|
|
Hitler’s Unforgivable CrimeHitler’s Unforgivable Crime During a recent visit to Les Invalides, I encountered a large government sponsored exhibition about the history of the Second World War. The museum’s title for the exhibition was “The War of German Aggression, 1939 -1945.” Nowhere in the exhibition was it mentioned that it was France and the United Kingdom who had declared war on Germany. Since it was France and Great Britain who insisted on unleashing the most destructive war in human history, the natural question is: why did they do so? Some people still insist that the France and Great Britain were honoring their obligation to Poland. That this is nonsense is easy to prove. Neither country made a strenuous effort to help the Poles defend themselves against the Germans. Neither country declared war on the Soviet Union when Stalin invaded Poland. Neither country gave a noticeable damn about the fate of the Polish people at the end of the war. Clearly, Britain and France wanted war with Germany. Winston Churchill has left us many clues. “Germany is becoming too strong. We must crush her.” To American General Robert E. Wood, in November 1936. “You must understand that this war is not against Hitler or National Socialism, but against the strength of the German people, which is to be smashed once and for all, regardless of whether it is in the hands of Hitler or a Jesuit priest.” “Germany’s unforgivable crime before the second world war was her attempt to extricate her economic power from the world’s trading system and to create her own exchange mechanism which would deny world finance its opportunity to profit.” Churchill to Lord Robert Boothby, as quoted in: Sidney Rogerson, Propaganda in the Next War (Foreword to the second edition 2001). When Hitler came to power, Germany was completely, hopelessly broke. The German people were expected to reimburse the costs of the First World War for all participants. People were living in hovels and starving. The national currency had been totally destroyed. The people’s saving had been wiped out. When the Great Depression arrived, it looked like Germany had no choice but to accept total enslavement by the international bankers. The financial catastrophe was similar to the one we are all experiencing now. Germany had an advantage that we lack today. They had a Hitler. The Great Depression effected the United Kingdom, France, the United States as well Germany. In some towns and cities in the north east of England, unemployment reached as high as 70%; the national unemployment level peaked at more than 22% in 1932. Unemployment began a modest fall in 1934 and fell further in 1935 and 1936. The North and Wales remained severely depressed for most of the decade. From 1936 onwards, the National Government followed a policy of mass rearmament. By 1937, unemployment had fallen to 1.5 million, but rose again to 1,810,000 by January 1938. In 1932, 25% of all American workers and 37% of all nonfarm workers were unemployed. In 1937, the American economy unexpectedly fell again, lasting through most of 1938. Production declined sharply, as did profits and employment. Unemployment jumped from 14.3% in 1937 to 19.0% in 1938. According to economist Robert Higgs, when looking only at the supply of consumer goods, significant GDP growth only resumed in 1946. The crisis of 1929 impoverished all the countries of the world and France was the last country to come out of it. In 1937, economic conditions slightly improved, to a backdrop of growing, increasingly vocal communist and fascist movements. These gains, however, were due as much as anything to the growth of the armaments industry. In September 1939, France declared war on Germany. In four short years, Hitler transformed Germany from a prostrate, impoverished, and bankrupt society into the strongest economic and military power in Europe. Hitler adopted an aggressive full-employment campaign. Between January 1933 and July 1935, the number of employed Germans rose by a half, from 11.7 million to 16.9 million. More than 5 million new jobs paying living wages were created. Unemployment was banished from the German economy and the entire nation was productively engaged in reconstruction. Inflation was brought under control by wage freezes and price controls. “How did Germany do it? The centerpiece was Germany’s Work Creation Program of 1933-36, which preceded its rearmament program. Neo-liberal economists everywhere seven decades later have yet to acknowledge that employment is all that counts and living wages are the key to national prosperity…. Any economic policy that does not lead to full employment is self-deceivingly counterproductive, and any policy that permits international wage arbitrage is treasonous. German economic policies between 1930 and 1932 were brutally deflationary, which showed total indifference to high unemployment, and in 1933 Hitler was elected chancellor out of the socio-economic chaos.” [http://henryckliu.com/page105.html] Hitler devised a plan of public works. Projects earmarked for funding included flood control, repair of public buildings and private residences, and construction of new buildings, roads, bridges, canals, and port facilities. The projected cost of the various programs was fixed at one billion units of the national currency. One billion non-inflationary bills of exchange, called Labor Treasury Certificates, were issued. Millions of people were put to work on these projects, and the workers were paid with the Treasury Certificates. This government-issued money was not backed by gold, but it was backed by something of real value. It was essentially a receipt for labor and materials delivered to the government. Hitler said, “For every mark that was issued we required the equivalent of a mark’s worth of work done or goods produced.” The workers then spent the Certificates on other goods and services, creating more jobs for more people. Hitler solved the unemployment problem within two years. Germany had a solid stable currency, no debt, and no inflation. Hitler even managed to restore foreign trade, although he was denied foreign credit and was faced with an economic boycott by World Jewry. Hitler circumvented the international banks. He used a barter system: equipment and commodities were exchanged directly with other countries. This system of direct exchange occurred without debt and without trade deficits. In Billions for the Bankers, Debts for the People (1984), Sheldon Emry commented: Germany issued debt-free and interest-free money from 1935 and on, accounting for its startling rise from the depression to a world power in 5 years. Germany financed its entire government and war operation from 1935 to 1945 without gold and without debt and it took the whole Capitalist and Communist world to destroy the German power over Europe and bring Europe back under the heel of the bankers. Hitler understood that workers needed decent incomes to become healthy consumers. For him, full employment was the key to economic and social health. What changed after 1933 was the government’s willingness to create massive short-term sovereign credit and its firm commitment to retire in full the debt created by that credit. Short-term sovereign credit was important to change the general climate of distrust on government credit. The quick rollover of short-term government notes created popular trust within months in German sovereign credit domestically. Hitler increased the money supply in the German economy by creating special money for employment. “In the US Banking Panic of 1907, J P Morgan (1837-1913) did in essence the same thing. He strong-armed US banks to agree to settle accounts among themselves with clearinghouse certificates he issued rather than cash and thus illegally increased the money supply without involving the government, and ended up owning a much larger share of the financial sector paid for with his own paper, ironically with the gratitude of the government. The difference was that the economic benefit went to Morgan personally rather than to the nation as in Nazi Germany and the private money was used to save the banks rather than to save the unemployed.” [Henry Liu] Hitler cared about his people, not just the international banking houses, and their owners. Germany died so that the vampires of international finance might suck our blood. Recommended Reading
http://henryckliu.com/page105.html
Posted by Robert Reis on Saturday, February 11, 2012 at 11:04 PM in Economics & Finance, History, World Affairs Comments:2
Posted by Not an idiot on February 12, 2012, 04:40 AM | # “Germany’s unforgivable crime before the second world war was her attempt to extricate her economic power from the world’s trading system and to create her own exchange mechanism which would deny world finance its opportunity to profit.” This quote is clearly fictional. It did not take me 1 minute to confirm my suspicion. Including it undermines your entire post, never mind that it is key to your argument. Pretending that what you allege historically, other than the quote, is true there is still plenty of contradiction. 1. If JP Morgan got rich at the expense of the rest of America doing what you suggest then anyone who does it will get rich at the expense of others, they will own a greater proportion of the money supply than they would have otherwise. Therefore in your example the unemployed were still getting paid at the employed’s expense. Wealth transfer by handing out printed money is no different than wealth transfer by tax and spend except that it is less open and honest… 2. Money can not be backed by labour done. You could not take the money in and guarantee getting 1 man hour of labour (whatever that is? from a doctor or a street peddler?) and therefore it was still fiat money. In other words: buying something with fiat money does not stop it from being fiat money…obviously. 3. Employment is not binary. It is not divide simply into two units: employed and unemployed. Some people would serve the country better off unemployed than they do now as employed. I hesitate to say all our politicians but what good does an equality and diversity advisor do? Digging and ditch and filling it, or worse, digging ditches in all our nice roads is not not an economically beneficial activity and if you pay it with any form of created money you are decreasing the proportion of money everyone else has and all monetary value is proportionate. Posts which are illiterate as these economically and credulous historically undermine everything related to them. Try to learn some basic mainstream economics first. It ain’t a conspiracy even when it is wrong. You would not comment on physics without understanding Newtonian gravity… As for your mental quote: >I have come across the following quotation which is attributed to Winston A simple analysis of the quote makes it clear if it was ever said it A search of the quote on the internet reveals the following. 1) It is a favourite of the conspiracy crowd, the Illuminati appear to 2) All the users point back to the one source, the modern reprint The foreword to the book can be seen here, http://72.14.203.104/search?q=cache:JJzysxXWkbcJ:www.searchingsecure.com/cgi-bin Sorry for any URL wrap. The quote is given there without any source. So it is not in the The writer is apparently David M Pidcock from The Institute For Putting the author name and title into a search engine gives, http://www.mustaqim.co.uk/ipb-archive/people/david.htm Which is the British Islamic Party. He has apparently translated a book into English that claims Pidcock is apparently a co-founder and director of the institute. http://www.historykb.com/Uwe/Forum.aspx/world-war-ii/2313/Churchill-Quote-is-it-authentic 3
Posted by Graham_Lister on February 12, 2012, 05:47 AM | # Well whatever the merits of the ideas in this piece and I’m not really going to comment upon the economic assertions the idea that the regime was only a ‘passive’ victim of others aggression seems rather indefensible. Couter-factual history can quickly become an exercise in someone displaying their own wishes, desires and prejudices, however if the regime we are discussing was essentially an ‘inwardly’ directed would WWII have occurred? Well we can compare it to the similar regime in Spain which was very much ‘inwardly’ orientated. Another question might be asked are if such regimes are thought to be a ‘good’ example why do they generally collapse upon the loss of the key charismatic figurehead? Are they a unsustainable mish-mash of fairly incoherent ideas held together only by the glue of personality cults that offered an answer, any answer, in desperate societal times? 4
Posted by Leon Haller on February 12, 2012, 06:28 AM | # Why do modern WNs seem to think we advance the white cause by trying to exculpate Hitler? Is the idea something like, if Hitler did indeed do what is said, including the Holocaust, then that morally invalidates race-realism, immigration restriction, being proud of European cultures, etc? I’ve never understood why this should be thought to follow. Hitler was a racist who killed three or six or ten million Jews - therefore, Britain, which at tremendous personal cost resisted Hitler, must allow unlimited, unassimilable, often downright hostile, Pakistani immigration. How in the hell does that follow??!! I keep saying, whites are more innately ethical than other races. [If we were not, we would not be in our present racial predicament.] This fact must be taken into strategic account. Associating with Hitler makes a certain psychological type happy. It does not seriously aid in the racial struggle. Far better in that regard even to downplay race, and simply push for a pro-white agenda using other, non-racialist justifications (eg, re immigration, there are overpopulation, national security, budget costs, employment competition, epidemiological worries etc etc). As we start having successes, we can begin the long process of gradual radicalization, always moving the goal-posts, as it were. Even if I were a philosophical Nazi, I would not be a political Nazi. 5
Posted by Robert Reis on February 12, 2012, 06:52 AM | # “Germany’s unforgivable crime before the second world war was her attempt to extricate her economic power from the world’s trading system and to create her own exchange mechanism which would deny world finance its opportunity to profit.” Google 14,600 results Campervanman — 1137345662Sunday, January 15, 2006 6:21:02 PM The quote supposedly appears in the preface to a second edition of the book I wrongly gave the impression that the quote appears in the original 1938 Obviously as one poster has pointed out unless Churchill was possessed of While discussion of the subject may be interesting, the original inquiry was http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V6ijX-0YiIM&feature=player_embedded
6
Posted by Robert Reis on February 12, 2012, 07:15 AM | # It would have been simpler had “Not an Idiot” referred to the discussion where it appears that he lifted his information. http://www.historykb.com/Uwe/Forum.aspx/world-war-ii/2313/Churchill-Quote-is-it-authentic In my previous comment, the “I” referred is “Campervanman” Since the discussion ended without resolution in 2006. The status of the quotation has not been resolved. 7
Posted by Ex-Pro White Activist on February 12, 2012, 09:30 AM | # @Leon Haller A future without usury interest or paper financial speculation looks exactly like a vision of Hell to you, doesn’t it, Leon?
Oh really? What do gold and silver represent besides “labour done”? Their intrinsic value as engineering materials is fairly low.
Every time a writer employs this sort of language here it is as a predicate to repeating slogans that have been played into them by Federal Reserve approved academic economists. Which “mainstream economics” are you talking about? Are Jew Paul Samuelson’s economics texts ‘mainstream’ enough? Samuelson’s scribblings were propagated into most college students for decades, thus meeting the definition of “mainstream”. As late as 1989 this Jewish drivel was still praising the strength of the Soviet economy and Soviet central economic planning. Anyway, Hitler didn’t do everything by himself. In the banking sphere he had a lot of help from Hjalmar Schacht, longtime President of the Reichsbank (1923-1930, 1933-1939). The Reichsbank was Germany’s central bank of the time. Or is this not “mainstream” enough for you? I conclude from this resume that Schacht likely had some personal experience with the inner operations and personalities of the “world financial system” of the time. There is one mystery here. Central banking is of primal importance to both Leon Haller and J. Richards. Given this fact one would think they would become M.R. resident experts on the Reichsbank of that era. It is literally the only 20th Century example of a non-Jewish dominated first world central bank. And even better, it was led by someone who was intimately familiar with operations of the Rothschilds (i.e. the Austrian bank Credit Anstalt), the Banque de France, the Bank of England and the Federal Reserve System. Hopefully this line of inquiry into Third Reich monetary and fiscal policy will continue and expand. 8
Posted by Lee John Barnes on February 12, 2012, 10:41 AM | # 1) Hitlerism was not National Socialism. National Socialism was the first casualty of Hitler becoming Fuhrer after the Enabling Act was passed - hence the murders of the Socialist wing of the NSDAP in the SA by the SS. 2) Hitlerism was enabled by the Catholics in the Catholic Centre Party voting for in the Reichstag vote for the Enabling Vote - the German people did not vote for a Hitler dictatorship. The capitalists in the Cnetre Party made Hitler dictator. 3) The Catholics in the Centre Party put Hitler in power as a dictator as Hitler promised to exterminate the Socialist Wing of the NSDAP & to use the state to pay billions to the Capitalists that owned the arms companies. 4) The aim of Hitlerism was to enrich the capitalists as a bribe to pay for re-armament which led to war with the Soviet Union. Rather than rebuilding German society on National Socialist grounds, Hitlerism used the power of the State to enrich the capitalists who wanted a war with the West and Soviet Union. 5) The Hitler economic system was a betrayal of the German people who voted for National Socialist ploicies and economics, not a takeover of the party by Hitler and the Capitalists.
As Martin Bormann told his son when he asked him what National Socialism was during the war - Bormann replied ’ The will of the Fuhrer’. That was never National Socialism. Hitler betrayed the German people, betrayed National Socialism as an ideology, became a dictator who killed the real National Socialists in the party and led to Germany into war to enrich the Capitalists who enabled him to become a dictator. The only true National Socialists were the Strasserites who resisted Hitlers dictatorship. The end result of Hitlerism was the disaster - economic and racial - that befell Germany and the Europe that we see today 9
Posted by Graham_Lister on February 12, 2012, 11:38 AM | # @Lee John Barnes So what you are saying is that Fascism has/had it’s own ‘internal spectrum’ as any other ideology does? And that as it was expressed in Germany of the time it contained both reactionary and revolutionary impulses? I do agree that the regime in question was a disaster for Germany, Europe more generally, and a catastrophe for nationalism (in the broadest sense) as a worthy political idea, especially in Europe. It is a radioactively toxic ‘bad example’, but I would guess I think so for radically difference reasons than you do. 10
Posted by Leon Haller on February 12, 2012, 12:20 PM | # Graham Lister, You seem pretty normal, despite your prejudices against certain things I cherish (America, Catholic Church, capitalism). What do you think of what I said @4? At the risk of further “exposing” myself as a secret Jew, what do you think really of Nazism? I mean, morally? How about the reality or not of the Holocaust? And what do you think of the number of Nazis around here? Does it strike you as odd, or otherwise discomfort you, that there are people who, without comment (ie feeling none necessary), simply refer to “the hoax”, as if shelves upon shelves of scholarship by eminent historians (men with impeccable pedigrees, and proven scholarship), are nothing but a giant, conspiratorial whitewash? Even GW has seemed to imply something like this (note: I am the last person to deny the Left’s instrumentalization of the Holocaust in our time). It’s like an alternate reality around here. I had the same experience when I used to comment at Mises Institute, and other libertarian blogs. It was just taken for granted that every claim of national security was a secret hoax to expand state (excuse me, State) power; that there would be no fiscal problems resulting from adoption of open borders immigration, because we could also “get rid of the Welfare State” at the same time; that all racial tensions resulted from too many regulations on business; and that Ron Paul was the greatest champion of Liberty the Earth had yet produced. I always tried to inject a bit of realism into the discussions, invariably to no general avail (a few strays would acknowledge that I had some fair points). It seems to be very difficult for the modal human to recognize truths in extremist positions without succumbing to complete absorption by the extreme paradigm (and even intelligence is no inoculation against this propensity). 11
Posted by Lee John Barnes on February 12, 2012, 12:40 PM | # @Lee John Barnes So what you are saying is that Fascism has/had it’s own ‘internal spectrum’ as any other ideology does? And that as it was expressed in Germany of the time it contained both reactionary and revolutionary impulses? I do agree that the regime in question was a disaster for Germany, Europe more generally, and a catastrophe for nationalism (in the broadest sense) as a worthy political idea, especially in Europe. It is a radioactively toxic ‘bad example’, but I would guess I think so for radically difference reasons than you do. ——————————————————————————-
Hitlerism was a dictatorship based on enriching the arms industry to provide weapons for Hitlers plan for Lebensraum.
Those who define Hitlerism as National Socialist and / or Nationalist are both wrong.
The NHS, welfare state, the army, police, pensions etc are all National Socialist policies - socialist policies within the structure of the nation state.
12
Posted by Dan Dare on February 12, 2012, 01:48 PM | # What you are describing Lee is more correctly termed the social-market model which combines a mixed economy with a parliamentary democracy and which, as you state, has been the dominant idiom in Western Europe since the late 1940s. It is actually a far cry from National Socialism, as the term is normally understood - there is no reasonable way in which NS can be distiunguished from ‘Hitlerism’, as you are attempting to do. The two are effectively synonymous for all practical purposes so pushing the line that ‘pure’ NS has had a bad rap seems a pure semantics and a particularly futile exercise. 13
Posted by Lee John Barnes on February 12, 2012, 02:35 PM | # Of course NS can be differentiated from Hitlerism - Hitlerism is what happened to Germany after March 23rd 1933.
Hitlerism can easily be differentiated from National Socialism. I suggest you do the research ;
14
Posted by Graham_Lister on February 12, 2012, 02:37 PM | # @Leon Well thanks (I think) for you saying that I’m near-normal. Is being a cultural Protestant ‘odd’ in some way? Damn those ‘left-footers’. As I have said before I’m not a WN, a neo-Nazi (or the original type) or a fascist. I’m a European patriot and as such if I really did believe that regime represented the best of Europe I’d would not bother (you described me as an ethnocentric communitarian social-democrat on another thread, which is not half-bad as it goes). The notion that everything worthwhile about our collective European culture (and other collective achievements) stands or falls around the ‘rehabilitation’ of that regime seems to my mind wrong and reprehensible. Even from a PR point of view terms like ‘holy-hoax’ are terminally toxic to anyone remotely normal. It signals to them moral turpitude. It’s for cranks and permanently marginal weirdos like Linder - the political amoeba – really shouting about ‘niggaz’ in the street is not a political strategy for anyone but a moron. In a way the obsession with the regime and the events surrounding it, is but a mirror image of organised Jewry’s own obsession (and their outrageous use of those events for ideological purposes and monetary gain – the ‘competitive suffering’ game is truly grotesque). Those events become the ‘event-horizon’ of modern history – a prism through which every other event is filtered and understood. I prefer the comparative approach of Ernst Nolte, amongst others, that insist upon putting such matters with ‘normal’ history and a comparative framework of historical barbarities. On the specific details, even the fairly loathsome David Irving does not deny the ‘special operations’ in the East that resulted in very large numbers of Jews being killed. The idea that ‘nothing happened’ is too ludicrous for any objective and serious person to maintain. But that doesn’t mean the superficial media-endorsed ‘Oprah Winfrey chats with the odious Elie Wiesel’ interpretation of history is to be endorsed. Within the historical debate there is a perfectly reasonable range of views on the instrumental versus expressive impulses in policy decisions, as indeed upon the precise dynamics between the core and periphery, bottom-up processes versus top-down ones etc. As for LJB assertion that nationalism, National-Socialism or Fascism have ‘nothing at all’ to do with the Hitler regime is a willful example of obfuscation. Similar to some Marxists that claim Stalinism or Maoism is ‘nothing at all’ to do with Communism. Or in more contemporary circumstances the idea that the Catholic Church ‘does not really’ have a very deep-seated problem with child-abuse (and the covering up thereof) does not stand up to scrutiny. I also think Holocaust-denial laws are an affront to all thinking people. Thought-crimes really should not exist. Imagine a ‘natural selection’ denial law in the USA – ludicrous as I (and any other person with my educational background and training) should easily be able to counter 99.9% of what ‘creationists’ say in five minutes or so. One of the best parts of the liberal tradition is maximal free-speech especially in regards to serious intellectual matters (porn etc., is another matter). I’m actually working on finishing an essay on ‘nationalist disasters’ and hopefully if interesting enough it might see the light of day here. I hope your not trying to get me into ‘trouble’ by asking me these question Leon! I try to be equally annoying to all tendencies 15
Posted by Lee John Barnes on February 12, 2012, 02:41 PM | # http://www.counter-currents.com/2011/05/otto-strassers-new-europe-part-one/ 16
Posted by Lee John Barnes on February 12, 2012, 02:48 PM | # As for LJB assertion that nationalism, National-Socialism or Fascism have ‘nothing at all’ to do with the Hitler regime is a willful example of obfuscation —————————-
Its a simple fact. I am sorry you are not educated enough to understand the difference. Hitlerism was Pan-Aryan Imperialism powered via reactionary right wing Capitalism. It was neither Nationalist in scope or socialist in nature. Lebensraum was Imperialism, whilst Aryanism was also anti-nationalistic in nature as it sought to absorb the Aryan populations it encountered when it invaded nations. By the end of the Hiterite era in 1944 it was a Slave Economy based on imported foreign labour. Once again the anithesis in economic and political terms of National Socialism. The problem with you Graham is that you are too busy filling you heard with pseudo-intellectual bullshit, that you havent bothered to understand basic history. 17
Posted by Dan Dare on February 12, 2012, 03:23 PM | # Lee John Barnes @ Given that the NSDAP had been in existence for just slightly over a year when Adolf Hitler became party chairman in 1921, it is perfectly reasonable to state that National Socialism and ‘Hitlerism’ are synonymous. The Strasserites as a political formation were never anything other than a renegade faction and to claim, as you appear to be doing, that only Strasserism represented ‘pure’ National Socialism’ is simply risible. The NSDAP embodied the Führerprinzip even prior to the abortive 1923 Putsch and there was no question that Hitler had by that point taken upon himself the role of Fuhrer and was acknowledged as such by the party hierarchy and rank and file from that point forward. 18
Posted by Dan Dare on February 12, 2012, 03:38 PM | # All that aside, I am still curious how somebody can launch into what purports to be a discussion of German economic policy during the NS era and yet fail to mention the definitive work on the topic. 19
Posted by Lee John Barnes on February 12, 2012, 03:43 PM | # Lee John Barnes @ Given that the NSDAP had been in existence for just slightly over a year when Adolf Hitler became party chairman in 1921, it is perfectly reasonable to state that National Socialism and ‘Hitlerism’ are synonymous. The Strasserites as a political formation were never anything other than a renegade faction and to claim, as you appear to be doing, that only Strasserism represented ‘pure’ National Socialism’ is simply risible. The NSDAP embodied the Führerprinzip even prior to the abortive 1923 Putsch and there was no question that Hitler had by that point taken upon himself the role of Fuhrer and was acknowledged as such by the party hierarchy and rank and file from that point forward. —————————————————————————————————————
why did he kill them off ? To ensure that the socialist wing of the party could not challenge his Hitlerite dictatorship. If the party was united solely around Hitler and his ideas after 1921 or even 1923, then how come the Stasser brothers were still promoting strasserite socialist ideals to challenge Hitlers reactionary right Hitlerism until they left the party between 1932 or were murdered on the June 30th to July 2nd 1934 during the Night of the Long Knives ? Even after the Night of the Long Knives members of the SA were at work murdering the SS officers involved in the murder of Rohm and Strasser. 2) The idea that the Strasserites were just a ‘rogue faction’ shows your risible understanding of history and the dynamics in the NSDAP. I suppose Rohm was also just a minor person in the party with just a rogue faction around him - such as the 3 million strong SA. It was Rohms hatred of Hitler for betraying National Socialism and his demand for a Second Revolution to impose true National Socialism that led to his murder in June 1934. With logic like DD no wonder you talk such bilge.
Even Goebbels was anti-Hitler until 1926 ;
Like others who were later prominent in the Third Reich, Goebbels came into contact with the Nazi Party in 1923, during the campaign of resistance to the French occupation of the Ruhr. Hitler’s imprisonment following the failed November 1923 “Beer Hall Putsch” left the party temporarily leaderless, and when the 27-year-old Goebbels joined the party in late 1924 the most important influence on his political development was Gregor Strasser, who became Nazi organizer in northern Germany in March 1924. Strasser (“the most able of the leading Nazis” of this period)[18] took the “socialist” component of National Socialism far more seriously than did Hitler and other members of the Bavarian leadership of the party. “National and socialist! What goes first, and what comes afterwards?” Goebbels asked rhetorically in a debate with Theodor Vahlen, Gauleiter (regional party head) of Pomerania, in the Rhineland party newspaper National-sozialistische Briefe (National-Socialist Letters), of which he was editor, in mid-1925. “With us in the west, there can be no doubt. First socialist redemption, then comes national liberation like a whirlwind… Hitler stands between both opinions, but he is on his way to coming over to us completely.”[19] Goebbels, with his journalistic skills, thus soon became a key ally of Strasser in his struggle with the Bavarians over the party program. The conflict was not, so they thought, with Hitler, but with his lieutenants, Rudolf Hess, Julius Streicher and Hermann Esser, who, they said, were mismanaging the party in Hitler’s absence. In 1925, Goebbels published an open letter to “my friends of the left,” urging unity between socialists and Nazis against the capitalists. “You and I,” he wrote, “we are fighting one another although we are not really enemies.”[20] In February 1926, Hitler, having finished working on Mein Kampf, made a sudden return to party affairs and soon disabused the northerners of any illusions about where he stood. He summoned about 60 gauleiters and other activists, including Goebbels, to a meeting at Bamberg, in Streicher’s Gau of Franconia, where he gave a two-hour speech repudiating the political program of the “socialist” wing of the party. For Hitler, the real enemy of the German people was always the Jews, not the capitalists. Goebbels was bitterly disillusioned. “I feel devastated,” he wrote. “What sort of Hitler? A reactionary?” He was horrified by Hitler’s characterization of socialism as “a Jewish creation”, his declaration that the Soviet Union must be destroyed, and his assertion that private property would not be expropriated by a Nazi government. “I no longer fully believe in Hitler. That’s the terrible thing: my inner support has been taken away.”[21] Hitler, however, recognized Goebbels’ talents. In April, he brought Goebbels to Munich, sending his own car to meet him at the railway station, and gave him a long private audience. Hitler berated Goebbels over his support for the “socialist” line, but offered to “wipe the slate clean” if Goebbels would now accept his leadership. Goebbels capitulated completely, offering Hitler his total loyalty – a pledge that was clearly sincere, and that he adhered to until the end of his life. “I love him ... He has thought through everything,” Goebbels wrote. “Such a sparkling mind can be my leader. I bow to the greater one, the political genius”. Later he wrote: “Adolf Hitler, I love you because you are both great and simple at the same time. What one calls a genius.”[22] Fest writes: From this point on he submitted himself, his whole existence, to his attachment to the person of the Führer, consciously eliminating all inhibitions springing from intellect, free will and self-respect. Since this submission was an act less of faith than of insight, it stood firm through all vicissitudes to the end. ‘He who forsakes the Führer withers away,’ he would later write.
So to be frank DD, you are talking bollocks again.
20
Posted by Graham_Lister on February 12, 2012, 03:57 PM | # I don’t want to go off-topic or discuss this topic at length right-now but Leon I do think markets are useful and have their place but I think ultimately they must be subservient to the continuity of people and place and the maintenance of the intra and inter-generational ‘moral-economy’ and shared collective belonging that is the basis of the ‘in-group’ phenomenon of a nation. I am my brother’s keeper – at least some of the time. There are minimal standards of general welfare I personally would not allow my genuine countrymen to fall below. Instead of Charles Murray’s blank incomprehension as to why Danes have such an irreligious yet happy, cohesive and prosperous society (and they are generally extremely unhappy at the notion that millions of Muslims will ‘improve’ Denmark) read around the topic, examine the empirical evidence and dare I say it for someone of your background ‘think outside the box’? What I think you get wrong following Hayek’s political and social philosophy (his argument concerning dispersed information is a powerful one but not one without caveats) is that you think market-exchanges and those relationship most fundamentally embody the social-order. I do not think so; they are secondary. The Greeks, Danes, Scots and even the English ‘nation of shopkeepers’ have historically managed to exist as peoples without ‘free-markets’. Contra Hayek our communitarian proclivities from Pleistocene as as much a part of our Darwinian legacy as anything else. Genuine freedom is found in being both beloved and in turn beloving – being authentically ‘at home’ in the world. Our true home is Europe – we are the indigenous tribe. Nothing else is acceptable, hence why I loath your inorganic ‘White Zion’ ideas (I don’t think any European, sensu stricto, could endorse such an idea at this stage of the game). But we should be able to debate ideas coolly and without rancour and use judgemental rationally in assessing them. Just as an aside Leon have your travelled or lived outside of the USA at all? @LBJ OK so I’m a pseudo-intellectual and you’re the real deal? This from a man that has stated on MR that the English neo-Nazi punk band ‘Screwdriver’ are ‘mainstream’ and neo-Nazi techno-raves are an excellent pedagogical tool for teaching young people about ‘white-culture’...please my nigga get real. And apparently Fascism does now have differing ideological strains within it (my point about its own ‘internal spectrum’ containing both revolutionary and reactionary impulses was made some time ago in the thread). 21
Posted by Dan Dare on February 12, 2012, 04:03 PM | # I am not, of course, attempting to claim that doctrinal schisms were absent within the NSDAP, you are savaging a strawman of your own creation Lee. That notwithstanding, the fact remains that the Party was Hitler’s creation and it continued to followed the line establshed by him more or less throughout the period from its establishment through to its demise. To suggest that another, ‘purer’ form of National Socialism existed in parallel with that which actually came to power and created the Third Reich is simply nonsense. Röhm, Strasser and others were eliminated because they were seen as threats to Hitler’s control of the Party, not because of any ‘politically-incorrect’ ideology they might have espoused. As you yourself have noted, being positioned on the ‘left’ wing of the Party was not necessarily an impediment to success in and of itself, Goebbels and also Walter Darré being obvious cases in point. 22
Posted by Lee John Barnes on February 12, 2012, 04:03 PM | # 1) ask any nationalist if they know Ian Stuart and Skrewdriver. Then ask how many have heard of Graham Lister. Get the point yet you halfwit. 2) Ask how many skinheads were recruited into the movement due to listening to Skrewdriver. Then ask how many joined due to reading Grahm Lister. You getting the point yet. As for Skrewdriver - Ian Stuart lived with Suggs of Madness and Madness were a band that used to gig with Skrewdriver. Skrewdriver also had a record in the charts - heres some info on them you ignorant peasant ;
As for Fascism having a ‘spectrum’. I was making the point that Hitlerism was not a Nationalist ideology. Fascism was nationalist but not National Socialist. Get it yet ? 23
Posted by Lee John Barnes on February 12, 2012, 04:10 PM | # I am not, of course, attempting to claim that doctrinal schisms were absent within the NSDAP, you are savaging a strawman of your own creation Lee. That notwithstanding, the fact remains that the Party was Hitler’s creation and it continued to followed the line establshed by him more or less throughout the period from its establishment through to its demise. To suggest that another, ‘purer’ form of National Socialism existed in parallel with that which actually came to power and created the Third Reich is simply nonsense. Röhm, Strasser and others were eliminated because they were seen as threats to Hitler’s control of the Party, not because of any ‘politically-incorrect’ ideology they might have espoused. As you yourself have noted, being positioned on the ‘left’ wing of the Party was not necessarily an impediment to success in and of itself, Goebbels and also Walter Darré being obvious cases in point. 1) The British National Party was John Tyndalls creation - yet it was riven with as many ideological splits as all nationalist parties. Only someone with ZERO experience of ever being in a nationalist party thinks nationalist parties are cohesive entities. Those who have experience in them know thats nonsesnse. I have shown you that the Strasserite wing with Rohm were challenging Hitler until 1934 - you can pretend otherwise all you want. 2) Rohm was killed as he was threat to Hitler as he called Hitler a traitor and was planning a second revolution to impose pure national socialism via the SA - hence why he was killed. The facts are easy to find. 3) Being from the left was not an impedient, as long as you surrendered your principles to Hitler. If you didnt you ended up like Rohm and Otto Strasser - a pretty powerful inducement not to challenge the Hitlerite dictatorship.
24
Posted by Lee John Barnes on February 12, 2012, 04:16 PM | # Second revolution Röhm and the SA regarded themselves as the vanguard of the “National Socialist revolution.” After Hitler’s takeover, they expected radical changes in Germany, with power and rewards for them. However, Hitler’s use of the SA as storm troopers was a political weapon he no longer needed. Along with Joseph Goebbels, Gottfried Feder and Walther Darré, Röhm was a prominent member of the party’s “socialist” faction. This group took the words “Sozialistische” and “Arbeiter” (“worker”) in the party’s name literally. They largely rejected capitalism (which they associated with Jews) and pushed for nationalisation of major industrial firms, expanded worker control, confiscation and redistribution of the estates of the old aristocracy and social equality. Röhm spoke of a “second revolution” against “reactionaries” (the National Socialist label for old-line conservatives), as the National Socialists had previously dealt with the Communists and Socialists. All this was threatening to the business community. So Hitler swiftly reassured businessmen that there would be no “second revolution.” Many “storm troopers” were of working-class origins and had expected a socialist programme. In fact, it was often said at the time that members of the SA were like a beefsteak — “brown on the outside and red on the inside”. They were now disappointed by the new regime’s lack of socialist direction and also failure to provide the lavish patronage expected. Röhm even publicly criticized Hitler for his failure to carry through the National Socialist revolution. Furthermore, Röhm and his SA colleagues thought of their force (now over three million strong) as the future army of Germany, replacing the Reichswehr and its professional officers. Although Röhm had been a member of the officer corps, he viewed them as “old fogies” who lacked “revolutionary spirit.” In February 1934, Röhm demanded that the Reichswehr (which under the Treaty of Versailles was limited to 100,000 men) be absorbed into the SA under his leadership as Minister of Defence.[6] This horrified the army, with its traditions going back to Frederick the Great. The army officer corps viewed the SA as a brawling mob of undisciplined street fighters and were also concerned by the pervasiveness of homosexuality and “corrupt morals” within the ranks of the SA. Further, reports of a huge cache of weapons in the hands of SA members gave the army commanders even more concern.[6] The entire officer corps opposed Röhm’s proposal, insisting that honour and discipline would vanish if the SA gained control. However, it appeared that Röhm and the SA would settle for nothing less. Hitler privately shared much of Röhm’s animus toward the traditionalists in the army. Nevertheless, he had gained power with the army’s support, and he wanted the army’s support to succeed the ailing 86-year-old Paul von Hindenburg as President. Meanwhile, Hitler had already begun preparing for the struggle. In February he told British diplomat Anthony Eden that he planned to reduce the SA by two thirds. Also in February, he announced that the SA would be left only a few minor military functions. Röhm responded with further complaints about Hitler and began expanding the armed elements of the SA. To many it appeared as if the SA was planning or threatening a rebellion. In March, Röhm offered a compromise in which a few thousand SA leaders would be taken into the army, but the army promptly rejected it.[7] On 11 April 1934, Hitler met with German military leaders on the ship Deutschland. By this time, Hitler had learned that the ailing Hindenburg would die before the year’s end. Hitler informed them of Hindenburg’s declining health and proposed the Reichswehr support him as Hindenburg’s successor. In exchange, Hitler offered to reduce the SA, suppress Röhm’s ambitions, and guarantee the Reichswehr would be Germany’s only military force. William L. Shirer asserts that Hitler also promised to expand the army and navy. However, both the Reichswehr and business conservatives continued their anti-SA complaints to Hindenburg. In early June 1934, defence minister Werner von Blomberg, on Hindenburg’s behalf, issued an ultimatum to Hitler: unless political tension ended in Germany, Hindenburg would likely declare martial law and turn over control of the country to the army. Knowing such a step could forever deprive him of power, Hitler decided to carry out his pact with the Reichswehr to suppress the SA. This meant a showdown with Röhm. In Hitler’s view, the army and the SA constituted the only real remaining power centres in Germany that were independent in his National Socialist state. The army was willing to submit. Blomberg had the swastika added to the army’s insignia in February and ended the army’s practice of preference for “old army” descent in new officers, replacing it with a requirement of “consonance with the new government.” 25
Posted by Dan Dare on February 12, 2012, 04:24 PM | # Lee, you argument is analogous to stating that the Labour regime which was in power from 1997 to 2010 was not really Labourism because it declined to re-nationalise British Railways or British Airways. Technically, and from the ideologically pure perspective of a 1970s trade unionist, you would be correct but your observation borders on irrelevance. Just as everyone else (except you) would be quite prepared to accept that Blairism equates to Labourism, so would they accept that what you term ‘Hitlerism’ and National Socialism were also one and the same thing throughout the period in question (roughly 1921 to 1945). 26
Posted by Lee John Barnes on February 12, 2012, 04:36 PM | # Lee, you argument is analogous to stating that the Labour regime which was in power from 1997 to 2010 was not really Labourism because it declined to re-nationalise British Railways or British Airways. Technically, and from the ideologically pure perspective of a 1970s trade unionist, you would be correct but your observation borders on irrelevance. Just as everyone else (except you) would be quite prepared to accept that Blairism equates to Labourism, so would they accept that what you term ‘Hitlerism’ and National Socialism were also one and the same thing throughout the period in question (roughly 1921 to 1945). —-
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clause_IV After the removal of Clause 4 the Labour Party became a Blairite Neo-Liberal Globalist party following the exact same globalist ideological line of Neo-Liberal Thatcherism - hence Labours adoption of the PFI initiatives. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Private_finance_initiative
27
Posted by Graham_Lister on February 12, 2012, 04:54 PM | # Oh yes all that Volk stuff isn’t in anyway nationalistic in tone??? Deluded anyone? The analogy isn’t with the utter banalities of the British Labour party and its constitution – it’s more like saying Stalin wasn’t a ‘real’ communist but Trotsky represented some Platonic ideal of that idea. And that had Trotsky been in charge, that would have seen everything work-out to be simply peachy. Absolute, willful nonsense. 28
Posted by Lee John Barnes on February 12, 2012, 05:23 PM | # Volk did not mean Germans - it meant Aryans. Hence why blonde haired, blue eyed slavs were stolen from their families and given to German families to raise. Stalin was a Communist who believed in ‘Socialism in one country’ not world communist revolution. Stalin even persecuted the Jews as did Hitler. As for Trotsky = he was killed by Stalin as he wanted World Communist Revolution. Yet again your analogy merely reveals your utter ignorance. 29
Posted by Jimmy Marr on February 12, 2012, 06:10 PM | # Eric Thomson speaks about Hitler to a small gathering of nationalists in Toronto Canada. I’m not sure of the year. 30
Posted by Graham_Lister on February 12, 2012, 07:45 PM | # @LJB So Stalin and Trotsky were not both Communists? But somehow they become entirely different political species because of secondary arguments over tactics, the precise outlines of strategy, and/or their personal rivalry? Are you of the Lewis Namier school of history – the narcissism of minuscule differences as historiographic methodology? The historian Sir Lewis Namier once said that in a drop of dew could be seen all the colours of the rainbow, presumably as a reply to those who accused him of writing more and more about less and less. No doubt you thought that the “People’s Front of Judea”, the “Judean People’s Front”, the “Judean Popular People’s Front”, the “Campaign for a Free Galilee”, and the “Popular Front of Judea” all represented substantively differentiated ideologies? Have you actually read any serious books like Paxton’s “Anatomy of Fascism”? Please don’t direct me to a website with ‘bloodandhonour’ etc., in the title (thanks all the same). Family resemblance (Familienähnlichkeit) is a philosophical idea made popular by Ludwig Wittgenstein that you seem to have difficulty grasping. Or to put it another way are two species of bees ‘totally’ different from each other? The concept of nested hierarchies within classification schemes is not all that hard to understand is it? Seriously no two people will have entirely the same set of political ideas and views right down to the nth degree – with every detail and small particular in total agreement – does that imply we have several billion ‘totally’ differentiated ideologies in the world of ideas? And let’s not even get into the ‘no true Scotsman’ fallacy… 31
Posted by Lurker on February 12, 2012, 08:26 PM | # Something that struck me about German economic policy was the way in which Germans who had emigrated were encouraged to return home, that they were regarded as an asset. Other countries being happy to see people emigrate to North America, Australia. I dont know where that fits into the bigger policy picture but it looks different to me. 32
Posted by Ex-Pro White Activist on February 12, 2012, 08:50 PM | #
I’ll say April 20, 1990 as an informed guess. He references Bush and the crack-up of the Warsaw Pact, but doesn’t mention Saddam Hussein or the collapse of the USSR itself. Also notice the cigarette smoke wafting about. This was taped during the late Zundel House era. Thomson broke with Zundel and returned to the USA about 1992. So this was made twenty-two years ago. (Just counting for those who still believe in the often prophesied imminent Great White ‘Awakening’ and four or eight year electoral victory plans to ‘take back’ central governments and central banks).
33
Posted by Jimmy Marr on February 12, 2012, 09:39 PM | # Just counting for those who still believe in the often prophesied imminent Great White ‘Awakening’ Yes. That’s quite true. Nevertheless, I’m heartened to see young people, such as the ones producing in this podcast and accompanying websites, taking up the gauntlet of truth for truth’s sake with regard to the Holy hoax and Jewish execution of 911. http://www.prothink.org/2012/02/11/prothink-interviews-zioncrimefactory/
34
Posted by Ivan on February 12, 2012, 09:47 PM | # @Robert Reis: You are one of the few @MR who lives a good impression on me, that’s why I would like to know your opinion about the following: 1. Do you really believe that it was France and Great Britain who declared war to Germany, and not the Jews on behalf of France and Great Britain? 35
Posted by Leon Haller on February 12, 2012, 10:27 PM | # Graham Lister, Your comments @14 are perfectly congruent with my own. And no, I was not trying to get you into trouble with the Monkey House Brigade. I think the ongoing WN/ethnonat association with Hitler rehabilitation is profoundly unproductive, trying to batter down a wall with one’s head. I think the West would have been a far better place without Hitler. In fact, I think that’s undeniable, and not only due to the millions killed (Stalin bears a lot of blame, too, but Hitler was hardly innocent in fomenting WW2), but to the awful cultural afterlife of Hitler as a constant source of reproach to nationalists (not that I don’t also viscerally and loudly object to the Judeo-instrumentalization of Hitler for pushing the race-replacement agenda). I can see why some try to whitewash the regime, but I think only a wholly differently rooted nationalist politics is going to have traction. I can understand the juvenile attraction of a tough white man fighting for his race. But the day is getting very late, and the RR tipping point is approaching (apparently even for various Euro nations). We have to remember the problem of white liberalism. We are not only faced with Jews and nonwhites, and greedy NWO-globalization types pushing their cheap labor agenda. We also have to acknowledge the huge component of innate (or at least deeply culturally indoctrinated) race-liberalism in the thinking of vast numbers of racially pure Aryans. There are many white, non-Jewish, non-gay, non-government parasite, supporters of liberal parties, and there are even many such supporters of conservative parties. Moral anti-racism now transcends ideology. I continue to think that white preservationism will languish precisely to the extent that it cannot disassociate itself with odors of Hitlerism. And I speak coldly, acknowledging that white EGI would be stronger had Hitler triumphed and consolidated his control of the Continent for the long run. 36
Posted by Leon Haller on February 12, 2012, 10:39 PM | # Lister @20 This comment is worthy of response, but not on this thread. I;m going to take the liberty later this evening (after dinner) of transferring it to the Bowery interview / Let’s Steal People’s Assets thread, where I’m being berated by Genotype for being Scrooge Haller and showing a lack of consideration to Bob Cratchitt. I have never really lived outside the US (though I have lived on the East Coast for an extended period, as well as LA), except as a child, when we lived for a time in France, and then later Switzerland. How lovely I recall those places in those times (Paris, Zurich, later Lago Lugano). How disgusted I am at what you Europeans have allowed to happen to your countries. Blame Americans, blame Jews, but no one but yourselves is keeping the BNP or Front Nationale out of power (unless one really believed in conspiracies, that every election is controlled as in the former USSR). I have traveled quite a bit in Western and Northern Europe and Italy (as well as having visited USSR for a few days), and all over North America, and throughout parts of Latin America, including Mexico. 37
Posted by Ivan on February 12, 2012, 10:48 PM | # @Robert Reis: A couple of more questions if I may. 8. The second front against Germany was opened by the Western Allies only long after the fate of the WWII has been basically sealed in Stalingrad. Why? http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DG9rbkSNYAQ Defamation of Hitler by the Jews can’t explain it for Jews did and still are doing the same to the memory of Stalin: Pay attention how that ugly bitch Masha Lipman, a Jewess from Carnegie Endowment, is pushing the Stalin-the-Butcher theme, while the other Jew, Lyubimov, is trying to minimize the importance of the results of the poll. 38
Posted by charles martel on February 12, 2012, 11:34 PM | # Hitler was an extraordinary human being. We must erradicate the toxin of judaics being the point of reference in European history. There is a naive and simplistic philandering of blaming NS and Hitler on the destruction of Europe. Europe was destroyed by the same sludge that has occupied Europe and shape her destiny since 1945. Why are we complaining about contemporary society ? What is happenning to Europe today is what Hitler fought to prevent it. The failure can not be attributed to him . Capici? Elementary. The international jew won the war. The consequences are for all to see. And in spite of the glaring evidence staring at us every second of our lives we keep splitting hair and carping on Hitler and NS, 60 years after their utter destruction. The allure of Hitlerism, the magnetism , does not even desert his most fiery enemies. It is like if they had nostalgia for the only concept of life that could have charted a different course in European history. Hitler was a racist, a paladin for racial eugenics and Europeanism; the antimony to racism is multiculturalism ,mass immigration and genocide of the european by interbreeding with alien hordes invading their living space. Have your choice, Pro Hitler or anti hitler; but you can not have both 39
Posted by Robert Reis on February 13, 2012, 01:47 AM | # Posted by Ivan on February 12, 2012, 09:47 PM | # @Robert Reis: You are one of the few @MR who lives a good impression on me, that’s why I would like to know your opinion about the following: 1. Do you really believe that it was France and Great Britain who declared war to Germany, and not the Jews on behalf of France and Great Britain? 40
Posted by J Richards on February 13, 2012, 01:51 AM | # Robert Reis When writing something like your entry, don’t forget our Jewish readers and Jewish commenters. Haller and Dr. Lister in particular aren’t too pleased that you’ve not shed light on the Holohoax; just use this reference: http://vho.org/GB/Books/dth/ And for our valued busy Jewish readership, you should include the following. The community underlying the core of the international bankers considers the Torah as part of its religious scriptures. This community is supposed to return to a mythical homeland following the elimination of a number related to 6. 6,000 would be too few, 6 billion too many. But the 600,000 letters of the Torah multiplied with 10, the number of divine projection, gives 6 million, a suitable number. More: http://winstonsmithministryoftruth.blogspot.com/2010/06/kabbalah-gematria-jewish-magic_228.html The figure didn’t stick around WWI. It stuck around WWII. 41
Posted by Lee John Barnes on February 13, 2012, 04:26 AM | # So Stalin and Trotsky were not both Communists? But somehow they become entirely different political species because of secondary arguments over tactics, the precise outlines of strategy, and/or their personal rivalry? Are you of the Lewis Namier school of history – the narcissism of minuscule differences as historiographic methodology? The historian Sir Lewis Namier once said that in a drop of dew could be seen all the colours of the rainbow, presumably as a reply to those who accused him of writing more and more about less and less. No doubt you thought that the “People’s Front of Judea”, the “Judean People’s Front”, the “Judean Popular People’s Front”, the “Campaign for a Free Galilee”, and the “Popular Front of Judea” all represented substantively differentiated ideologies? Have you actually read any serious books like Paxton’s “Anatomy of Fascism”? Please don’t direct me to a website with ‘bloodandhonour’ etc., in the title (thanks all the same). Family resemblance (Familienähnlichkeit) is a philosophical idea made popular by Ludwig Wittgenstein that you seem to have difficulty grasping. Or to put it another way are two species of bees ‘totally’ different from each other? The concept of nested hierarchies within classification schemes is not all that hard to understand is it? Seriously no two people will have entirely the same set of political ideas and views right down to the nth degree – with every detail and small particular in total agreement – does that imply we have several billion ‘totally’ differentiated ideologies in the world of ideas? And let’s not even get into the ‘no true Scotsman’ fallacy…
1) If you think differences such as socialism in onee nation & glocal communism are meaningless - then I suppose trotsky getting an ice pick in his head was meaningless and the differences between Russsi and China were meaningless. I suppose the differences between the monarchies pre-WW1 who were all related were also meaningless and WW1 also meaningless. 2) In nature, as in politics, miniscule differences create new species - miniscule differences are how quantative change becomes qualatitive change you idiot. 3) Re the Judean Front - I suppose the fact that white people are left wing / right / liberals/ nationalists is all irrelevant in our democratic system as we are all ... well white. We are all united and the political differences between us merely academic. You really are an epic wanker Lister. 4) Are two species of bees different to each other - of course they are. Heres how the honey bee is defined, just one of the ‘bees species’ -
Phylum: Arthropoda Class: Insecta Order: Hymenoptera Family: Apidae Genus: Apis Species: mellifera
http://www.pestworldforkids.org/bees.html
Yet again you infantile pseudo-intellectual bullshit reveals your utter lack of fucking common sense. 42
Posted by Graham_Lister on February 13, 2012, 05:46 AM | # @LJB I was going with your implication, all the time, of very significant ‘total’ differences. In a nested hierarchy obviously we can classify thing into types – such as with animals, or more specifically bees yet still recognise differences between them – i.e. species, or even sub-species. Thanks for illustrating my point. All species of bees share more features in common (as bees) than features that differentiate them (thus allowing them to be placed into a group) – hence both Stalin and Trotsky were Communists – what they have in common is more important than the differences but you seem unwilling to acknowledge that similarity and differentiation are can be both continuous phenomena as well as discrete. Oh dear. Just as I think what liberal thinkers have in common is more important than their secondary differences. I’m not in denial that those secondary differences exist – they sometime matter. For example, if you wish to have an argument from within liberalism, sure they matter - but if one wanted to critique the whole tradition less so. Is that too ‘pseudo-intellectual’ for you? It obvious you want to rescue ‘nice’ Nazis from bad ones – a really awful attempt at sophistry on your part. I mean are Scots, Danes and the English not all Europeans and what they have in common is more important than their differences are, say in comparison to the Japanese? Are all those types they equally different from each other? I think you might, just might be on the buffoonery side of the intellectual divide… 43
Posted by anon on February 13, 2012, 05:54 AM | # I particularly recommend http://www.webofdebt.com/articles/bankrupt-germany.php as it’s short and sweet. Obviously it’s not a very politically correct example to use in arguments but if you’re not sure who is right on the central banking issue the German experience is at least clear proof that people who say there is no viable alternative to the current system are either lying or misinformed because the German system worked very well in the most difficult circumstances. 44
Posted by Lee John Barnes on February 13, 2012, 06:25 AM | # Graham, you talk bollocks. Time after time = blah blah blah bollocks. Its not even worth engaging with you - you must know you talk shite. The idea that all communists are the same - Maoists, Leninists, Stalinists, Trotskyites, Khmer Rouge, North Korea, Cuba etc etc is the moronic simplicty that comes from 5th graders. I suppose human races are all the same as we are all human. I suppose all genetic racial differences are totally irrelevant as we are all human. Its only minor DNA differences compared to the mass of genes we share as humans that differentiate an African from a Scandanavian - we are all human arent we Graham. Those differences in DNA between an African and a Nordic are meaningless arent they Grham, as we are all humans. You should join the left you fucking idiot. Now shut up you silly arrogant little man. You are just digging a deeper hole for yourself each time you open you silly whiney mouth. 45
Posted by Leon Haller on February 13, 2012, 08:03 AM | # Rather suggestive debate between Lee John Barnes and Graham Lister on what might be called “the philosophy of ideological taxonomizing” (presumably a division of a still more interesting problem concerning the theory of taxonomy generally). Is it ever possible to create ‘hard’ taxonomies for ideologies? To some extent, defining “who is a nationalist/Nazi/communist/liberal etc?” inescapably involves contested, and possibly irresolvable, historical and even philosophical claims. At some point, a devolution into question-begging would seem inevitable. Keep at it, though! The exchange is proving enjoyable for sideliners.
Too, too funny ... (But what is the “no true Scotsman” fallacy?!) 46
Posted by Lee John Barnes on February 13, 2012, 08:27 AM | # FFS Leon, you had to bloody ask him didnt you. Get ready for a new torrent of pseudo-intellectual bullshit. Graham thinks that letting other people do his thinking for him ( quoting book titles ) makes him clever. He doesnt understand that he was given a brain to think for himself, instead he has lent it out on loan to whatever pseudo-intellectual that he is reading at the moment. BULLSHIT DEFLECTORS DEPLOYED !
Now I am ready for Grahams latest torrent of tosh. 47
Posted by Lee John Barnes on February 13, 2012, 08:45 AM | # In order to deflect a torrent of tosh from Graham - here is the Scotsman Fallacy ; http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/No_true_Scotsman Graham implies that by differentiating National Socialism from Hitlerism is an informal logical fallacy, an ad hoc attempt to retain an unreasoned assertion. The use of the fallacy is itself fallacious in the example of Hitlerism & National Socialism. The passing of the Enabling Act on March 23rd 1933 changed Germany from a democracy to a dictatorship. At that point National Socialism as an ideology was replaced by Hitlerism - or the will of Adolf Hitler. The transition from a democracy with a National Socialist ideology to a Hitlerite Dictatorship was a fundamental change in the nature of the state, the power structure, the rights of german citizens, the judiciary, the legal regime and all aspects of the social structure itself. It also changed the fundamental nature of the power structur within the NSDAP. The constitution of the NSDAP no longer functioned, rights of members of the party to hold Hitler to account under the NSDAP party constitution and also the way the party devolved power were removed and nullified - the will of Hitler replaced the constitutional rights of members of the NSDAP. Hitler at will imposed the party programme, ideology & direction of the party. The Fuhrer Prinzip within the structure of the NSDAP was predicated on Hitler following National Socialist polices and ideology. He was Fuhrer of the NSDAP following National Socialist ideology within the context of the party. The Hitlerite dictatorship replaced this with the will of the Fuhrer Prinzip as regards all decision making, policies and ideological direction of the party with a Dictatorship. The Fuhrer Prinzip within the party was replaced by the Hitlerite Dictatorship of all German society and the social power structures. Therefore to assert that Hitlerism = National Socialism is total bollocks. 48
Posted by Lurker on February 13, 2012, 12:10 PM | #
49
Posted by Dan Dare on February 13, 2012, 12:41 PM | #
For the same reason that he did not demand the return of Südtirol after the Anschluss: Realpolitik. 50
Posted by Graham_Lister on February 13, 2012, 05:11 PM | # @LJB Yes any analysis of the liberal tradition, (or the communist one etc.), in toto, is of course a very silly idea (LJB shouts - “don’t you know Rorty and Rawls are SERIOUSLY DIFFERENT!!!”). As it would be equally ridiculous to write a book on the general biology of the Diptera (how could anyone make such a crude error?). After all things are so radically discrete from each other in this world that I’m amazed you can actually compare anything with anything - let alone cluster phenomena into anything like groups, types etc. As for your insistence on the radical differentiation between different tendencies within ideologies (which themselves are clusters of ideas with fuzzy boundaries) why are your preferred grouplets the end point of such differentiation, in this case but also in principle? After all to use the entomological example there will potentially be in an average fly species; different sub-species, different populations, geographic variation and certainly different and varying individuals. If you study ecology it’s often summarised as the study of communities, populations, and individuals – your attitude would be like screaming into the face of a community ecologist and bellowing: “What the fuck are you doing you pseudo-intellectual don’t you know animals and plants are all really FUCKING DIFFERENT from each other!!!” Risible in other words. As for getting my ideas from others – yes people like Darwin, R.A. Fisher, W.D. Hamilton, Price, Franks et al., it’s what people in science and other forms of learning and scholarship do – they stand on the shoulders of giants – not uncritically, obviously, but yes I think scholars of the calibre of Robert Paxton and Michael Mann just might, might have more insight than an obese yobbo that thinks citing ‘blood & honour’ websites is a sign of ‘deep reading’ and on top of which thinks neo-Nazi techno-raves are an excellent tool for educating young people about ‘white culture’. Jesus wept, as the saying goes. It’s pretty obvious from the angry tone of your responses that a nerve has been touched – sadly it seems you have a very large emotional stake in rescuing a particular ideology from the dustbin of history and ‘recovering’ its ‘good’ core. Obviously, analytically, you’re struggling as Dan and I have pointed out in our different ways. Shall we agree to disagree for now? (Note - I hope to return to this general topic soon). By the way, in the world of ideas simply shouting louder and louder, no matter how incoherently and menacingly, isn’t a way to win the argument – but perhaps in your personal life it is? Just a final thought. Let’s assume that all of the habits and traits that go into being a rigorous, robust and generally excellent/first-class intellect are not distributed equally. And let’s represent that differentiation as an apartment building with the penthouse level representing the very best of human excellence and the basement being the other end of the distribution. The Aluminium-foil fans and other mono-causality types generally live in the basement and you seem to be on the first floor (one level above). Now I think the ‘noise’ faction of MR are, on average, generally nearer to the penthouse level than the basement – but don’t you believe in elitism and hierarchies (except nested ones obviously!) so why are you so uppity all of the time my nigga? P.S. If you want to get into the conceptual issues of taxonomy or the philosophy of differentiation and similarity let’s do it but it might involve some big words and subtle concepts…just saying. 51
Posted by Robert Reis on February 13, 2012, 05:16 PM | # The most notorious psychopath of all was war criminal Winston Churchill. You must understand that this war is not against Hitler or National Socialism, but against the strength of the German people, which is to be smashed once and for all, regardless of whether it is in the hands of Hitler or a Jesuit priest… I do not want suggestions as to how we can disable the economy and the machinery of war; what I want are suggestions as to how we can roast the German refugees on their escape from Breslau.
52
Posted by Graham_Lister on February 13, 2012, 05:59 PM | # Look the idea of a nested hierarchy is very easy to grasp. OK so there are all these extremely different tendencies within and around NS in Germany of the time, or in the post-revolutionary Soviet Union as another example. So the simple question is – despite their ‘massive differences’ are Stalin and Trotsky (or whatever Nazis you wish to substitute), equally (note the word carefully) different from each other (in their world-views) as they would be differentiated from say, George Washington or Edmund Burke, and the world-views they represent? Or are the English and Irish as equally (note that key word) different from each other as they are the Japanese? If the answer is no, then we are starting to understand the phenomenon of clustering and differential differentiation (to use an ugly phrase). Perhaps one can talk coherently of the commonalities, shared framework and near convergent world-views of leading Nazis without going into the sophistry of pretending Hitler wasn’t a ‘true’ Nazi? 53
Posted by Lee John Barnes on February 14, 2012, 05:24 AM | # Yep, came back to check on the thread - its another giant BLAH ! Carry on gentlemen. I shall allow you to carry on your discourse in the intellectual ivory tower that nationalism now inhabits. Dont look down though chaps. You will see that the barbarians are smashing the fucking door down with a battering ram. 54
Posted by Leon Haller on February 14, 2012, 06:18 AM | #
Perhaps then, Lee, Graham should do the teaching, and you the fighting? It takes all kinds to win a war ... I’d like to hear more about this “differential differentiation”. I’m starting to think some forays into philosophy of biology and philosophy of science more broadly could be useful for my intended new activist/publishing career, both for serious scholarship and polemics (even if I doubt I shall ever be persuaded that the intellectual element in the white racial crisis is, at bottom, other than ethical - surely we’ve won the scientific and sociological debates with the proponents of diversity? But somehow they always maintain the damn moral high ground). 55
Posted by Lee John Barnes on February 14, 2012, 06:45 AM | # What we need are Spartans, not sybarites. Yes we have the scientific and sociological evidence on our side - but we havent won any ‘debates’. Why ? Because we are not invited to debate those ideas or truthes. The discourse is defined and controlled by those in power who use the media to suffocate and repress truth & debate on issues they know they cannot win. Debate is therefore denied. Therefore thinking that we have the time to waste on intellectualism is the excuse for apathy from the intellectuallist sybarites. We need Spartans to get out into communities and build the nationalist resistance movements. We have all the intellectual ammunition we need to win debates as it is - we dont need to waste any more time arguing over details - WE NEED THE DEEDS. Whilst intellectuals think we need to hold and reside within the moral and intellectual heights - the realists realise we need to get our hands dirty on the ground. We need deeds, not debates. Get active, get recruiting. 56
Posted by Leon Haller on February 14, 2012, 08:44 AM | #
. I think you are right on that last comment, Lee, but some may be more suited to the intellectual side. Making ever fancier arguments is what interests many of us, but, yes, given the pace of the invasion, it is probably more important to focus on spreading the insights we have as far and wide as possible. I think that’s where that casapound type of activism is so useful even if it is not directly political. So many are out there, but all very isolated. It’s important to bring people together in social-ideological networks in the real world. Where people’s social lives are entwined with their nationalist activism, there is the ongoing incentive and synergistic enthusiasm to keep slogging away. Without that network, it is really hard, socially and psychologically, to be a lone wolf, even though I try in small ways, from short internet comments on mainstream comment boards, to strategic graffiti and anti-immigration bumper stickers I place in airport restrooms, libraries, on stopsigns, etc. 57
Posted by Graham_Lister on February 14, 2012, 08:50 AM | # @Leon I’m working on my world-view but it is grounded in the commitment to the reality of an ontologically independent world and the reality of science tracking real features of that intransitive domain (not that there are not real dynamical phenomena - I don’t imply stasis in all things) rather intransitive in sense that they are real phenomena irrespective of human wishes or knowledge of them but ‘squaring the circle’ in accounting for our own transitive, historically formulated domain of knowledge (we always take a view ‘from somewhere’). Thus the meta-question is how can we gain real substantive knowledge about this independent territory? What would need to be ontologically ‘brute’ about its general properties in order for science to work? And really understanding how science works too. Overall it is against ‘flat’ or deflationary ontologies (in the political realm liberalism is a very flat and deflationary set of ontological commitments viz. the nature of the social); rather that reality, as such, is stratified, hierarchical and differentiated whilst being unified. Obviously that’s as clear as mud but I hope to return to such matters, in detail, as and when time and intellectual energy allows for. But the philosophical issues of identity and differentiation are important in that mix, so conceptual issues in taxonomy are useful for thinking about such issues. And now I guess, for many, I am now the pseudo-intellectuals pseudo-intellectual so to speak. Or producer of ‘J-babble’ etc. I think GW gets where I’m coming from and it goes way beyond ‘gene talk’. Just on that relatedness as biological phenomenon has been cropping up. Do people know that in the models that (1) relatedness as refers to a particular allele (or in quantitative genetics many small alleles of additive effect – effectively a single allele ‘spread’ over the genome) not to some generalised ‘genome’ wide phenomenon and (2) that competition between related organism can completely ‘cancel’ the effect of relatedness even if it (r) is at its maximal value in a given biological system? (Haploid-diploid organisms have very different relatedness coefficients than diploid organism). Read an introductory review in say “Trends in Ecology and Evolution”, or read about the phenomenon of lethal sibling rivalry for example. Relatedness, ecologically and evolutionary does not ‘trump’ all other factors. Now here’s a much more interesting thought. If we have a maximally competitive, individualistic ‘free-market’ economy – an economic Hobbessian ‘war of all against all’ might we be destroying, in the long term, our psychological basis and expression of in-group altruism? Destroying the intra and inter-generational ‘moral economy’, by inflating the ‘costs’ of altruism and even by that fact alone producing in relative terms a large reduction in the benefits thereof? 59
Posted by Lee John Barnes on February 14, 2012, 09:31 AM | # I think you are right on that last comment, Lee, but some may be more suited to the intellectual side.
Their is only one role for intellectuals in the nationalist movement in which they can do any good =
Next entry: From an Interview with Gianluca Iannone Previous entry: All Watched Over by Machines of Loving Grace |
|
Existential IssuesWhite Genocide ProjectOf note
Recent CommentsAlso see trash folder. PMP Preparation commented in entry 'Starvation to keep the masses on a leash' on 05/24/12, 03:15 AM. (go) (view) daniel commented in entry 'Beyond the 14 words' on 05/24/12, 03:05 AM. (go) (view) Lee John Barnes commented in entry 'Golden Dawn - Greece' on 05/24/12, 02:31 AM. (go) (view) HoroSmutS commented in entry 'Why Hitler hated Jews' on 05/24/12, 02:03 AM. (go) (view) daniel commented in entry 'Golden Dawn - Greece' on 05/24/12, 02:03 AM. (go) (view) zhrcwuwmkq commented in entry 'The end of Mel Gibson's career?' on 05/23/12, 11:46 PM. (go) (view) SEO Services commented in entry 'The Cubans of Miami' on 05/23/12, 11:11 PM. (go) (view) Captainchaos commented in entry 'Beyond the 14 words' on 05/23/12, 11:08 PM. (go) (view) xiaolily commented in entry 'Maltese Incident' on 05/23/12, 10:12 PM. (go) (view) Cockouche commented in entry 'Why Hitler hated Jews' on 05/23/12, 09:40 PM. (go) (view) Captainchaos commented in entry 'Golden Dawn - Greece' on 05/23/12, 09:13 PM. (go) (view) assundaGymn commented in entry 'A Line in the Sand' on 05/23/12, 08:41 PM. (go) (view) GlablePax commented in entry 'University official sentenced for child porn, blackmail' on 05/23/12, 08:23 PM. (go) (view) Leon Haller commented in entry 'Golden Dawn - Greece' on 05/23/12, 07:47 PM. (go) (view) cuiseur automatique seb commented in entry 'Why Hitler hated Jews' on 05/23/12, 07:43 PM. (go) (view) Swan commented in entry 'Indian beauty' on 05/23/12, 12:52 PM. (go) (view) Lee John Barnes commented in entry 'Golden Dawn - Greece' on 05/23/12, 12:45 PM. (go) (view) Swan commented in entry 'More on the Indian beauty question' on 05/23/12, 12:31 PM. (go) (view) Leon Haller commented in entry 'Beyond the 14 words' on 05/23/12, 11:43 AM. (go) (view) Leon Haller commented in entry 'Golden Dawn - Greece' on 05/23/12, 11:32 AM. (go) (view) Mellaba Pechios commented in entry 'Golden Dawn - Greece' on 05/23/12, 07:55 AM. (go) (view) daniel commented in entry 'Beyond the 14 words' on 05/23/12, 03:51 AM. (go) (view) Leon Haller commented in entry 'Golden Dawn - Greece' on 05/22/12, 10:40 PM. (go) (view) Leon Haller commented in entry 'Golden Dawn - Greece' on 05/22/12, 10:40 PM. (go) (view) Leon Haller commented in entry 'Golden Dawn - Greece' on 05/22/12, 10:26 PM. (go) (view) Leon Haller commented in entry 'Golden Dawn - Greece' on 05/22/12, 10:23 PM. (go) (view) 7 Year BA commented in entry 'Golden Dawn - Greece' on 05/22/12, 09:19 PM. (go) (view) DARYL commented in entry 'A repeatable comment for mass-pasting on American public message boards' on 05/22/12, 08:57 PM. (go) (view) Thorn commented in entry 'Golden Dawn - Greece' on 05/22/12, 08:31 PM. (go) (view) Church of Jed commented in entry 'Golden Dawn - Greece' on 05/22/12, 07:40 PM. (go) (view) Selous Scout commented in entry 'Golden Dawn - Greece' on 05/22/12, 05:56 PM. (go) (view) Silver commented in entry 'Beyond the 14 words' on 05/22/12, 11:37 AM. (go) (view) AnalogMan commented in entry 'Golden Dawn - Greece' on 05/22/12, 11:29 AM. (go) (view) Wandrin commented in entry 'Beyond the 14 words' on 05/22/12, 07:42 AM. (go) (view) Srakotraqu commented in entry 'A repeatable comment for mass-pasting on American public message boards' on 05/22/12, 07:30 AM. (go) (view) Recent Posts
General NewsScience NewsScience CategoriesAll CategoriesThe WritersEach author's name links to a list of all articles posted by the writer; the hashes link to authors' homepages. LinksEndorsement not implied. Controlled Opposition Crime
General
Immigration
Islam Jews
Nationalist Political Parties
Science Whites in Africa |
Posted by N.A. on February 11, 2012, 11:48 PM | #
A few typos in the article. Please proofread before publishing.
But an interesting post nonetheless, keep up the good work.