Category: National Socialism
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
Also see trash folder.
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