Category: National Socialism
The interview is quite a long one by our standards, but I believe it is entertaining and informative throughout.
Given that no-one seems to conceptually acknowledge the dark side (so to speak) of inclusive fitness theory it perhaps undermines the creditability of those that wish to make broad political points using inclusive fitness theory as to (1) do they actually fully understand the theory and (2) do they understand how excess competition effectively removes relatedness from the picture (siblings killing siblings is perfectly optimal within many animal species from the point of view of the victorious Sib).
Given that fitness within social evolution can be derived from both the individual level and the group level (note all evolutionary change concerns changes in alleles and their frequencies) as demonstrated by Hamilton and Price’s work (and Steve Frank etc) in hierarchical selection theory how do these insights relate to political economy?
For example, if we take Aristotle seriously than any polis must be a balance between the parts and the whole (individuals and the group) what mechanism can be used to discourage ‘free-riding’ and self-serving perfidy by our own indigenous elites? Accountability to the groups interests seems lacking in contemporary Western life.
If Europeans are so ‘individuated’ - uniquely so? - why is it that only a few centuries ago that Celts, Nordic people etc were so tribal and ultra-communitarian in their cultures. Why the stark difference in pre-modern pagan social ontology compared to the ontology of liberal modernity. Given the relatively short time frame any explanation based upon changes in gene frequency would seem analytically bankrupt. The Greeks also had a more communitarian social-ontology (Sparta anyone?, Aristotle and virtue ethics etc).
Given the social ontology of liberal modernity (massive ideological emphasis on individ- uals and individualism) what type of personalities and psychological traits succeed within such a environment? If all human interactions are viewed through the prism of individual competition is that healthy or wise for the long term sustainability of the group (one could speak here too of free-riding and the slow accumulation of toxic ‘externalities’ cultural, environmental, social etc generated by liberal modernity which in short term benefit certain individuals but at the longer term determent of everyone).
Given that all political societies are ultimately about power and power relationships (see Carl Schmidt), and that power is always open to abuse, a high degree of relatetedness/ homogeneity/ social capital is by itself not enough. What mechanism of elite accountability and social cohesion are possible and necessary?
If denied the siblicide point, then why are civil wars so vicious and nasty (often the worst)? Higher levels of relatedness (on average) didn’t stop Englishmen, or Irishmen from utterly hateful behaviour towards their brothers during civil wars…
In this third and penultimate part of my essay on the Rotherham Syndrome I am going to expand on the disconnection between philosophy (and philosophically-derived politics) and thinking that comes out of ethnic or racial conflict. In particular, I will focus on the dynamics of absolutism and its ascription of human value.
A petty history
A few years ago I came across the story, I think in a television history, of the last civilian to be hanged in the Third Reich. I don’t remember his name. I cannot find a link to the story on-line, so I hope I have it right. But my memory is that this unfortunate man was a resident of a small south-western German town which lay in the path of the advancing US Army. I suppose it must have been early- to mid-April 1945.
The war was already lost, of course. That knowledge had been building among the people since the defeat at Stalingrad and Goebbel’s Sportspalast Speech of 18 February 1943 (which changed the tone of the propaganda from a war of conquest to one of national survival). The general thrall to a military dictator and the whole mesmerising, deceitful dream of German greatness and glory was dissolving in the acid of the military reality. By April 1945, with the Allies fighting on German soil, the general will of German civilians would have been for the killing and destruction to be brought to an end, and for Germany to find its way into whatever future was available to it. But the Allies were only interested in complete and unconditional surrender. Every last German town would fall, this little one included. This was not going to be where the Allies would first be held and then pushed back.
Despite The Guilt Trips of World War II (discussed below on the anniversary of Dresden)
Here is an interview request that I sent to Dr. Christian Lindtner on February 12th
Dear Dr. Lindtner,
As producer for Majorityrights.com, I am writing you to inquire as to the possibility of arranging for an interview.
Majority Rights takes a position (secular) regarding Christianity which very much respects your scholarly critique.
Nevertheless, while I am writing you at this email address, my inquiry actually has more to do with a hope to discuss appropriate response to the fall-out of World War II, facts and mythos.
Your videos discussing holocaust revisionism are the most credible on the topic that I have seen. I do not see it as necessary to go-over that same ground in exhaustive detail. My position is that subsequent generations of Germans and others are innocent and ought not have to continue to pay, irrespective of the facts of Nazi Germany.
I am not anti-German and I am assuming that neither are you, anti-German.
My question is, how do we assert our innocence, along with that of present day Germans, to warrant implementing our defense of our nations as the preserves of our native nationals? - particularly in light of, and despite, the holocaust?
I believe that despite the holocaust that Germany and Europe does not owe the world, Jews, or anybody, its destruction through immigration and assimilation.
This is different from what holocaust deniers, even revisionists, are saying. Committed revisionists and deniers seem to believe everything, all of our defensive warrant, hinges upon debunking the holocaust. It is perhaps easier for me to see that as not necessarily the case as my ancestors even, had even less in the way of historical responsibility. Nevertheless, revisionists seem to have an overwhelming desire to unburden us of guilt trips* for these events, for which no guilt ought to be assigned them - and as a result, it seems to me that they are making the cause for European national sovereignty more resisted and less trustworthy when, in fact, it is a fully legitimate cause and ought to be seen that way irrespective of the holocaust.
What I seek from you in an interview is to help build this case to establish the warrant of European nations to preserve their nations for their native kinds despite The World Wars, whatever the facts.
Please say that you will grant us the interview Dr. Lindtner. It can be very important to inter-European peace and survival.
For those of you who take exception to my deferential use of the word “holocaust”, understand that by it I mean a name given to mass deaths of Jews in the world war, however they came about, irrespective of any obnoxious elevation of importance of Jewish deaths over European deaths - which Dr. Lindtner recognizes in his characterizing it, holocaustianity, as a religion.
At the Yalta conference, just days before the Dresden firebombing..
And this comment on the article..
From a particularist/nationalist perspective it’s best to write it off as a painful learning experience and get on with nationalism 2.0.”
I keep hearing these retarded arguments that the Nazis shouldn’t have invaded Russia and that Britain should’ve let Nazi Germany do as it liked with Poland. If 20/20 hindsight is exercised, then it should be said that Hitler shouldn’t have invaded Poland.
The next argument, also retardedly Buchananesque, is that Poland was betrayed to the umpteenth degree anyway and therefore Germany invading was of no matter.
But even under Soviet control, Poland retained a semblance of national boundaries, more importantly from its point of view, its language and more importantly still, its native genetic homogeneity. Horrible as Soviet control was, neither Poland’s boundaries, language nor genetics were in Hitler’s plans.
The holocaust of the peoples of Dresden is horrible. It is an unspeakable loss of European genetic treasure. As were all the European deaths of World War II - a war unnecessarily fought as a 1) conventional military war and unnecessarily 2) inter-European as it largely was, pitting R1b against R1a - both frames, conventional militarism and anti-Polinism/anti-Slav, were Hitler’s/Friedrich The Great’s.
If you want to use 20/20 hindsight to re-frame World War II and what should not have been done, take it to herr E1B1B1 Hitler.
Don’t kid yourself.
Look at how sick and enraged that Europeans were of ANOTHER World War, which Hitler and his worldview had some small part in initiating, a worldview that had the thin pretense of warrant to take lands and displace peoples up to the Urals on the basis of three and a half small cites being given to Poland by Versailles, a world view that had the design of removing your nation newly established after a bitter ordeal and fight of 123 years, and the realization of his plans of smashing it, taking it away again, killing your father, wife, your daughter, your brother, and you too, charged with an imperson- al mission of bombing a precious German city, might just allow yourself to do that.
A habit, custom, and world view following the line of Friedrich the Great, based on inter-European militarism and a friend enemy distinction of Germanics/Slavs is what should be rejected with 20/20 hindsight - not that Roosevelt and Churchill shouldn’t have gotten into the war, but that Hitler shouldn’t have ordered it in that way.
And don’t kid yourself either - if you know that a European nation like his has plans to take your nation and eliminate you (that was basically known) and some Jew points a gun at that European guy looking to kill you, what are you going to say? No, Mr. Jew, don’t shoot at this guy looking to kill me?
If you want to exercise 20/20 hindsight, for all the European deaths, where it should not have started, the epistemological blunder was with herr E1B1B1 Hitler’s world view and actions thereupon. And if you want to keep Europeans hating and fighting each other, just keep promoting the “innocence” of his worldview and the “supreme and singular guilt” of the Allied leaders.
Posted by DanielS on Sunday, February 15, 2015 at 12:38 AM in Anti-racism and white genocide, Far Right, History, Marxism & Culture War, National Socialism, Revisionism, That Question Again, White Nationalism
Black Lies in White Nationalism: Hitler didn’t instigate war, modestly sought appropriated territory
Black Lies are being circulated in White Nationalism -
“He only modestly sought territory ‘wrongly’ appropriated”
Those claims are demonstrably false from the beginning of Mein Kampf:
“People of the same blood should be in the same Reich. The German people will have no right to engage in a colonial policy until they shall have brought all their children together in one state. When the territory of the Reich embraces all the Germans and finds itself unable to assure them a livelihood, only then can the moral right arise from the need of the people to acquire foreign territory. The plow is then the sword and the tears of war shall produce the daily bread for the generations to come.”
Posted by DanielS on Saturday, October 11, 2014 at 08:45 PM in Ethnicity and Ethnic Genetic Interests, European Nationalism, Far Right, History, National Socialism, Popular Culture, The American right, Thread Wars, White Nationalism
Germans in Slavic Lands, Poles and Other Eastern Europeans in Western Europe
When grappling with the extent and length of entanglement of Jewish interests in European affairs, perhaps one can come to appreciate GW’s fastidious concern to separate what is authentic native/nationalist European - and what is not - through his ontology project.
Posted by DanielS on Wednesday, September 24, 2014 at 04:01 AM in Activism, British Politics, European Union, Far Right, History, Immigration, Immigration and Politics, National Socialism, White Nationalism
On Hitler and those who worship this betrayer of Strasser, etc.
Subtitled: don’t send a boy or other fools to do a man’s job.
TT, Terrible Tommy Metzger:
Lets compare and contrast what the man, Metzger, is saying, not only to what Carolyn or Rodney Martin might say, but to the kids at Renegade:
In this episode, Kyle Hunt interviews a young Russian American woman living in Sweden and working for Red Ice Radio:
For some background, what always struck me as curious about Kyle Hunt was how cool he thought Hitler and the Third Reich were (he’s now re-running Goebbels propaganda with “The Greatest Story Never Told”; and isn’t it good to incite inter-European war on the basis of a disingenuous claim to be concerned for truth?); with him in charge over there, so too would be the sentiments of anyone he would allow to have prominent voice at Renegade. At first I thought he might be dissuaded without too much difficulty and I tried. I realized that I was wasting my time when he treated the pro Hitler zealot, Marcus, as if he was way cool, level headed and spot on accurate in what he was saying. With that, I lost a great deal of respect for Hunt. It is not that he cannot change, but it may take a while, i.e., he is pretty young - a boy trying to do a man’s job.
Here’s the problem with these Hitler-heads over at Renegade. They’re young and don’t have the breadth and depth of experience and knowledge to provide sage guidance.
Where these sorts get their view and confidence seems often to have the common denominator of William Pierce (or the like) – smart man, no doubt, but with a philosophical and historical view that was insufficient to the task.
Nevertheless, Pierce provides cookie-cutter confidence to these kids, or chews their cud, for another analogy. Without a lot of experience, these kids can just move right into a world view that organizes things in a coherent way, just follow its pre-cut forms and drink its cud – easy, no doubt, “Hitler was right. Simple as that.” We just have to get past all this Jewish propaganda.
Indeed, a Jewish marshaled modernist world is a confusing and decadent world - it calls for a return to moral coherence. But is Nazism the right “moral” coherence? Of course not. Don’t send a boy or a fool to do a man’s job. That is a lesson that I have learned the hard way, but I did learn, after trying to enlist people too young or ill-suited to participate on a fairly level basis.
Now you’ve got The Renegade youths, as we might call them, appealing to young girls with Hitlerism - “It’s OK, so long as you don’t wave swastikas around, because the Jews have stigmatized this great Aryan symbol, have effectively but merely defamed NS Germany, while also corrupting our pre-Christian paganism…that older generation that didn’t see all this like we do, they gotta die.”
..Odimism, very smart religion, go to die in battle…just because, or rather because you are a coward and won’t get a maiden in valhalla if you don’t go and die in battle..even though Odin knows and you know that you are going to lose and die, just because, not because your people need defending (brilliant religion, Islam, its race mixing universalism, dysgenesis on behalf of virgins in heaven, is duly challenged).
The old generation gotta die, those cowards ain’t gettin’ no poontang in valhalla.
Well, not until you get old enough to be worthy, which you ain’t.
They’ve got young girls over there believing that Hitler was darn ok all over again, one getting pregnant by a heroin addict - who is now set to ask for money – but that’s ok, you can even be a heroin addict and ask for money, get a fair “Aryan” maiden pregnant, so long as you are cool with Hitler, don’t believe in something like the holocaust or other Nazi wrong-doings.
You don’t even have to be fully European, you can be a one quarter Syran heroin addict, so long as you are committed to Hitler. Overcompensating for not being perfectly European, with that anti-Jewish perspective, you can promote Africans as really OK (wouldn’t want to be distracted and lose sight of the J.Q.), you can promote the most cataclysmic killing of Europeans by Europeans just because you are committed to Hitler and because you are an anti-Jew – after all, some of those Jew broads are prettier than some White women, while black women…not too much of a threat. ..Slavic women? Hmm, yeah, that’s a threat, competition too, Hitler must have been right.
I guess maybe even a Russian woman can see the “logic” in that.
What does a woman want? Confidence!
Aha. What a revelation.
...Not to the average White American male: Who also sees that there is nothing more confident than a young Negro male (it may be argued that the Negro’s confidence is helped-along by his having nothing to lose and everything to gain).
Aren’t we so glad and inspired that women just love CONFIDENCE! Above all, above race, confidence uber alles! It’s Nature’s way! And we know that nature unmediated by culture corresponds perfectly with E.G.I. ...doesn’t it?
In fact, in a multi-cultural hell-hole orchestrated by Jewish and corrupt capitalist/ objectivist interests, to be sheerly confident is about as ignorant as it gets. Women (females, I should say) getting-off on confidence in that context is about as stupid and corrupt as it gets.
And it gets to the heart of one of our most serious problems, in how Jews pander and corrupt some base instincts in our co-evolutionary females: incitement to genetic competition, appeal to narrow (ignorant), anti-social, alpha male confidence, etc.
The proper and authentic White response in this situation is not perfect confidence at all, but a sufficient measure of its counter-measure - taking a wary, analytical step back and taking into account the necessary factors of our long term interests - i.e. sufficient intellectual assessment. If that does not turn the girls on, well too bad, but their instincts pandered to and uncritiqued have shown what they lead to - puerile girls walking around with primates – oooh, so confident! And to correct the effect of these primates on society? Where they might not leave enough cute guys around, we’ll have a night of the long knives – ooh so confident! Let’s get rid of those guys who aren’t cute enough anyway…the one’s capable of confidence’s counterpart - empathy. Yeah! A world of sociopaths!...er, isn’t that what we have?
Speaking of the irony of that, Rodney Martin has actually called for a night of the long knives. Can you imagine? This fool is chomping at the bit for a resurrection of the Third Reich and its agenda verbatim. Rodney is another coming-up through the William Pierce school of “history”. But in Rodney’s case, a pet peeve of his is being enraged because Germany lost Breslau after World War II. Even though they had it even according to The Versailles Treaty prior to World War II, and would have kept it if not for Hitler’s war- mongering (but Rodney will blame everyone else, not Hitler). You know, Breslau, now Polish Wroclaw, started-out as a Bohemian city, then after going back and forth between Bohemian and Polish control a few times, a Mongol invasion wiped-out the Poles there. Rodney says his family is from there. Maybe it is not a coincidence that he looks the way he does – kind of puts some truth to the World War I stereotype of “the Hun.”
Rodney doesn’t have much good to say about Poland, but follows William Pierce’s cookie cutter (the Nazis were really being good to Poland). In fact, the first Rodney addressed me was to smear me as to how bad I was for challenging Marcus’ crap heap of anti- Polish propaganda - including saying that Germany was entitled to the western third of Poland and that World War II had never ended. Kyle Hunt continued to speak with the Nazi Marcus after that episode as if he is just the coolest, most reasonable guy.
Now where was that “White man March” again? When? How???
Its so well organized. But? Why? Because the “organizer” believes in Hitler.
Rather, don’t send a boy or a fool to do a man’s job.
Posted by DanielS on Monday, July 14, 2014 at 11:35 AM in Activism, Anthropology, Anti-racism and white genocide, Blogs & Blogging, Islam & Islamification, Myth and modernity, National Socialism, New Right, The American right, White Genocide Project, White Nationalism
That Hitler and the Nazis were not White/European nationalists, nor can they represent the interests of White/European peoples.
I would like to clear the way further for Majority Rights as a place of sanity for White interests.
Indeed, if a former head of state where I am from had the attitude toward Germans and Germany that Hitler had, for example, toward Slavs and Eastern Europe, frankly, I would not boast of this man, but would be eager to leave him in the past as an embarrassing expression of overcompensation. I am frankly surprised that this is not the default position of every self-identifying White nationalist.
Hitler’s was a position which could only have led to inter-European fighting and diversion from our proper organization.
On the other hand, the Germans I meet in my travels, by sharp contrast, are very fine people; I am eager to help them, as I might, to ensure the flourishing of their particular native European form and ways; as well as to unburden them of undue guilt and foreign impositions. This generation had nothing to do with World War II, for better or worse. I am sure that there are sufficient many of them who see fit to participate in our mutual and discreet survivals as European nations and peoples.
I was ready to dive right-in with this frame of mind years, in fact decades, ago. One of the crucial issues obstructing this has been, and is, the absurd position of some self-proclaimed White Nationalists that we somehow need Hitler or to redeem Hitler. We need nothing of the kind. We need Europeans deeper and wiser. Let there be no mistake, those who insist upon Hitler and Nazism are Not White Nationalists.
Posted by DanielS on Sunday, April 20, 2014 at 01:37 AM in Activism, Anti-racism and white genocide, European Nationalism, Far Right, Liberalism & the Left, Marxism & Culture War, National Socialism
Working hypotheses will be advanced
as to why these logical fallacies are being adopted despite their apparent obviousness;
how they are mistaken;
and remedies will be proposed in cooperative nationalism.
Statements will be set out as hypotheses to allow for efficient positioning of historical viewpoints as they emerge practical in argumentative service of cooperative European nationalism. In addition to the practical efficiency of hypotheses for unburdening detail, the modesty of unfinished claims is meant to facilitate participation from the commentariat to elaborate, correct and amend the hypotheses - i.e., to make optimal use of Majority Rights discussion format.
* Note: in comment number 2, I erred in grammatical present tense when discussing Brelsau (Wroclaw). Which, according to the Treaty of Versailles and through World War II, remained German. There would have been no good argument to that point in time for its not being German.
Posted by DanielS on Friday, October 25, 2013 at 05:22 AM in Demographics, Ethnicity and Ethnic Genetic Interests, European Nationalism, History, Marxism & Culture War, National Socialism, Political Philosophy, That Question Again, The American right, White Nationalism
GW has expressed the constraint:
DanielS has expressed the constraint:
An approach offered by John Harland is to admit the historicity of Jesus in His essential mythic image as descendant of God evidenced in his own over-ruling of texts with direct bodily connection with God as Father, but to deny the historicity of the extant texts—deny them as yet another means by which dastards attempt to interpose themselves between the God-heritage of individuals and their Father, in spirit and flesh.
Ridicule of Harland’s own editing of the texts to suit his view may be conducted only at the sacrifice of the two constraints establishing the context of this presentation. Offer a superior approach if you don’t like Harland’s—either that or declare folly the entire effort to connect with the spiritual force of Christianity.
Click this link for a pdf document containing part of Harland’s account starting with “The Germans” (in the anthropological sense meaning what many identify as Celtic and Nordic pagans of the pre-Christian era), “The Catholic Church Promotes Judeo-Christianity”, “The First Breaking Apart of the Church Serpent” (regarding Henry VIII and Martin Luther), “A Further Break From the Serpent” (regarding the establishment of America), “The Strange Phenomenon of ‘Money-Mad’ Americans” (regarding the closing of the frontier and replacement of Nature and Nature’s God with money-based “culture”), “The American Dream” (the commodification, by conspirators, of the American spiritual renaissance), “The German Reich” (the parallel processes occurring in what became the nation state known as “Germany” during the 1800s leading up to WW I), “The World Picture After WW I” (the situation leading up to WW II) and the concluding section of this pdf document is “The Second World War”.
The entire book is “Word Controlled Humans” by John Harland, ISBN 0-914752-12-X available from Sovereign Press, 326 Harris Road, Rochester, WA 98579 (with which I have no business or personal relationship).
Posted by James Bowery on Wednesday, March 13, 2013 at 08:37 PM in Anthropology, Archeology, Books, Christianity, Conservatism, European culture, History, National Socialism, Political Philosophy, Psychology, Revisionism, Social Sciences, The Ontology Project, U.S. Politics
ZionCrimeFactory, one of the people behind the prothink network I recently promoted, has taken issue with the claim that international bankers funded Hitler and the NSDAP into power. He said:
Let’s look at the matter.
Posted by R-news on Wednesday, July 11, 2012 at 11:10 PM in Economics & Finance, Marxism & Culture War, National Socialism, Political analysis, Revisionism, That Question Again, World Affairs
Hitler and a Historian
ONE of the world’s most notorious self-proclaimed experts on the Holocaust is Professor Christopher R. Browning. He has appeared as a hired expert witness at several legal actions.
This essay is an examination of the evidence Browning puts forth in his book The Path To Genocide: Essays on Launching the Final Solution (Cambridge University Press, Canto Edition, 1995)
Following his intervention on my Steve Jones post, and his subsequent attempt to demonstrate an Aryan genetic superiority over non-Aryan Europeans, our friend Northerner has found himself hosting a chat between Desmond Jones and myself. For anyone who is unable to sleep, the soporific effects of a rambling, incoherent discussion about National Socialism are guaranteed effective, especially when that discussion is between such philosophical non-supremacists as Desmond and myself.
I only mention it in passing.
I note that The Wall St. Journal has editorialized in defence of imprisoned historian David Irving. Excerpt: “And just when the Danish government is under unprecedented attack for its refusal to intervene in the editorial decision-making of a private newspaper, it seems perverse to offer Muslim provocateurs an example of a European country catering to one set of sensitivities but not another”.
The WSJ accompanies this defence, however, with vast aspersions on the character and competence of Irving. But any claim that Irving is incompetent is absurd. I have been studying the Hitler era for over 40 years and it is clear to me that NOBODY knows the period better or in more detail than Irving does. He was after all the only one of the many eminent historians consulted who immediately picked the Kujau “Hitler Diaries” as a fake.
Note the report below:
I believe that there was some suggestion that posts about Nazism should be strictly limited here. I can see some point in that but I cannot see that posts which mock Nazism do much harm:
The Nazi connection is not as obscure as the article excerpted above pretends. One of Hitler’s favourite slogans was: “Um uns ist Deutschland. In uns marschiert Deutschland. Und hinter uns kommt Deutschland!”. Like much of Hitler’s rhetoric it cannot be translated in a way that gives much idea of the impact of the original but it literally means: “Around us is Germany, In us Germany marches and behind us comes Germany”. So the basic idea behind the modern slogan and Nazi thinking is pretty similar: Identifying the individual with the nation and making Germany a sort of mystical icon. All very Hegelian!
I am always pointing out how Leftist Hitler was—despite the hugely successful Leftist “big lie” to brand him as a Rightist. I am putting up a picture of a Nazi propaganda poster of the 1930s that you won’t believe unless you are aware of how readily all Leftists preach one thing and do another. It reads ““Mit Hitler gegen den Ruestungswahnsinn der Welt”.
And what does that mean? It means “With Hitler against the armaments madness of the world”. “Ruestung” could more precisely be translated as “military preparations” but “armaments” is a bit more idiomatic in English.
So the preaching of “peace” by the bloodthirsty Soviet regime of the cold war period had its parallel with the Nazis too.
Hitler was wrong about the Jews but why he thought what he did is only a mystery if you want it to be
How do we explain Hitler’s attitudes towards the Jews? Dietrich (1988) studied Hitler’s antisemitism at great length and concluded that Hitler’s antisemitism was only a minor part of his popular appeal to Germans. One reason why that was so is the important but seldom stressed fact that there was nothing at all odd or unusual about a dislike of Jews almost anywhere in the world of the 1930s. Hitler was to a considerable degree simply voicing the conventional wisdom of his times and he was far from alone in doing so. The plain fact is that it was not just the Nazis who brought about the holocaust. To its shame, the whole world did. That part of the world under Hitler’s control in general willingly assisted in rounding up Jews while the rest of the world refused to take Jewish refugees who tried to escape —just as the world would later refuse many Vietnamese and Cambodian refugees and will in due course refuse to take other would-be refugees from other places. Racial affect is now recognized as universal in psychology textbooks (Brown, 1986) and Anti-Semitism is, sad to say, an old and widely popular European tradition. There seems to be considerable truth in the view that the Nazis just applied German thoroughness to it.
Nonetheless, Hitler was undoubtedly more than usually obsessed by the Jews. What made him so obsessed? What in particular made him BECOME antisemitic? Mein Kampf is unreliable as objective history but there can be little doubt that it is good psychological history—i.e. it records Hitler’s own history as he saw it. And what he says there is that in Linz—where he grew up—there were few Jews and he saw them at that time as no different from other Germans. So when he moved to Vienna he was horrified at the antisemitism of much of the Viennese press. As he says in Mein Kampf:
From Luis Afonso Assumpcao. With stylistic revisions by John Ray
The great revelation of this film for me was the perception that all socialist-communist-facist-totalitarian regimes are in some degree a substitution of a “state religion” for a natural religion. And Nazism was a substitute for Judaism—a sort of “state Judaism”. But this “state Judaism” has in common with the original one as much as a black mass has with a Catholic mass: equal values but with a minus sign. A satanic counterfeit of the former, in fact. This imitation – as “ersatz” as the robotic Maria from “Metropolis” - wanted to take over the cultural and religious identity of the original model, even if the complete destruction of its model was necessary.
I have not kept a note of it but I guess one of the readers here has: The finding that people are more willing to share with others whom they see as like themselves. That leads to the view that socialism will find its main support among an ethnically homogeneous population—which the Scandinavian countries were until recently. And ethnic diversity therefore will undermine support for socialism. I have myself commented that the frantically socialist Scots are a very brotherly lot. And of course Frank Salter’s reasoning would support that too.
And being very anti-socialist, I think that relationship reinforces my view that SELECTED ethnic diversity (such as we have in Australia) has much to be said for it. I am again in that very Anglo-Saxon conservative middle of the road position where I support neither totally open nor totally closed borders.
What has provoked this post is that Hitler saw the same point long before anybody else that I know. If you go here, you will see an original 1939 Nazi propaganda placard promoting one of Hitler’s sayings. The saying is, “Es gibt keinen Sozialismus, der nicht aufgeht im eigenem Volk”—which I translate as “There is no socialism except what arises within its own people”. Hitler spoke a very colloquial German so translating that one was not easy but I think that is about as close to it as you can get.
I have documented at some length elsewhere the way in which Hitler foreshadowed most of the ideas of the modern Leftists but they do not see that their promoting of infinite diversity will undermine support for socialism. Hitler did.
Nazism was a popular, working-class movement but it was Green/Left, not “Rightist”
The fact that the recent Minnesota school massacre was done by a young admirer of Hitler will of course have the Leftist bloggers frothing at the mouth and trying to prove that conservatives are to blame—because Hitler was “Rightist”, you see. The fact that Hitler’s most unrelenting opponent was the arch-Conservative Winston Churchill and the fact that Hitler started out his war in alliance with the Communist Stalin will not be mentioned of course. Leftists have no trouble ignoring even the most basic facts of history. And it has always been a mystery how Leftists can call “conservative” a man who imposed such vast changes on Germany—considering that Leftists define conservatism as “opposition to change”!
This post is to be read together with my comments on John Ray’s post on Nazism. John points out thoughtfully that Nazism and Communism had many similarities, that the Nazis were “Socialists”. My answer to that is, “So what?”. “Socialism” can take many shapes and forms. Zionism was a completely socialist movement from the outset. Is it the same as Nazism or Communism?
Some might disagree on the question of the “Socialist” element to Zionism. This is a reproduction of an excellent article by the British governor of Palestine during WWI. His observations on the “bolsheviki” element in Zionism are quite startling to the lay person but would come as no surprise to knowledgeable historians.
If he was so Leftist, however, how come that Hitler’s few remaining admirers in at least the Anglosphere countries all seem to be on the political far-Right? This tiny band even refer to themselves as “The Right”, in fact. How do I know that? I know that because I in fact happen to be one of the very few people to have studied neo-Nazis intensively. And I have reported my findings about them in the academic journals —see here and here.
White Genocide Project
Each author's name links to a list of all articles posted by the writer; the hashes link to authors' homepages.
Endorsement not implied.
Nationalist Political Parties
Whites in Africa