial of race: Boas ... Montague ... Rose ... Kamin ... Gould ... Lewontin ... Diamond ... Wise ...” Herrenstein, Murray, Esynik? The problem is that science doesn’t support your racial ideas, period. What science does lean toward the existence of biologically defined “races” does not separate Jews as a race, as you want it to. Too bad. “Miscegenationism: We call it Zivism, if that helps.” Right, only Jews are interested in this, and Jews don’t miscegenate. That’s why one can find Jews that range from Nordic, to Asiatic, to African. ” The onus appears to be on you to deny that Jews are present in all these movements, and are so because these are vehicles for their ethnic interests. Alternatively, if you admit that they are present but are all acting only as disinterested individuals, show me the evidence.” Here’s where your argument gets shot to hell: You ask us to deny Jewish “PRESENCE” in these movements, as though presence alone equals domination or creation of said movements. This betrays the mystical, quasi-religious nature of anti-Semitism. To you, the PRESENCE of a Jew is some how more significant than that of other nationalities. Jewish presense denotes a controlling role, while the mere presense of any other ethnicity does not. In fact, for you the presense of Jews denotes a controlling role over and above even the largest majority of any movement. 99013
Posted by Fred Scrooby on Sat, 06 Oct 2007 18:08 | #
Sight unseen, we can be a hundred percent certain how those popular TV shows and TV documentaries, magazine articles and so on presented the atrocities against the Germans: as fully justified retribution for German atrocities, therefore something good which Germans need to celebrate. Germans = evil, Kwamerikwans = good. Sight unseen, we can be certain that’s how they were presented to the German people (what’s left of the German people, that is, in the wake of their methodical, planned-years-in-advance large-scale extermination after the surrender, the systematic rape of all German women aged 8 to 98 by hordes of uncivilized Russian-uniform-wearing Asiatic/Mongol invaders — sent in by the revenge-bent Russian and American Jews — who were so primitive, savage, and brutal they shocked even the hard-bitten likes of General Patton, and the Kwamerikwan-imposed forced race-replacement régime the entire Eurosphere has been suffering under since 1945, including of course Germany). Here‘s something about the post-German-surrender Jewish-revenge holocaust. How do we know it was Jewish revenge, not, say, Polish revenge, WASP revenge, Norwegian revenge, Ukrainian revenge, Bohemian revenge or Moravian revenge? Call it an educated surmise based on clues such as that the U.S. legal team at the Nuremberg Trials wasn’t 75% Polish, 75% WASP, 75% Norwegian, 75% Ukrainian, 75% Bohemian, or 75% Moravian but was 75% something and was so thanks, doubtless (how else, when the second in command strongly opposed that proportion?) to the branch of the D.C. government dealing with post-surrender punishment in general being under the control of that same something:
99014
Posted by Fred Scrooby on Sat, 06 Oct 2007 18:37 | # Regarding the Ernst Zundel videos mentioned in my comment a few above: anyone interested had better look at them while there’s a chance, because, you never know, they may not be up much longer ... 99015
Posted by Slavyanski on Sat, 06 Oct 2007 18:46 | # “Sight unseen, we can be a hundred percent certain how those popular TV shows and TV documentaries, magazine articles and so on presented the atrocities against the Germans: as fully justified retribution for German atrocities, therefore something good which Germans need to celebrate. Germans = evil, Kwamerikwans = good. ” Sight unseen? Why don’t you go to Germany, or ask someone in Germany, to tell you. Oddly enough, you resort to similar tactics when you deny the Holocaust.
Systematic rape huh? Well let’s play Holocaust revisionist for a second: The reports of rape come from Goebbels and eyewitnesses. Ergo, NO RAPES HAPPENED!! Just kidding, let’s some back to reality for a moment. Rape stories in Germany were blown widely out of proportion, primarily by Goebbels. In fact, the rapes that did occur were done by a minority of Red Army men; yet studies also show that the majority of these rapists happened to be from areas that were under German occupation- in other words, it was indeed revenge. More importantly, these were mostly not “Mongoloid Asiatics”, as your ignorant post claims. Records abound not only of the Red Army issuing orders against rape, but in some cases soldiers were shot on sight for it. If it was not prosecuted to the extent you wish, keep in mind what the Germans had done to the Belorussians, Ukrainians, and Muscovite Russians. Next time, before you pull stuff like “Asiatic/Mongol” invaders out of your ass, consider that there are people that actually take a lot of time to study this subject. For a more balanced but mainstream reading, check Victory at Stalingrad, which cites some crucial studies about the rapes that did occur. But again, no Barbarossa, no rapes. And you are naive as hell if you think rape didn’t occur on the eastern front. It was certainly reported, and their eyewitnesses and victims are just as good as yours. German documents exempted Wehrmacht soldiers from prosecution for several crimes, among them was rape(unlike the Red Army, which documented not only orders against rape but reports of executions for rape as well). “Here‘s something about the post-German-surrender Jewish-revenge holocaust. How do we know it was Jewish revenge, not, say, Polish revenge, WASP revenge, Norwegian revenge, Ukrainian revenge, Bohemian revenge or Moravian revenge? “ So the people who actually carried out acts of revenge weren’t the real avengers? Nonsense. Germany decided what kind of war it wanted to fight, it couldn’t finish it. End of story. 99016
Posted by Slavyanski on Sat, 06 Oct 2007 19:48 | # I might also question, if rape interest you, why don’t I see the Neo-Nazis talking about the mass rapes that occured when the Japanese came into European-held areas of China, or European colonies in East Asia? You want to talk about “Asiatic” hordes raping women, why don’t you take a look at Hitler’s buddies? 99017
Posted by Fred Scrooby on Sat, 06 Oct 2007 19:52 | #
99018
Posted by Slavyanski on Sat, 06 Oct 2007 19:55 | # Good job, don’t address any of my points. Where did Tom Dodd’s evidence come from? Was Tom Dodd’s family wiped out by invading Germans? Were they hung out in the freezing cold, left to swing as human signposts for alleged, often unproven associations with partisans? Dodd can take his accusations and shove them firmly up his ass.
99019
Posted by Svigor on Sat, 06 Oct 2007 22:30 | # I’m having trouble deciding if CvH or Slavsky is more full of shit. I guess the latter, his “arguments” seem particularly easy to refute, insofar as I am led to believe by my brief forays into his posts (which do not last long). Random example, his reference to that dull old saw, “we’ve all seen where racialism leads.” Yaaaaaawn (*cough* equalityobsessedcommieskilledfarmorethaninequalityobsessednazis *cough*) Deprogramming is hard work, dude. 99020
Posted by Svigor on Sat, 06 Oct 2007 22:39 | # save for by ridiculous idiotic assertions by people who believe that Jewishness is something other than a religious identity Lol, what a jackass. Google “secular jew” and save yourself future embarrassment. 99021
Posted by Svigor on Sat, 06 Oct 2007 22:47 | # Then, when your face goes back to white from red, Google “jewish genetics” and savor the experience all over again… 99022
Posted by Guessedworker on Sun, 07 Oct 2007 00:25 | # Slavy. Your doggedness is commendable. But you are making a rod for own back, as Svigor has told you. For now, let’s just deal with “socialism” and its place in the realm of the abstract. I hope you can agree that socialism, in the Marxist sense you undoubtedly mean it, exists within, and not separate from, the tradition of Western liberalism, and has as its fundamental aim the same exercise of the unfettered will ... in other words, the will to power. Now, there is another socialism of sorts, which was uninfected by that Jewish “culture of critique” (which, interestingly as we will see, MacDonald argues to be not cultural at all but selected in the evolutionary sense). This socialism, of sorts, was that beautiful and good solidarity which was founded in self-help and recognition of place and kind - in other words, in connectivity to the social body rather than in fatal opposition to one part of it. Now, I would be willing to bet that inside your head right now these words are bringing forth outraged and defensive arguments along the lines of, “No, no ... it’s impossible and ridiculous to contemplate a stable, unified and socially-articulated, non-Marxist society. The bourgeoisie is the enemy of the working man!” But why? You yourself have presented arguments as to the limits of egalitarianism in your political religion. If the issues are only social mobility for the able and protection for the weak, one does not need a class analysis to deliver them. Victorian England was shot through with efforts to engineer these ends - led, let it be said, by the “bourgeoisie” (both Whig and Tory). In place of envy and hatred was compassion. It’s important that you understand that organic society is founded always on the nature of Man, and the nature of Man, in this one sense, is good. The organic is also, obviously, the antithesis of the abstract. So in what sense is the abstract “bad”? Well, the ultimate interest of Man in his manifestation as an individual, as a member of a genetically distinct group and of humanity in general is continuity ... it is a reproductive interest. He may not understand this in his conscious thoughts as he passes through the passage of time, but it is so. What flows from this into the coarse realm of politics is all that preserves the natural connectiveness of those like oneself, and enhances the passage of that connectiveness into the future. This we call Ethnic Genetic Interest, and its aspect is love. It should be obvious to you that a politic which invites us to envy or hate our fellows because they constitute a different and supposedly oppressive social class is profoundly unhelpful. Prosecuting a class-war is, in Darwinian terms, simply maladaptive. It reduces our common store of EGI ... takes us away from the organic foundation of society and towards dystopia. However, let it be noted that competing ethnies in the same living space only advance their own interests at the expense of their competitor’s interests. That is an unbreakable natural law. So what is maladaptive or “bad” for one group may be highly advantageous for another. Now, I know you will intentionally fail to internalise ... be impressed by ... understand this presentation of the “Nazi crime-think” you so love to disparage. Too bad. If you are remotely interested in understanding not just us or nationalism but yourself, damn it, and the very life you hold, you will read some of the posts here on Ethnic Genetic Interest. Good luck with it. 99023
Posted by Steve Edwards on Sun, 07 Oct 2007 07:31 | # Some VERY interesting quotes here. Slavyanski writes of Marxism: “Not “Jewish” at all. Marx was not a “Jew”, save for by ridiculous idiotic assertions by people who believe that Jewishness is something other than a religious identity, something that Marx’s father escaped from.” Strange, because most self-identified Jews I’ve ever met have scarcely been religious at all. And they still called themselves “Jews”! Clearly, these people must be “idiots” for labelling themselves “Jewish”, according to the traditions of their ancestors. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Secular_Judaism Of second-wave libertarianism: “That’s funny because a lot of you guys push libertarian ideas some times, and one of your buddies even quoted Murray Rothbard. I guess they’re ok when they say what you want.” No, hardly any of “you guys” (“those guys”) push libertarian ideas at all. In fact the only people who are even influenced at all by classical liberalism are myself and James Bowery. At this point you may have noticed that the readers of this site do not, in fact, constitute a monolithic bloc of seething national socialists and Jew-haters! Of neo-conservatism: “Serves the interests of the ruling class, which is largely gentile. Aided by thousands of Gentile academics, authors, journalists, etc.” Really? Which “thousands” of Gentile academics, authors and journalists are supporters of “neo-convervatism”? Name names! Of feminism: “WTF is “Second-Wave” feminism? Feminism also has had little effect on society. I cannot remember, in my entire life, meeting one ‘feminist’. I suppose you may meet some on a university campus, but the thing about nonsense identity politics movements is that most people grow out of them once they leave school- they need to concern themselves with money and survival.” You know perfectly well what “Second-Wave” feminism is, unless you are dissimulating (which I certainly can’t rule out). Secondly, feminism has not had “little” impact on society. It’s impact has been substantial, unless you think female control over fertility through the Pill, freely available abortion, enforced equal opportunity and anti-discrimination laws, all of which were largely driven by the feminist movement, had “little” impact on society. 99024
Posted by Slavyanski on Sun, 07 Oct 2007 09:40 | # “For now, let’s just deal with “socialism” and its place in the realm of the abstract. I hope you can agree that socialism, in the Marxist sense you undoubtedly mean it, exists within, and not separate from, the tradition of Western liberalism, and has as its fundamental aim the same exercise of the unfettered will ... in other words, the will to power.” I’d rather deal with socialism in the realm of reality instead.
Of course you would imagine this, because you people are constantly living in a fantasy world where you define what your opponents believe. The contradiction between ruling class and proletariat is economic reality. It doesn’t change just because you want it to, unless you change the system fundamentally.
The problem is that the egalitarianism you people fight is not proposed by anyone, liberals nor Marxists.
Occasionally the ruling class has had to make concessions, but this is usually when forced to. The most concessions occurred around the time after the October Revolution, but a lot after WWII. “It’s important that you understand that organic society is founded always on the nature of Man, and the nature of Man, in this one sense, is good. The organic is also, obviously, the antithesis of the abstract.” Again, nature of man, nature of man. Please define this “nature of man”.
Obviously we can agree on the reproduction point, but where does ethnics or genetics come into. I read your site’s FAQ on race. I am not going to challenge the scientific claims; but I ask you why in the hell do you think this is a good idea upon which to organize society, given the fact that you cannot look at someone and determine his racial background to the extent that you claim. More importantly, it is clear that man has never given great importance to this form of identity, about which he could not have been aware for most of his existence. Family, Tribe, nation, religion..all were far more important. “It should be obvious to you that a politic which invites us to envy or hate our fellows because they constitute a different and supposedly oppressive social class is profoundly unhelpful. “ This oppression is an economic reality. You can actually calculate the rate of exploitation if you wanted to.
Good luck with it. “
99025
Posted by Slavyanski on Sun, 07 Oct 2007 09:46 | # “Strange, because most self-identified Jews I’ve ever met have scarcely been religious at all. And they still called themselves “Jews”! Clearly, these people must be “idiots” for labelling themselves “Jewish”, according to the traditions of their ancestors. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Secular_Judaism” Some people adhere to that definition, some do not. Marx didn’t. Who are you to tell people how they need to definte themselves? Again, this doesn’t answer the question. How is Marxism Jewish? “No, hardly any of “you guys” (“those guys”) push libertarian ideas at all. In fact the only people who are even influenced at all by classical liberalism are myself and James Bowery. At this point you may have noticed that the readers of this site do not, in fact, constitute a monolithic bloc of seething national socialists and Jew-haters!” If it walks like a duck.. “Really? Which “thousands” of Gentile academics, authors and journalists are supporters of “neo-convervatism”? Name names!” Dick Cheney, Rumsfeld, every pundit on Fox News and other Murdoch publications, etc.
I think it’s something you pulled out of your ass after I pointed out that originally feminism was just a movement for safer work conditions, lower working hours for women(so they could have children), and equal pay for equal work. I know you are referring to the identity politics movements of the 60s and 70s that in reality have very little influence. “Secondly, feminism has not had “little” impact on society. It’s impact has been substantial, unless you think female control over fertility through the Pill, freely available abortion, enforced equal opportunity and anti-discrimination laws, all of which were largely driven by the feminist movement, had “little” impact on society. “ Oh I’m sorry, I guess women shouldn’t be allowed to control their own bodies, and they should get paid lower amounts for the same work. Did you ever question why any of this was necessary? Did you ever notice that there were reasons why women need to work, use the pill, or get an abortion? Were you aware for example, that during part of the Soviet period, abortion was free and legal, yet the population rose substantially the whole time. By contrast, Russia now has one of the highest rates of abortion in the world, even though they need to pay now. 99026
Posted by Svigor on Sun, 07 Oct 2007 16:04 | # Some people adhere to that definition, some do not. Marx didn’t. Who are you to tell people how they need to definte themselves? Again, this doesn’t answer the question. How is Marxism Jewish? “No, hardly any of “you guys” (“those guys”) push libertarian ideas at all. In fact the only people who are even influenced at all by classical liberalism are myself and James Bowery. At this point you may have noticed that the readers of this site do not, in fact, constitute a monolithic bloc of seething national socialists and Jew-haters!” If it walks like a duck.. [my emphasis] Did you, Slavsky, consume excessive quantities of Vodka before submitting this comment? LOL! 99027
Posted by Slavyanski on Sun, 07 Oct 2007 16:17 | # Way to duck the question! Marx was not a Jew. Maybe if you read On the Jewish Question by Karl Marx, you would learn something about how Marx saw Jews. Even if you consider him to be a Jew, Marx’ philosophy was based on Hegel, and Locke, and his economic ideas came from Smith and Ricardo. 99028
Posted by Svigor on Sun, 07 Oct 2007 16:18 | # The ole appeal to nature/naturalistic fallacy trope, so fresh, so new! Wikipedia says: Several problems exist with this type of argument that makes it a fallacy. First of all the word “natural” is often a loaded term, usually unconsciously equated with normality, and its use in many cases is simply a form of bias. That doesn’t apply in this case. It’s pretty obvious from Social Identity Theory, inter alia, that ethnocentrism is natural. Second, “nature” and “natural” have vague definitions and thus the claim that something is natural may not be correct by every definition of the term natural; a good example would be the claim of all-natural foods, such as “all-natural” wheat, the claimed wheat though is usually a hybridised plant that has been bred by artificial selection.<i> This is a rewording of the first reason. <i>Lastly, the argument can quickly be invalidated by a counter-argument that demonstrates something that is natural that has undesirable properties (for example ageing, illness, and death are natural), or something that is unnatural that has desirable properties (for example, many modern medicines are not found in nature, yet have saved countless lives). It cannot be so quickly invalidated in this case; in fact, if my long experience is any guide, it cannot be so invalidated at all. But, Slavsky, you’re welcome to make the argument. It is neither an appeal to nature, nor a naturalistic fallacy to declare a) human nature, and b) human groups that comport themselves according to human nature insofar as is practicable will be better off than those that do not, ceteris paribus. It is simple logic. 99029
Posted by ben tillman on Sun, 07 Oct 2007 16:18 | # How is Marxism Jewish?[/l] Its goal was to replace the gentile ruling class with a Jewish ruling class by cultivating and exploiting class conflict. 99030
Posted by ben tillman on Sun, 07 Oct 2007 16:20 | # How is Marxism Jewish? Its goal was to replace the gentile ruling class with a Jewish ruling class by cultivating and exploiting class conflict. 99031
Posted by Slavyanski on Sun, 07 Oct 2007 16:25 | # “Its goal was to replace the gentile ruling class with a Jewish ruling class by cultivating and exploiting class conflict.” Ha ha…that’s cute. That’s why the Bolsheviks had the lowest amount of Jews as opposed to the Jewish Bund and the Mensheviks. 99032
Posted by Svigor on Sun, 07 Oct 2007 16:25 | # I’m not ducking your questions, you simpleton. I’m making fun of you. I have no interest in debating anything with you. Before I debate anyone, I assess his character and estimate the potential upside (chance of his admitting defeat when defeated, recognizing points when I win them, responding honestly, etc., etc., etc.). My best guess is you aren’t worth the trouble. Now, it is often the case (or rather, has been in the past) that potential adversaries fail this test, and I engage them anyway. Usually this is because they seem formidable, i.e. a challenge. You do not qualify. 99033
Posted by Svigor on Sun, 07 Oct 2007 16:27 | # So, your argument is that the Communism wasn’t jewish, because the Mensheviks and the Jewish Bund were more jewish than the Bolsheviks? I just want to make sure I’ve got your logic all sorted out. =D 99034
Posted by Slavyanski on Sun, 07 Oct 2007 16:29 | # “That doesn’t apply in this case. It’s pretty obvious from Social Identity Theory, inter alia, that ethnocentrism is natural.” Clearly it isn’t, because humans have been miscegenating since the dawn of time whenever they come into contact. They have often united with other ethnicities against their own as well, and still do.
The problem is you need to define this “nature”. “It is neither an appeal to nature, nor a naturalistic fallacy to declare a) human nature, and b) human groups that comport themselves according to human nature insofar as is practicable will be better off than those that do not, ceteris paribus. It is simple logic. “ It is an appeal to nature, and you are not defining this human nature. If the we agree that there is some kind of eternal “human nature”, we should conclude that your anti-miscegenation views are against it, given human history. 99035
Posted by Svigor on Sun, 07 Oct 2007 16:32 | # Slavsky, if you’re going to engage a gallery (often a difficult proposition, to be sure), you’ll need to keep discipline. I did not announce that Communism was or is jewish. I did not even dispute your assertions on same. Ergo, it’s absurd for you to accuse me of “ducking the question,” especially as you fail to respond to my criticism of points you have made. 99036
Posted by Slavyanski on Sun, 07 Oct 2007 16:34 | # “I’m not ducking your questions, you simpleton. I’m making fun of you. I have no interest in debating anything with you. Before I debate anyone, I assess his character and estimate the potential upside (chance of his admitting defeat when defeated, recognizing points when I win them, responding honestly, etc., etc., etc.). My best guess is you aren’t worth the trouble.” Yes, we are all familiar with the old “I’m too good to debate you” canard, used whenever you are getting trounced by someone with more experience than you. If you want I’ll accept this as your formal surrender. Turn in your sidearm.
I just want to make sure I’ve got your logic all sorted out. “
99037
Posted by Svigor on Sun, 07 Oct 2007 16:45 | # Me: That doesn’t apply in this case. It’s pretty obvious from Social Identity Theory, inter alia, that ethnocentrism is natural. Slavsky: Clearly it isn’t, because humans have been miscegenating since the dawn of time whenever they come into contact. They have often united with other ethnicities against their own as well, and still do. The first three words of your reply are in no way supported by any of those following. Me: It cannot be so quickly invalidated in this case; in fact, if my long experience is any guide, it cannot be so invalidated at all. But, Slavsky, you’re welcome to make the argument. Slavsky: The problem is you need to define this “nature”. Nah. Like I said, I’m not interested in debating you. Me: It is neither an appeal to nature, nor a naturalistic fallacy to declare a) human nature, and b) human groups that comport themselves according to human nature insofar as is practicable will be better off than those that do not, ceteris paribus. It is simple logic. Slavsky: It is an appeal to nature, and you are not defining this human nature. No, it isn’t an appeal to nature. Re-asserting your error won’t make it any more correct. Whether I have defined human nature or not is irrelevant to the simple logical proposal I have made above. If the we agree that there is some kind of eternal “human nature”, we should conclude that your anti-miscegenation views are against it, given human history. “Eternal” human nature is your straw man. Feel free to get all sweaty wrestling with it. My views are not “anti-miscegenation,” at least, almost certainly not in the sense you think. Discipline Slavsky, discipline! That aside for the moment, it is obvious that people mate assortively, and miscegenation is the exception, not the rule. Just look at America; adjusted for diversity and population sizes, she’s probably the high water mark for miscegenation. What’s the white/non-white rate? 3%? So, the high water mark of miscegenation in recorded history is a resounding rejection of miscegenation! 99038
Posted by Slavyanski on Sun, 07 Oct 2007 16:53 | # Well if you can’t even define your beliefs, I guess you do have a reason not to debate. So I will not engage you further unless you want to actually define your claims. 99039
Posted by ben tillman on Sun, 07 Oct 2007 16:53 | # Marx was not a Jew. Maybe if you read On the Jewish Question by Karl Marx, you would learn something about how Marx saw Jews. No, you wouldn’t. In that essay, Marx argued for Emancipation by telling the gentiles that Emancipation would cause the disappearance of negative traits that gentiles ascribed to the Jews. The characterization of Jews in that essay reflected the views of his readers rather than his own. 99040
Posted by Svigor on Sun, 07 Oct 2007 16:54 | # Tillman stated that the Jews controlled Communism and they intended to replace the gentile ruling class with the Jewish ruling class. Well a pretty crappy job they did, didn’t they? The standard anti-semitic myth is that Bolshevism was dominated by Jews. Yet when we actually look at the facts, we see that Jews were a small minority in the Bolshevik party prior to 1917, and that most Jews of Russia supported two other groups, one of which(the Bund), was based on Jewish interests. Jews never had a dominating position in the Soviet government, and those Jews who did have positions of power at the time were in opposition to those two factions that had the most Jewish support. From 1917 on the amount of Jews that were in high positions of government rapidly declined. Ah, so you weren’t attempting to refute Ben’s statement that Marxism was jewish because it was a jewish plot to replace Russia’s non-jewish ruling class with a jewish one, only the supporting statement. I wasn’t aware we were breathing such rarified air, forgive me.
Your assertions about jewish power in the Soviet Union are open for debate. I’m not interested in debating them, though. 99041
Posted by Svigor on Sun, 07 Oct 2007 17:00 | # It is neither an appeal to nature, nor a naturalistic fallacy to declare a) human nature, and b) human groups that comport themselves according to human nature insofar as is practicable will be better off than those that do not, ceteris paribus. It is simple logic. See the wriggling he’s done in responding to this simple, self-evident logic? He can’t even agree that the sky is blue. No point in dedicating your Sunday morning to this one folks. 99042
Posted by Slavyanski on Sun, 07 Oct 2007 17:12 | # “Your assertions about jewish power in the Soviet Union are open for debate. I’m not interested in debating them, though.” Right, because you can’t. Neither can Tillman it seems. If Tillman wants to assert that Communism indeed was about replacing a gentile ruling class with a Jewish one, let him bring forth the evidence. 99043
Posted by Guessedworker on Sun, 07 Oct 2007 18:40 | # The problem is you need to define this “nature”. Here’s Frank Salter’s own definitons of GI and EGI:-
I trust that will serve as a working definition for you. The “nature” we are talking about here is the ultimate interest of you and I. Proximate interests are arrayed below this, of which it is arguable that social justice may be objectively one such, which is why more organically-organised societies tend to it - but only tend to it. To make it the overiding organising principle, however, would relegate EGI and invite maladaptiveness (such as miscegenation). I agree that ben phrased the (American?) elite in terms too Jewish for most of the world. I cleave to the view that the power elite is global, not national ... indeed it is crucially anti-national, and engaged in the destruction of nation throughout the West (hence the immigration, hence the formation of blocs, hence the political monoculture). I have written about it at some length here. By the way, MR is not a locus of single opinion. We welcome everyone who can think about the great issues of our day, as they affect European Man. Some opinions tend to rise to the surface because they happen to be true. One, as ben suggests, is that economic Marxism is a theoretic path to hyper-individualism. If your principle interest is in hyper—individualism there is no reason why you should not pursue it, providing you do no harm to anyone else. If your principle interest is in the welfare of your own people you should be reading us instead. If your principle interest is in the welfare of all men, you might start by reading Lynn & Vanhanen. 99044
Posted by Svigor on Mon, 08 Oct 2007 03:07 | # LOL. Let’s apply some of Slavsky’s “logic” to another question: does family loyalty exist? No, of course not! Family members often betray one another, so family loyalty clearly does not exist! People often use outsiders against relatives to gain ground in family competition, so clearly family loyalty is a chimera; clearly the tendency is against family loyalty in all humans, in general. How about national loyalty? Clearly, there is no tendency in humans toward national loyalty, rather the opposite is true; as we all know, people have been marrying across national lines as long as there have been nations, and people have always been selling out their countrymen for personal gain, so obviously there’s no general human tendency toward national loyalty! Man, you really can learn a lot from a dummy! 99045
Posted by Slavyanski on Tue, 09 Oct 2007 10:40 | # So well have you arranged your assumptions that you cannot write one post without some major strawman. I have not denied the genetic relations between various groups. My question is how is it relevant, how is it a good concept on which to build society- considering that it, unlike the family, has never been such a factor in history. In fact it would have been impossible for thousands of years since most of this is based on genetic evidence/ 99046
Posted by Lurker on Tue, 09 Oct 2007 16:58 | # I just posred this on another thread but it could go here too: Slavyanski - if jews are just indviduals then, only differentiated by class and have no separate identity from anyone else, how do they still exist? At some point, as a group, they must be making choices that are ‘wrong’ in a market sense or from a class point of view. In other words they may have group interests that differ from, in this case, the white majority. Where the needs of these two groups conflict is it not at least possible that jews might pursue a strategy that is good for them and harmful to whites? You would the first to admit that the reverse was true. Is that insane? Is it at least remotely possible? 99047
Posted by Fr. John on Fri, 12 Oct 2007 15:58 | # “Seven to eight million Germans—both military personnel and civilians—died during and after World War II.” To put all this arguing in perspective… Just as the ADL and Foxman (even Bush, begging not to acknowledge it as ‘genocide’) have been at great pains to keep the term ‘Holocaust’ or ‘race genocide’ all to their Clustering selves, in the matter of Armenia, and the almost successful attempt by the Islamo/Jewish “New Turk” movment to annihilate them in 1915-1918…. So, too, could we say that the WEST is guilty of a “holocaust” of their own, if ‘MORE than six million’ (bowing east to Mecca, while nodding my phylactery-bound head to the ground like a bobbing chicken, 10,000 times) GERMANS were killed by the Allies AFTER WWII, as Sunic notes above???? No? I thought not. Now, draw the obvious conclusion. WHo rules, who controls, who must be overthrown? Yup. Deicides all….. 99048
Posted by Fred Scrooby on Tue, 19 Feb 2008 01:23 | # What exactly is the Jews’ game (the Jews running Bush’s foreign policy) in supporting the Kosovar Moslems over the Serbs? The foreign policy of the Bush Administration’s Jewish neocons is summed up in the following three principles: 1) Israel’s well-being comes first; 2) the weakening of all Euro racial/ethnocultural nationalisms (including the U.S.‘s) comes second, with primary emphasis on the stronger among them (you weaken the strongest first, then the rest can be weakened at your leisure); 3) where 1 and 2 conflict, 1 takes precedence; where 1 isn’t at stake the coast is clear to pursue 2. So, based on the above three principles, U.S. Jewish neocon support of Kosovo over Serbia must somehow 1) advance Israel’s well-being or, if Israel’s well-being isn’t at stake, must 2) weaken Euro nationalisms (with primary emphasis on the stronger among them). It obviously weakens Euro nationalisms; in regard to whether it advances Israel’s well-being, I can’t see how it would. So it must be a case where 1 isn’t at stake, leaving the Jews free to pursue 2. The same sort of analysis must somehow explain this wariness in regard to China which we see popping up from time to time among the U.S. Jewish neocons: since one wouldn’t imagine they’re particularly anxious at this stage to dismantle China’s racial/ethnocultural nationalism, what’s putting them on their guard against China must be a perception that China is a future threat to Israel. As regards the U.S. Jewish neocon love-affair with Turkey, no mystery there: forcing Turkey into the E.U. against Europe’s wishes both advances Israel’s well-being in a number of ways and helps weaken Euro racial/ethnocultural nationalism (helps weaken the racial/ethnocultural nationalism of all Euro nations together in one fell-swoop as a matter of fact, so the Jews must see this as their master stroke). 99049
Posted by Fred Scrooby on Tue, 19 Feb 2008 12:50 | # We have this press-release from the League of the South News Service:
99050
Posted by Fred Scrooby on Tue, 19 Feb 2008 12:55 | # Sorry that link didn’t embed — you can read the full press-release here. 99051
Posted by Friedrich Braun on Tue, 11 Mar 2008 04:21 | # I have recently met Dr. Sunic in person and he has since sent me many of his articles or essays. Most notably, a French translation of the above article that I posted on my blog: Post a comment:
Next entry: Preemptive Defense
|
|
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— Ukraine, Israel, Taiwan … defend or desert by Guessedworker on Sunday, 14 April 2024 10:34. (View) Patriotic Alternative given the black spot by Guessedworker on Thursday, 14 March 2024 17:14. (View) On Spengler and the inevitable by Guessedworker on Wednesday, 21 February 2024 17:33. (View) Twilight for the gods of complacency? by Guessedworker on Tuesday, 02 January 2024 10:22. (View) — NEWS — Moscow’s Bataclan by Guessedworker on Friday, 22 March 2024 22:22. (View) Soren Renner Is Dead by James Bowery on Thursday, 21 March 2024 13:50. (View) Collett sets the record straight by Guessedworker on Thursday, 14 March 2024 17:41. (View) CommentsThorn commented in entry 'Moscow's Bataclan' on Thu, 11 Apr 2024 11:48. (View) Thorn commented in entry 'Moscow's Bataclan' on Tue, 09 Apr 2024 10:46. (View) Guessedworker commented in entry 'Moscow's Bataclan' on Tue, 09 Apr 2024 09:27. (View) Al Ross commented in entry 'Moscow's Bataclan' on Mon, 08 Apr 2024 05:48. (View) Al Ross commented in entry 'Soren Renner Is Dead' on Mon, 08 Apr 2024 05:01. (View) Al Ross commented in entry 'Soren Renner Is Dead' on Mon, 08 Apr 2024 04:50. (View) Guessedworker commented in entry 'Moscow's Bataclan' on Sun, 07 Apr 2024 17:49. (View) Thorn commented in entry 'Moscow's Bataclan' on Sun, 07 Apr 2024 17:15. (View) Guessedworker commented in entry 'Moscow's Bataclan' on Sun, 07 Apr 2024 15:27. (View) Thorn commented in entry 'Moscow's Bataclan' on Sun, 07 Apr 2024 10:43. (View) Guessedworker commented in entry 'Moscow's Bataclan' on Sat, 06 Apr 2024 23:38. (View) Thorn commented in entry 'Moscow's Bataclan' on Sat, 06 Apr 2024 13:01. (View) Guessedworker commented in entry 'Moscow's Bataclan' on Sat, 06 Apr 2024 11:56. (View) Guessedworker commented in entry 'Soren Renner Is Dead' on Sat, 06 Apr 2024 11:54. (View) Thorn commented in entry 'Soren Renner Is Dead' on Fri, 05 Apr 2024 22:58. (View) Thorn commented in entry 'Moscow's Bataclan' on Fri, 05 Apr 2024 22:27. (View) James Marr commented in entry 'Soren Renner Is Dead' on Fri, 05 Apr 2024 20:02. (View) James Marr commented in entry 'Soren Renner Is Dead' on Fri, 05 Apr 2024 13:22. (View) Thorn commented in entry 'Soren Renner Is Dead' on Thu, 04 Apr 2024 23:37. (View) James Marr commented in entry 'Soren Renner Is Dead' on Thu, 04 Apr 2024 13:41. (View) Thorn commented in entry 'Moscow's Bataclan' on Thu, 04 Apr 2024 11:16. (View) Thorn commented in entry 'Moscow's Bataclan' on Thu, 04 Apr 2024 11:11. (View) Thorn commented in entry 'Moscow's Bataclan' on Thu, 04 Apr 2024 11:09. (View) Al Ross commented in entry 'Moscow's Bataclan' on Thu, 04 Apr 2024 05:03. (View) Al Ross commented in entry 'Moscow's Bataclan' on Thu, 04 Apr 2024 03:28. (View) Al Ross commented in entry 'Moscow's Bataclan' on Thu, 04 Apr 2024 03:11. (View) Guessedworker commented in entry 'Moscow's Bataclan' on Thu, 04 Apr 2024 00:16. (View) Thorn commented in entry 'Moscow's Bataclan' on Wed, 03 Apr 2024 23:12. (View) Guessedworker commented in entry 'Moscow's Bataclan' on Wed, 03 Apr 2024 22:34. (View) Thorn commented in entry 'Moscow's Bataclan' on Wed, 03 Apr 2024 17:52. (View) Thorn commented in entry 'Moscow's Bataclan' on Wed, 03 Apr 2024 11:36. (View) |
Posted by Guessedworker on Fri, 05 Oct 2007 11:53 | #
Constantin,
You question the relationship of Critical Theory to classical Marxism. It exists most plainly, of course, at the level of the culture of critique. But anyway ...
In 2003 I came across a long essay in an on-line university archive. It was by Douglas Kellner, and is titled “Cultural Marxism and Cultural Studies”. I’ve quoted and referenced it quite a bit in the years since. You can access it here.
It posits the relationship twixt CT and Marxism thus:-
I think that’s a good description of how things were. It fits my purposes perfectly well.