|
|
|
Majority Radio: Dr Christian Lindtner speaks to DanielS and GW Dr Christian Lindtner, renowned Sanskrit scholar and author of standard reference works on Buddhism and comparative religion, talks to Daniel and GW about his acceptance of the Holocaust as an historical event, and about his latest book, Revelation of Bodhicittam, which uncovers the Pythagorean roots of the New Testament Gospels, and finds the story of Jesus Christ to have been transmitted from earlier Buddhist writings.
Comments:2
Posted by anon on Sat, 07 Mar 2015 07:29 | # 3
Posted by On syncretic origin on Sun, 08 Mar 2015 07:01 | # Kenneth Humphreys has also done good work on early Christianity. Here he is interviewed on MR Radio by James Bowery: http://www.majorityrights.com/audio/KenHumphreys.mp3
4
Posted by drummer on Tue, 10 Mar 2015 15:13 | # Christianity is the problem and the solution to Christianity is that it’s a ripoff of Buddhism, and once we realize this we will be superlogical and immune to niggerism? This website is so jewy. 5
Posted by DanielS on Tue, 10 Mar 2015 16:00 | # Posted by drummer on March 10, 2015, 10:13 AM | # Christianity is the problem and the solution to Christianity is that it’s a ripoff of Buddhism, and once we realize this we will be superlogical and immune to niggerism? This website is so jewy. Christianity is a one of the central problems we are up against, yes. It has significant borrowings form Buddhism and its “magical”, viz. illogical thinking, yes. And once we realize this phoney imposition it will help us to retrieve our appreciation of our rationale, cause and effect and self interest. Immune to niggerism? I don’t know where that was said, but better attention to the logic of our EGI would help regarding imposed ‘niggerism.’ You might wish that this website was “Jewy.” Obviously, you have an ulterior motive for trying to pass-off that ridiculously false attribution. 6
Posted by an historical event on Wed, 11 Mar 2015 08:43 | # GW, in defense of Dr. Lindtner, I don’t think this phrase represents what he is saying: “his acceptance of the Holocaust as an historical event” In the videos below, he clearly distinguishes between “the final solution and killing Jews (for being Jews) as germane to Hitler’s mentality” as opposed to “the holocaust”, a term unknown to the historical epoch and which has become, according to Lindtner, akin to “a religion”, something different than a historical issue. 7
Posted by Red Ice's Friend on Wed, 11 Mar 2015 16:21 | # Interviewing John Friend, Red Ice once again purports to be concerned for truth and free speech: http://www.redicecreations.com/radio/2015/03/RIR-150309.php Of course it is not an arbitrary search for “truth”, they know what they are looking for, that’s why they invited John to speak. After an articulate discussion of 9-11 ...John goes on to speak about how Nazi Germany was the last true “nationalism.” Of course it was not nationalism, it was vicious imperialism. John has described “Mein Kampf” as a perfect book, the holocaust as a complete lie and undoubtedly Nazi Germany and Hitler as perfect in every way. Apparently that’s “the truth” that Red Ice is looking for… Red Ice also claims that these are the views that you do not hear, when in WN circles, it is the unfortunate standard fare. 8
Posted by Carolyn Yeager on Wed, 11 Mar 2015 19:10 | # To: #6, an historical event “... he [Lindtner] clearly distinguishes between “the final solution and killing Jews (for being Jews) as germane to Hitler’s mentality” “ Hitler never said anything about “killing Jews.” Nor does Lindtner make a case for Hitler’s mentality. He just rushes to his conclusion. 9
Posted by jamesUK on Wed, 11 Mar 2015 21:12 | # @Red Ice’s Friend Well John Friend thinks that no planes were used on 9/11 and what we saw was TV trickery and planted actors. He also thinks Nuclear weapons are fake and Sandy Hook was a hoax. Lol! http://www.therealistreport.com/2014/06/no-planes-on-911-for-dummies.html http://www.therealistreport.com/2014/08/the-realist-report-are-nuclear-weapons.html 10
Posted by Per on Wed, 11 Mar 2015 21:27 | # Hello. Thank you for this interesting interview. “In this amazing book, Dr. Lindtner shows that our true European reverence for rationale and logic has been buried in magical thinking from the east, superimposed for the masses.” Are you sure on this? Buddhism seems to have been European religion which then spread to the East, India, Asia etc? Some say Buddha was white, blue-eyed european? That’s at least what Arthur Kemp and others think, I believe? Same with Egypt is said to have been the Europeans who were behind the civilization. What do you think about the theories and these books ?: http://ostarapublications.com/on-martial-arts-zen-and-the-blue-eyed-red-bearded-barbarian/ http://www.redicecreations.com/radio3fourteen/2014/R314-141119.php http://ostarapublications.com/category/march-of-the-titans/ Best regards, Per 11
Posted by Per on Wed, 11 Mar 2015 21:28 | # “Hitler never said anything about “killing Jews.” “ Yeah right, Carolyn. 6:50 in, Hitler is talking about exterminate the jews in a speech, listen for yourself: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A-ieNfu97qo And here is Himmler speech where he talks about murdering Jews: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6yi9hT8ES2g Read the reports from the german police, from the Einsatzgruppen. They are all talking about murdering jews. Many of these acknowledge their crimes after the war, they did not deny mass killings of jews. You do, and you think you know better then all of them. That is ridiculous. Also, you or nobody else denier, can’t explain where all these millions of Jews where went, as Faurisson and all other deniers mean where transported eastward and were released. Why can not you find one single witness to support this claim ? There should be a couple of millions, both Germans, Jews, Russians and so on. Any report of a couple of thousand working Jews sent eastward from the camps to work for the Germans, will not do at all ass any evidence that a massdeportating and a relocation of Jews took place. 12
Posted by Per on Wed, 11 Mar 2015 21:38 | # Sorry for some typos, my english is not perfect, it is my second language. I failed to make some corrections, that I notice after I had posted the last comment. 13
Posted by Helvena on Thu, 12 Mar 2015 00:28 | # Lindtner isn’t being truthful. There is NO evidence that Hitler wanted to exterminate the jews. Hitler wanted to exterminate Marxism/communism he said NOTHING about exterminating jews. Hitler did say that the jew wants to exterminate the Aryan. Hitler believed the Aryan must fight for his survival. No where in Mein Kampf does Hitler say anything about exterminating the jews. You would have to be a mind reader to say that this passage means that Hitler wanted to exterminate the jews. You would have to believe that all jews were Marxist: Ideas and philosophical systems as well as movements grounded on a definite spiritual foundation, whether true or not, can never be broken by the use of force after a certain stage, except on one condition: namely, that this use of force is in the service of a new idea or Weltanschhauung which burns with a new flame. Please remember that the Bolsheviks killed 60 million White Russians. Hitler understood the Bolshevik Communists. 14
Posted by Carolyn Yeager on Thu, 12 Mar 2015 01:37 | # To anonymous “Per”, too cowardly to give your identity: Don’t tell me to watch youtube videos by unknown posters. You tell me and whoever else reads this blog exactly the quote from Hitler (we’re not speaking about Himmler in this instance, since Lindtner specifically said it was all Hitler’s doing, okay?), giving time, place, how recorded, where it can be found, etc. that proves Adolf Hitler said he wanted to kill jews. If you can’t do that, you have no right to speak about it. You are just another youtube watching jew-lover. Maybe even from Israel. 15
Posted by Per Nordin on Thu, 12 Mar 2015 11:56 | # I am not a coward to give my identity, i’m only used to write my first name. My name is Per Nordin and I come from Sweden and not from Israel. Stop being so paranoid. Do Carolyn mean that Himmler and SS systematically murdered “behind the back of Hitler”? Also there are good evidence that Himmler, Heydrich etc. said that Hitler ordered the physical Endlösung. Did they lie? If so, why? Did Ohlemdorf also lie? Does Carolyn agree with Faurisson that the German policy was to let the jews “have kibbutz” after the war. If so, where is the evidence, Carolyn? Obvious facts. That said, check the link you can hear for yourself the talk where Hitler are speaking to exterminate the Jews. It is from The Reichstag, January 30, 1939. But perhaps Carolyn thinks that this is not Hitler speaking? Who, then, is it Carolyn? ( This youtube clip is from Dr. Christian Lindtner, not a unknown poster) I am thus a ‘Jew-lover ” because I give this information and facts? It sounds very logical! More paranoia, it is not healthy, think of your health.
16
Posted by Franklin Ryckaert on Thu, 12 Mar 2015 13:06 | # I must say it is rather confusing. On the one hand the “official” Holocaust story (= six million Jews were killed in gaschambers on order of Hitler) appears on closer investigation a fabrication. On the other hand it cannot be denied that millions of Jews were deported and did not return. Where have they gone? In my country, the Netherlands, there lived before the war 140,000 Jews, of whom 25,000 went into hiding. The rest was deported of whom some 104,000 to 110,000 “did not return”. If they were not killed where did they go? Besides, in that Posen speech Himmler clearly speaks about Ausrottung, which based on the context cannot by any stretch of imagination explained in a “metaphorical” way. Carolyn Yeager would enhance her credibility as a Holocaust revisionist (apart from her almost religious devotion to her Lord and Savior Adolf Hitler) if she could explain these things. 17
Posted by Carolyn Yeager on Thu, 12 Mar 2015 14:33 | # To Per Nordin, Let’s keep things to the radio program, please, and not go rushing off in every direction—which is a tactic of obfuscation. I replied to “an historical event” (DanielS) by first quoting him: >>>>“... he [Lindtner] clearly distinguishes between “the final solution and killing Jews (for being Jews) as germane to Hitler’s mentality” “ Hitler never said anything about “killing Jews.” Nor does Lindtner make a case for Hitler’s mentality. He just rushes to his conclusion. <<<< To which “an historical event” didn’t reply but Per Nordin did: >>>>Yeah right, Carolyn. 6:50 in, Hitler is talking about exterminate the jews in a speech, listen for yourself: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A-ieNfu97qo<<<< The rest of what he said was not pertinent to this exchange. So the issue is: Does this speech by Adolf Hitler to the Reichstag in January 1939, before any war was declared by anybody, amount to a statement by Hitler that he wants to kill Jews? No, it does not. Since you will not present his exact words, I will have to do it. “Today I will once more be a prophet. If the international finance Jewry, in and outside of Europe, should succeed in plunging the nations once more into a world war, then the result will not be the Bolshevization of the earth, and thus the victory of Jewry, but the annihilation of the Jewish race in Europe.” Clearly to any rational Aryan mentality, AH did not say he wants to kill Jews. Nor is there anything personal in it at all. He is saying that International Jewry will not have the final victory over Europe, but that the result of such a war will be to drive all Jews out of Europe [the end of the Jewish race in Europe]. Of course, he turned out to be wrong. But what would cause you, Per Nordin (and Franklin Ryckaert) to prefer Jew rule over German rule? To be on the side of Jews in your countries? You, Per, are a Swedish Jew, more than likely ... and if not genetically, then certainly spiritually and intellectually. As is Dr. Lindtner. And DanielS and GW too. This whole place reeks of it. If you were true Europeans you would be down on your knees thanking Adolf Hitler for wanting to free Europe of the power of Jewry. That you instead condemn him exactly for that reason brings the condemnation on yourselves. But, back to the question at hand: This speech is continually used as “proof” of Hitler’s intention to “exterminate” Jews because nothing else can be found. Would he be so stupid as to announce to the world in a major speech his desire to “kill off” an entire race? Use some common sense. He was warning international finance jewry and it’s Anglo-American puppet governments that Continental Europe would stand up against it. Right or wrong, this is what he was saying. Don’t expect me to respond to all the other stuff you bring up. This is the only issue here.
18
Posted by Per Nordin on Thu, 12 Mar 2015 15:31 | # Carolyn, what Part of “the annihilation of the Jewish race in Europe” dont you understand? Adolf Hitler did not say “drive all the Jews out of Europe [The End of the Jewish race in Europe]” He Said “the annihilation of the Jewish race in Europe”. Do you not see the difference?
I would like to thank Hitler if he ordered up the Jewish question in a sensible and humane way. He could have expelled them out of Germany and out of Europe and helped to form a new country to the jews as a final solution. I would have support that to 100%. But I never supports genocide (do you?), I believe that all races have a right to life and survival. In what way, I have a jew mentality? Because I believe that there is much evidence to suggest that the Germans murdered a bunch of Jews? I spend a lot of time in our struggle for a free and Swedish Sweden without foreign influence, including the Jewish one, and this have exposed me to danger. Is that jewish spiritually and intellectually you think? Standing up for my folk and race against the jewish supremacists, communists and traitors? Just because I’m not a National Socialist or deny the Holocaust, does not mean I defend Jewish influence over our countries. On the contrary, actually.
However, after protests over the action of T4, so I guess he realized that henceforth it must be done more discreetly. Therefore, you want to implement it as far away from ordinary Germans and West as possible. Why not gone in the East? Hitler had not reckoned with losing the war either. This is not the only evidence but if you take it in this in context with what Himmler, and others said and documents, witnesses, etc., it becomes even more clear what they were doing and that Hitler supported this. 19
Posted by Per Nordin on Thu, 12 Mar 2015 16:20 | # Hello again. Have you on Majority Rights read this by David Cole? Maybe you could interview him too? Interesting: Part 1: Part 2: 20
Posted by Spiritual Jews, a Nazi projection on Thu, 12 Mar 2015 17:26 | # Spiritual Jews, a Nazi projection.
It is not an either/or, as Carolyn poses it, between German or Jewish rule. In fact, Nazi Germany blew it (though they may have thought, and she may think, that they were the only ones who knew what was going on). European nations cooperating to de-nationalize and expel the Jews would have been a proper goal. There would have been significant agreement among all native European nationals toward that end - especially in the nations that Hitler sought to take-over in order to appropriate their land. That is why Hitler didn’t care to devote energies toward the difficult task of cooperation and coordination among European nations to expel foreigners. Because, rather, he wanted lebensraum and breeding room at the expense of other European peoples, changing other nationals, who could have cooperated in a rational objective, to people who had no choice but to defend themselves (even if that meant provisionally siding with Jews). 21
Posted by Per Nordin on Thu, 12 Mar 2015 19:11 | # I agree with you “Spiritual Jews, a Nazi projection”.
22
Posted by Carolyn Yeager on Thu, 12 Mar 2015 20:04 | # To Per Nordin who wrote: “Carolyn, what Part of “the annihilation of the Jewish race in Europe” dont you understand? Adolf Hitler did not say “drive all the Jews out of Europe [The End of the Jewish race in Europe]” He Said “the annihilation of the Jewish race in Europe”. Do you not see the difference?” Per, do you not see how superficial you sound? The various meanings of the German word ausrotten and others, that we translate as “exterminate” and “annihilate” has been discussed by experts and I am not going to get into that here. [see http://www.cwporter.com/ausrottung.htm and https://forum.codoh.com/viewtopic.php?f=2&t=2249&sid=a1c508dbbc40945689eaac7414f342e2] BUT, what is more important is that the Fuehrer did not say in 1939: I want to kill, or even We Germans will kill, the Jews of Europe JUST BECAUSE THEY ARE JEWS (remember that part) if we are plunged into war ... but he said the result of such a war will be the annihilation (end) of the Jewish race in Europe, not their victory/mastery in Europe. Which fits perfectly well with the deportation process. Now, I know you think, along with the Jews and Christian Lindtner, that you can interpret this to say that AH expressed his intention to kill all the Jews of Europe (just because they were Jews, because of his rabid anti-Semitism). But you can’t. The Holocaust fable is 95% lie. You start from that lie and work back to what was said earlier to find a connection ... the wrong way to go about it. So yes, I see clearly how to understand this, but you do not. Germans had a way of using these words quite commonly, but they have been turned into a single meaning - kill/murder. This is wrong, as even the devious Lindtner must know.
What you “prefer” makes no difference at all, but only what you do about it. If you are an example of the Swedish ethnic nationalists in your country, then it’s easy to understand why Sweden is in the shape it’s in. It’s the most servile country in Europe to the multi-racial agenda. You should wish that another Adolf Hitler would come along and help your pathetic countrymen out. 23
Posted by Per Nordin on Thu, 12 Mar 2015 21:34 | # Carolyn, you interpret that Hitler threatened to expel the Jews from Europe if they started a war against Germany? Why would Hitler threaten with that, for that was his plan before the war, right? The Jews therefore threatens to start a war and Hitler responds with words and threatens to help the Jews to move eastward to give them a living space there and start the kibbutz, which Faurisson claim? (What then is the evidence for this is Carolyn?) Hitler becomes threatened by international Jewry and he also account with a fiery and aggressively speech that he wants to help the Jews to new homes in the east? Seriously?
“Nobody uses the word “ausrotten” in the sence of “uproot”, it is a totally incorrect translation. Show me one dictionary where “ausrotten” is translated to “uproot”. “uproot” is far better translated with “entwurzeln”, which Himmler did not use. He said “Ausrottung” and by far the best translation for that is “extermination”, there can absolutely be no arguing about that, everyone who does is literally a stupid person” https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6yi9hT8ES2g What is most logical to Hitler to response to what he perceives as a declaration of war by Jews, responds by saying that he wants to help the Jews east to the new home, or that he wants revenge and exterminate them in Europe? Given his hatred of the Jews and the declaration of war, do you think he is set to help them or to destroy them? Carolyn, in Sweden at least the third largest party (soon second largest, that says something about the swedish people) is an immigration critical party that wants to limit immigration, stop islam, gang rapes etc. We have thousands gathered at demonstrations when a Swede have been murdered by non-white immigrants. We have nationalists who are demonstrating for the Swedes freedom and chasing away left mobs and immigrants, like the SA did in Germany. This is what we are doing about it! What are you doing about it in US? How is it going for you in the US? Can you in a short time collect thousands of whites for a common demonstration? Do you fight back the gangs and the reds? Do you have a party that gets between 13 and 20% of the votes that want to limit immigration and do something about the situation? Do you have ethnic nationalist parties that takes seats on the council, etc? How is it going for your nazi party in US? How many votes? How many mandate? The situation don’t seem to be better in most parts of the United States, whites are soon in the minority and are loosing all power. And you seem nowhere to be heading to organize any real resistance, as in Sweden and other European countries. Perhaps you should think about that before you mock Swedish nationalists. 24
Posted by Per Nordin on Thu, 12 Mar 2015 21:35 | # “Spiritual Jews, a Nazi projection.” I agree with you. This is what we need: http://www.racialcompact.com/ 25
Posted by Franklin Ryckaert on Thu, 12 Mar 2015 22:43 | # @ Carolyn Yeager 1) I admit that in Hitler’s Reichstag speech the word Vernichtung still could be an ill-chosen metaphorical term for “ending the power of” the Jewish race. The context of one sentence only is too short to be sure. 2) Not so however with the term Ausrottung in the context of Himmler’s Posen speech. That context is clear enough : it is all about physical killing. For the full German text of that speech with an English translation, see the video : https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6yi9hT8ES2g Therefore Ausrotting in this context means physical destruction. 3) Carlos Porter makes the mistake to refer to meanings of the word Ausrottung by other Nazis in other contexts, while he should concentrate on the meaning of the word in the context of Himmler’s speech. 4) Whether the official Holocaust story is false or not, that doesn’t disprove the meaning of Ausrottung in the context of Himmler’s speech. It only underlines the need for further research in Holocaust revisionism. No luxury since “orthodox” Holocaust revisionism still has found no explanation for the great number of “missing Jews” after the war. 5) For the stopping of non-White immigration and the repatriation of non-Whites (including Jews) already in our countries, we don’t need “another Adolf Hitler”. A politician of such character would have no chance in elections. On the contrary, it is such “soft nationalist” parties as UKIP in the UK, Front National in France and Party of Freedom in my country that have a reasonable chance to win elections and to bring about change. 26
Posted by Per Nordin on Fri, 13 Mar 2015 00:07 | # “Spiritual Jews, a Nazi projection” Yes I agree with you. This is what we need: http://www.racialcompact.com/
Greg Johnson have written a good piece about this, that I think every nationalist in our cause should read, “Dealing with the Holocaust”: http://www.counter-currents.com/2014/04/dealing-with-the-holocaust/ 27
Posted by Per Nordin on Fri, 13 Mar 2015 01:00 | # “Spiritual Jews, a Nazi projection” Yes I agree with you. This is what we need: http://www.racialcompact.com/
Greg Johnson have written a good piece about this, that I think every nationalist in our cause should read, “Dealing with the Holocaust”: http://www.counter-currents.com/2014/04/dealing-with-the-holocaust/
28
Posted by Per Nordin on Fri, 13 Mar 2015 10:19 | # Carolyn should also read this link: http://holocaustcontroversies.blogspot.se/2014/05/three-hitler-speeches-from-1942.html It’s clear that “ausrotten” means extermination. The swedish language are related to german language, and the Swedish word “utrotning” means the same thing= ausrottung= extermination.
“We are fully aware that this war can end either in the extermination of the Aryan people or in the disappearance of Jewry from Europe. I said as much before the German Reichstag on September 1, 1939.43 I wish to avoid making hasty prophesies, but this war will not end as the Jews imagine, namely, in the extermination of the European-Aryan people; instead, the result of this war will be the annihilation of Jewry. For the first time, the old, truly Jewish rule of “an eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth,” If Hitler only meant sending the jews out of Europe and set them free in the east and help them build kibbutz, why would he talk about “an eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth,” ? That doesn’t make any sense at all. Use your common sense Carolyn. Full documentation in Wolfgang Cirilla, Die deutsche Ordnungspolizei und der Holocaust im Baltikum und in Weissrussland 1941-1944, Paderborn 2006, pp. 45ff. Why is it that Faurisson and carolyn (?) never mentions the well-documented mass murders of the Ordnungspolizei in the east. Carolyn should also read David Coles articles about Korherr report etc, how can you explain that, if it was only about deportation to the east? And why don’t you listen to what people like Eichmann who was a great witness: http://holocaustcontroversies.blogspot.se/2014/09/eichmann-before-jerusalem-bettina.html https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCD_fEkq4bCuyoJ0pN3n4edw etc, etc. You deniers seem to only focus on the small details that appear to act reluctant, but do not look at the totality of evidence from a lot of different places that give an overall picture. It’s not serious. 29
Posted by Carolyn Yeager on Fri, 13 Mar 2015 15:43 | # I think Per Nordin has been given enough rope and he has now hanged himself with it. That’s how it usually goes with Jews pretending to be ethnic Swedes or Brits, Poles, Dutch or whatever. His recommended reading is by Jews, and otherwise he limits himself to youtube videos. Plus, he “interprets” what I say, think and believe rather than sticking to the words I actually say, something which is identical to what he does with Adolf Hitler. This is a very Jewy habit. I imagine his nationalist party is the Sweden Democrats, another “soft-right” political organization that moderated itself in 1995 when a member of the Centre Party took over leadership ” to make the party more respectable, and when photographs surfaced of some members posing in Nazi uniforms at party meetings, the wearing of any kind of uniform was formally banned in 1996.” It is a pro-Holocaust, Jew-friendly organization. It is interesting to me that the increasing Muslim problem in Europe (engineered by the very International Jewry that Hitler warned of) has brought about increasing acceptance of Jews by “far-right parties” as allies in the fight against radical Islam. This seems like what we should be looking at instead of rushing to embrace the soft-right as the path to political power ... as recommend by DanielS, Franklin Ryckaert and Per Nordin. Are they missing the forest because of the trees? As to the original issue (and still the only one as far as I’m concerned), Per has not shown that Adolf Hitler said he “wanted to kill Jews (because they are Jews).” Franklin Ryckaert has acknowledged this: So this does it for me. I have successfully proved my point originally addressed to “an historical event” aka DanielS. Hitler did not say he wanted to kill Jews and those who say he did are still under obligation to prove it honestly. P.S. As to police actions in the east, those are not denied and never have been. Of course Jews were killed and executed for carrying out sabotage against the Wehrmacht and SS battalions, their support services, German infrastructure, and for hideous atrocities committed on captured German troops. Many of these Jews were too dangerous to be kept alive even in concentration camps; it took more personnel than was available to watch over such crafty characters, which included women and children. But why oh why are these guys at Majority Rights so solicitous of Jews and seem to want them in Europe? They have no plan whatsoever for getting rid of them; they can have no expectations of ever doing so. 30
Posted by DanielS on Fri, 13 Mar 2015 16:30 | # “This seems like what we should be looking at instead of rushing to embrace the soft-right as the path to political power ... as recommend by DanielS, Franklin Ryckaert and Per Nordin.” - Carolyn Yeager I have NEVER, EVER recommended “a soft right” - DanielS I have repeatedly advocated a White Left. 31
Posted by Per Nordin on Fri, 13 Mar 2015 16:46 | # I honestly don’t want to sound rude, but Carolyn for your own good, you might seek help for your paranoia, it’s not healthy to believe everyone that do not think like you are horrible jews etc. I´m not a jew and I’m not a member of Sverigedemokraterna (Sweden Democrats).
Sweden Democrats’ youth impresses however, many of them are very good people: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rfcVfVvMuDw Everyone can compared them with this leading national socialist party in US: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NHxBKMUlEjg Which party do you think has the best chance to succeed in doing something good for our people?
If you do not believe me, please contact the party, ask the party leader, I have contact with him and he knows very well who I am, and can confirm that I am no Jew or something like that.
“On 1 February 1942, Jäger updated the totals to 136,421 Jews (46,403 men, 55,556 women and 34,464 children), 1,064 Communists, 653 mentally disabled, and 134 others in a handwritten note for Franz Walter Stahlecker.[1]” “ I can’t answer for Majorty Right, (to be honest I just found out about them) but I don’t want Sweden to be run be jews or other races, they should be send out of Europe. No question about that for me. But I don want genocide, war etc. Just a humane repatriating. 32
Posted by DanielS on Fri, 13 Mar 2015 16:56 | # Per Nordin If you advocate a Sweden for the Native Swedes and the best, most effective possible way to repatriate non-natives to their native lands, then your view is as good as gold here. We only hope that you might endorse the same for other European nations (including Russia) so that we can begin to facilitate cooperation toward those aims. I imagine you would advocate that, and that is excellent. 33
Posted by Carolyn Yeager on Fri, 13 Mar 2015 19:27 | # To Per Nordin, #26: You personify what is wrong with Sweden, so you can never “fix it.” By the way, I have never claimed to be an American Nationalist, an American National-Socialist, etc. during this exchange with you—I don’t think any of that is possible. You are in need of a tutor; your debating style is sorely deficient. 34
Posted by said the Jew on Fri, 13 Mar 2015 20:40 | # “your debating style is sorely deficient” Said the Jew 35
Posted by Per Nordin on Sat, 14 Mar 2015 11:24 | # Daniel S. I agree with you totally. I encourage collaborations and contacts with like-minded people around the world. I have to take and read more about the Majority Rights.
Ok, please explain what I personify that is wrong with Sweden and why people like I can’t fix the problem? You wrote: “What you “prefer” makes no difference at all, but only what you do about it.” Then what do you do about it? Are people like you and your like-minded more likely to fix the problems? Yes? Then how? No? Then maybe you should not say so much and criticize those like me. I have never claimed myself as a great debater, so maybe you have right. I’m open to constructive criticism, I would like to develop and be better to get our message out and win people on out side. Some tips? 36
Posted by DanielS on Sat, 14 Mar 2015 12:02 | # Per, you can get a pretty good idea of our present direction from the posts and interviews that can be seen on the front and radio page (I can attest to everything except Neil Vodavzny’s posts, which GW posts. All I can say regarding Neil is that he comes-up with some good ideas; though I do like the Airplane very much, he sometimes has different taste than mine; but usually does not bother me too much). Unfortunately, the pagination device that was at the bottom of the page - which would have allowed you to freely move back to posts beginning in 2004 - had a bug attached to it which has forced us to disable it, at least for the time being. That would allow you to readily go back and see posts and comments, some of which were absolutely brilliant and gave MR its starry shine. Basically a free speech forum, it followed what, in hindsight, would seem a predictable path - with a modernist assumption that if you just keep questioning and putting your resources at risk, you are going to reach bedrock foundation, what happens in reality, is that some brilliant ideas are generated, but then as time goes on they are trampled under, ...usually by people who are reactionary rather than deliberate in cultivating the turn back, who will not parse and take what has been gained and bring it back to enhance those social structures that should not be changed. http://majorityrights.com/weblog/comments/white_post_modernity1 The instigation of this reaction and/or prevention of the deliberate turning back in organic rhythm, can be of Jewish agency as well, of course. Nevertheless, there were many “wailing modernists” here at MR, who longed to go back to the old, foundational quest, what was destroyed along the way be damned. Some were trolls, some were wholly reactionaries, others were modernists and also reactionaries in part. Those who were particularly obstructive to a sane, authentic and cooperative advocacy of native European nationals were the people who couldn’t live without Hitler, Jesus or including Jews in our interest group. Some modernists genuflect to science to the point of scientism, and they would not be helpful either. Nor those who just love wildly speculative conspiracy theory. All of these views come with some very intelligent people, sharp witted banter (this is the kind of thing that Daniel A bemoans having lost) and popularity - witness the popularity of “The Daily Stormer.” Nevertheless, between the trolls, some simply wanting to make us look ridiculous, or determined to impose a hapless Christian world view upon us, or determined to include Jews as “White” on this site; and those true believers in Hitler’s goodness, that the holocaust was strictly a “hoax”, the site was becoming unproductive. Some people like to argue with Christians and are good at it - Jimmy Marr is good at that, GW is quite good at that as well, and may have thought that the discussion would bring some people around to sanity. But I am satisfied that there is no end to arguing with an article of faith; and while almost all WN sites advocate Christianity or Hitler, or play footsie with Jews (to satisfy those who’d want those conversations), Majority Rights, rather, has clear opportunity to take what can be said to be the correct path in our advocacy: free of an overall favorable opinion of Hitler, Christianity (though taking morals seriously), Jews, scientism or bizarre speculation. Oh, and as far as asking Carolyn Yeager what she thinks, there is no need. You can go straight to the source - Adolf Hitler. On the other hand, for the sane, it would seem a central theoretical objective would be to establish ourselves and our discreet kinds as nations defined by our biology and genetics and those not of our biology/genetics would fall outside of our nation, its obligations for care and residence.Then we might be able to take practical steps. Two platforms that I have been trying to promote, admittedly without much success thus far (though I believe they should have wide agreement) are these: http://majorityrights.com/weblog/comments/euro_dna_nation http://majorityrights.com/weblog/comments/leftism_as_a_code_word_part_1_the_white_left 37
Posted by Per Nordin on Sat, 14 Mar 2015 16:46 | # Thank you Daniel S, for the information. I’ll read more about your site and the links you gave. But if I understand correctly, you are are critical to?: - Neo-Nazis, “Hitlerists” etc. Have I understood correctly? In that case, I agree with you, and there is a lot of these categories I see among “white nationalists” (or how to call it) both in Sweden and Europe and as well as in the United States. Another point I would like to add: - Immoral racists. Such driven by hatred of other races and not genuine love for his people and race. They do not think you should respect other races right to life, survival and their countries of origin, etc. I do not like these types. They will never gain support among the population, and in addition there is nothing I can in good conscience stand for or support. I take a middle ground between the two extreme sides. On the one hand, those who want to destroy my race through the forced mass migration, cultural destruction, etc., and those who want race war, offend other races in their home countries, talking about genocide and so on. Do you agree with the moral racism, or that which may also be called ethnopluralism? Then maybe you’d like Richard McCulloch and his work? He criticizes all the above. I have read quite a lot of books about race, but his philosophical works on the subject are the best I’ve read. As I said the absolute best philosophical works I’ve read about race and the like. His books are truly unique but unfortunately, few seem to have read them and they are sadly underrated. His website: Swedish website with articles and books translated in Swedish: http://www.preservationist-books.com/ I highly recommend his books, I think you would like them: “The Ideal And Destiny”: http://www.amazon.com/Ideal-Destiny-Richard-McCulloch/dp/096089280X/ref=asap_bc?ie=UTF8 “Destiny of Angels”: http://www.amazon.com/Destiny-angels-Richard-McCulloch/dp/0960892818/ref=asap_bc?ie=UTF8 “The Nordish Quest”: http://www.amazon.com/Nordish-Quest-Richard-McCulloch/dp/0960892826/ref=asap_bc?ie=UTF8 “The racial Compact”: http://www.amazon.com/racial-compact-rights-preservation-independence/dp/0960892834/ref=asap_bc?ie=UTF8
In these two articles he answer many claims in a very good way: “Interviev with Richard McCulloch “: http://www.racialcompact.com/interview.html “E-Mail from Opponents of Nordish Racial Preservation”: http://www.racialcompact.com/anti_preservation.html This should all nationalists read, it is on english in this number, “Creating a moral image”: http://www.instaurationonline.com/pdf-files/Instauration-1989-08-August-pt1.pdf
He also criticized the Jews who were (are?) with the American Renaissance, and what I think is what you call “scientism” in which he criticizes Rushton and others. Wilmot Robertson’s instauration magazine, The Number 1996 August.Page 6-9. You can download for free here as a pdf and read: http://instaurationonline.com/?p=658 All available online there. http://thecross-roads.org/rhetoric/25-the-myth-of-east-asian-intellectual-supremacys
Per Nordin 38
Posted by Carolyn Yeager on Sat, 14 Mar 2015 17:47 | # “Ok, please explain what I personify that is wrong with Sweden and why people like I can’t fix the problem?” - per nordin Since you are so dense, I will do one last thing and point it out to you. In #26 you wrote: “I can’t answer for Majorty Right, (to be honest I just found out about them) but I don’t want Sweden to be run be jews or other races, they should be send out of Europe. No question about that for me. But I don want genocide, war etc. Just a humane repatriating.” Just a humane repatriating. Good luck with that, Mr. Naivete. Do you think the Africans, Arabs and Jews (and the international Jews who want them in Sweden) are ever going to go along with repatriating? There would be a huge international outcry also. And where will they be repatriated to? What if the home country refuses them? This is vastly complicated if you want to be humane about it. The German National Socialists wanted a humane repatriating too. They tried to do that in every way and provided a lot of resources to it. But in the end, some force was necessary. Sweden would be subject to the same accusations that “Nazi” Germany was, and the Swedes would NOT be able to tolerate it. They would cave in immediately. This is the problem which you personify. So I’m afraid you are stuck with your Jews and Muslim rapists ... unless your entire mentality changes. 39
Posted by Carolyn Yeager on Sat, 14 Mar 2015 18:08 | # On the other hand, for the sane, it would seem a central theoretical objective would be to establish oursleves and our discreet kinds as nations defined by our biology and genetics and those not of our biology/genetics would fall outside of our nation, its obligations for care and residence.Then we might be able to take practical steps. Two platforms that I have been trying to promote, admittedly without much success thus far (though I believe they should have wide agreement) are these: http://majorityrights.com/weblog/comments/euro_dna_nation -DanielS
It’s only $99. If you don’t do it, what would be your reason not to? 40
Posted by DanielS on Sat, 14 Mar 2015 18:18 | # I plan to take a DNA test before long.. I was discouraged from using 23 and Me because it is a Jewish headed outfit, at least in part. But I might start with them first anyway. Another thing, you are assuming that only the Nazis would take action and fight. Most important at this point is that we organize and/or coordinate ourselves well enough so that we are not fighting each other. Again, this is a place where Hitler and the Nazis failed terribly.
42
Posted by DanielS on Sat, 14 Mar 2015 19:48 | # Per, this comment of yours was under moderation but I pulled it out because it is perfectly valid and I would like to get to answering it. You said:
But if I understand correctly, you are are critical to?: - Neo-Nazis, “Hitlerists” etc. Have I understood correctly? In that case, I agree with you, and there is a lot of these categories I see among “white nationalists” (or how to call it) both in Sweden and Europe and as well as in the United States. Another point I would like to add: - Immoral racists. Such driven by hatred of other races and not genuine love for his people and race. They do not think you should respect other races right to life, survival and their countries of origin, etc. I do not like these types. They will never gain support among the population, and in addition there is nothing I can in good conscience stand for or support. I take a middle ground between the two extreme sides. On the one hand, those who want to destroy my race through the forced mass migration, cultural destruction, etc., and those who want race war, offend other races in their home countries, talking about genocide and so on. Do you agree with the moral racism, or that which may also be called ethnopluralism? Then maybe you’d like Richard McCulloch and his work? He criticizes all the above. I have read quite a lot of books about race, but his philosophical works on the subject are the best I’ve read. As I said the absolute best philosophical works I’ve read about race and the like. His books are truly unique but unfortunately, few seem to have read them and they are sadly underrated. His website: Swedish website with articles and books translated in Swedish: http://www.preservationist-books.com/ I highly recommend his books, I think you would like them: “The Ideal And Destiny”: http://www.amazon.com/Ideal-Destiny-Richard-McCulloch/dp/096089280X/ref=asap_bc?ie=UTF8 “Destiny of Angels”: http://www.amazon.com/Destiny-angels-Richard-McCulloch/dp/0960892818/ref=asap_bc?ie=UTF8 “The Nordish Quest”: http://www.amazon.com/Nordish-Quest-Richard-McCulloch/dp/0960892826/ref=asap_bc?ie=UTF8 “The racial Compact”: http://www.amazon.com/racial-compact-rights-preservation-independence/dp/0960892834/ref=asap_bc?ie=UTF8
In these two articles he answer many claims in a very good way: “Interviev with Richard McCulloch “: http://www.racialcompact.com/interview.html “E-Mail from Opponents of Nordish Racial Preservation”: http://www.racialcompact.com/anti_preservation.html This should all nationalists read, it is on english in this number, “Creating a moral image”: http://www.instaurationonline.com/pdf-files/Instauration-1989-08-August-pt1.pdf
He also criticized the Jews who were (are?) with the American Renaissance, and what I think is what you call “scientism” in which he criticizes Rushton and others. Wilmot Robertson’s instauration magazine, The Number 1996 August.Page 6-9. You can download for free here as a pdf and read: http://instaurationonline.com/?p=658 All available online there. http://thecross-roads.org/rhetoric/25-the-myth-of-east-asian-intellectual-supremacys
Per Nordin 43
Posted by DanielS on Sat, 14 Mar 2015 20:26 | # And in response then: Great, you are very welcome. - Neo-Nazis, “Hitlerists” etc. Have I understood correctly? Yes, that would be basically correct. Fantastic and there is a lot of these categories I see among “white nationalists” (or how to call it) both in Sweden and Europe and as well as in the United States. I can attest to that being the case in The US and several countries in Europe.
- Immoral racists. Such driven by hatred of other races and not genuine love for his people and race. They do not think you should respect other races right to life, survival and their countries of origin, etc. This is the point of rejecting “supremacism” (e.g. Nazism). Separatists aren’t about exploiting people or trying to genocide them and deprive them of their country of origin. What we want, ultimately, is separatism, and we should not lose sight of that. These are often the less intelligent crazy people marching around with the Waffen SS uniforms or white sheets, but also more intelligent and intellectual, but who lack of good moral character, such as Dr. William Pierce talking positively about genocide etc. Indeed, it seems a lot of the over sympathy for Hitler in The US and elsewhere in the contemporary West is traceable to Pierce’s intelligent yet rigid and somewhat skewed conceptualization of events. It seems most American Hitler advocates cite him as an important influence if not the most important. I do not like these types. They will never gain support among the population, and in addition there is nothing I can in good conscience stand for or support. Metzger’s criticisms of him are good, about how he was a “right winger.” That critical outlook tends to hold together. To have support we need the moral high ground, along with care for our people and accountability - the moral high ground component is something that Nazis do not have; and there is no reason to not have it as our purpose is perfectly warranted. I take a middle ground between the two extreme sides. On the one hand, those who want to destroy my race through the forced mass migration, cultural destruction, etc., and those who want race war, offend other races in their home countries, talking about genocide and so on. Good. I do indulge in being acerbic with other races - particularly when I’m on my turfs and noting their aggression, I see it as necessary assertion; and as an American, I have always felt my right to free speech, while intuiting at the same time, that it calls for the judgement to not just say anything, anywhere. It is an important release and confirmation for those who are vulnerable, and have been under siege, to know that having to deal with these other races being imposed upon us can be the worst nightmare - our guys need to know that they are not alone in this repugnant experience, even if to date, they have not been free to speak and do anything significant in self defense. But yes, there are situations both where you should not be insulting (because you’d be endangering yourself either with the said group or with some draconian law) or where you do not want to be insulting - why would I want to go among the Kung Bushmen, oldest people on earth, and insult them? What a jerk I would be. Do you agree with the moral racism, or that which may also be called ethnopluralism? Yes, this is a pivotal matter with my White Left platform. Although, again, you might see fit to be more polite than I am. Still, I am leery of supremacists. I heard an interview recently and the guy was saying how Whites were superior to blacks. Well, I guess in some ways we certainly are, and in other ways, not. But to invite the comparison by tactlessly and provocatively proclaiming ourselves superior? I went to school with blacks. Some of them have remarkable coordination, hand eye coordination, etc. Physically strong, imposing, etc. Is this inferior? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MzvlivbptXk I don’t know. I am trying to encourage our people to get away from the equality/inequality paradigm and talk about qualitative differences between people (I will talk about this again soon), differences which make differences particularly between the races in suggesting separatism and a kind of respect. Don’t get me wrong, there is a part of me that would love to start firing away, and I am not a pacificst, but the basic issue is practicality - is it practical to go around engaging in futile interpersonal altercation, or trying to exterminate races? And, as you say, are we going to get people behind us if we are genocidal supremacists of that kind? We would lose the moral high ground as surely as we would in association with Nazsim. I believe there is a connection as to why Kant associated morals with practicality - critique of the practical. Then maybe you’d like Richard McCulloch and his work? He criticizes all the above. I have read quite a lot of books about race, but his philosophical works on the subject are the best I’ve read. Hmm. No, haven’t read him….might have heard Kelso reading some of his stuff on his old VoR show as he was putting Instauration on line… As I said the absolute best philosophical works I’ve read about race and the like. His books are truly unique but unfortunately, few seem to have read them and they are sadly underrated. His website: Swedish website with articles and books translated in Swedish: http://www.preservationist-books.com/ I highly recommend his books, I think you would like them: “The Ideal And Destiny”: http://www.amazon.com/Ideal-Destiny-Richard-McCulloch/dp/096089280X/ref=asap_bc?ie=UTF8 “Destiny of Angels”: http://www.amazon.com/Destiny-angels-Richard-McCulloch/dp/0960892818/ref=asap_bc?ie=UTF8 “The Nordish Quest”: http://www.amazon.com/Nordish-Quest-Richard-McCulloch/dp/0960892826/ref=asap_bc?ie=UTF8 “The racial Compact”: http://www.amazon.com/racial-compact-rights-preservation-independence/dp/0960892834/ref=asap_bc?ie=UTF8 Cool, will have a look.
Excellent, ok.
“Interviev with Richard McCulloch “: http://www.racialcompact.com/interview.html “E-Mail from Opponents of Nordish Racial Preservation”: http://www.racialcompact.com/anti_preservation.html This should all nationalists read, it is on english in this number, “Creating a moral image”: http://www.instaurationonline.com/pdf-files/Instauration-1989-08-August-pt1.pdf Alright, will look at that too.
Good, that sounds like our range. He also criticized the Jews who were (are?) with the American Renaissance, and what I think is what you call “scientism” in which he criticizes Rushton and others. Wilmot Robertson’s instauration magazine, The Number 1996 August.Page 6-9. You can download for free here as a pdf and read: http://instaurationonline.com/?p=658 All available online there. http://thecross-roads.org/rhetoric/25-the-myth-of-east-asian-intellectual-supremacys Excellent, yes, scientism is a problem and one I’ve talked about a lot (though Rusthon is not necessarily among the most culpable). So, I’ll be happy to take a look there as well.
Per Nordin Likewise Best Regards, DanielS 44
Posted by Franklin Ryckaert on Sun, 15 Mar 2015 04:02 | # @ Carolyn Yeager “Just a humane repatriating. Good luck with that, Mr. Naivete. Do you think the Africans, Arabs and Jews (and the international Jews who want them in Sweden) are ever going to go along with repatriating? There would be a huge international outcry also. And where will they be repatriated to? What if the home country refuses them? This is vastly complicated if you want to be humane about it. The German National Socialists wanted a humane repatriating too. They tried to do that in every way and provided a lot of resources to it. But in the end, some force was necessary.” So what are you suggesting? Please state openly what your “non-humane” solution is? 45
Posted by Carolyn Yeager on Sun, 15 Mar 2015 16:15 | # To Franklin Ryckaert Haha, you are such a manipulator. I am only saying that Per and your insistence on “humaneness” to enemies who intend to destroy you is ridiculous and can accomplish nothing. It is even said, quite often, that Hitler was too humane and that was his downfall. It is YOUR job to explain how your “plan” will work in more than the vaguest of terms. As far as I can see, your plan is to hope that the soft-right parties will come into power. Well, if they do, then we will see what they do. You, though, have no part in it and nothing to say about it, you and Per and Daniel who belong to no party or organization. You are merely spectators keeping yourselves safe. 46
Posted by Per Nordin on Sun, 15 Mar 2015 17:05 | # Daniel S , thank you for your answers. I’m glad to hear that we seem to be like-minded.
And of course, I understand that these forces will not allow us to liberate our country, I’m not naive. And of course, therefore we should prepare ourselves to defend our country, I say nothing else. Therefore, I myself have conducted military training and is active in that area. I wrote “as I want,” and how I wish it could be implemented, and I believe in that, but if it does not go the way I want and desire, I am ready if other measures must be taken. Clearly it will become violent in some way. It is already very political violence in Sweden today, and it will increase before and if we achieve victory, I’m not a bit naive about this at all. Compare the political revolutionary Marxists “AFA” in the United States, in America: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZZ6U8EgfjWs And then in Sweden: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2uRzQitmZVs In english: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U1MYMVfyHi0 What I can understand the political violence is much more prevalent against nationalists in Sweden than the US. In the US they seem to scream a bit, but in Sweden, the came to you in your home at night, throwing in bombs, beating, stabbing , even women, old people and children, they have no moral at all. I am well aware of this violence, and that it will increase. And we must defend our selves as individuals and our country and people. Both the domestic and foreign threats. Today the Iraqi government wants to have back their citizens, they have contacted our government and told it, the last few days. But our government does not want to send them back, they offer them free salary, ie contributions and they may build up their own homelands in our country. If it had been our nationalist government, we had suspended all grants and collaborated with the Iraqi government, and said, “Here, now, we will return your citizens, they are your responsibility now.” If there is war, and the like, they can stay until it’s more safe to return. They can stay in special areas or camps if necessary until they can be sent back home or some other place where they fit in. But this it can be done in a humane way, I think absolutely. And it is not naive to think that, I mean the swedish government and taxpayers already are paying immigrants money for safe and humane trips to vacation to their homelands, if they can do that, our future nationalist government can do that to, the only difference is that we will give a them one-way ticket home, but no ticket back to Sweden. “You are merely spectators keeping yourselves safe.” Maybe you should not speak about things, you do not have a clue about? You can answer Franklin Ryckaert simple question “So what are you suggesting?” For many it’s pretty damn easy to just sit and criticize others and tell what they are doing wrong, but more difficult to come up with their own constructive suggestions what should be done instead. And what these critics themself are doing about it. I would also recommend Greg Johnson’s great article on the subject: “The Slow Cleanse”: http://www.counter-currents.com/2014/06/the-slow-cleanse/ 47
Posted by Nice try on Sun, 15 Mar 2015 18:28 | # Carolyn said: “You, though, have no part in it and nothing to say about it, you and Per and Daniel who belong to no party or organization. You are merely spectators keeping yourselves safe.”
48
Posted by Sebastien Durant on Mon, 16 Mar 2015 00:18 | # Daniel, Have you considered interviewing Joshua Blakeney for MR radio? In spite of his Marxist beginnings, he’s developed a certain sympathy for the European/American New Right over the last year or so, interviewing the likes of Greg Johnson and Tom Sunic, and has arrived at more a universalist anti-zionist position not dissimilar to that of Soral or Dieudonne. An interview exploring his intellectual evolution, the left/right dichotomy and geopolitics/global power structures would be especially relevant to many of the themes MR takes an interest in. 49
Posted by Durant/Blakeney on Mon, 16 Mar 2015 07:41 | # Thanks Sebastien, We will take that under consideration. Perfect agreement with our platform is not a litmus test for an interview. However, I should listen again to the interview that he did with Greg - I did listen to it the first time it was posted at Counter-Currents, but its been a while. As nationalists we are rather in line with Salter and Greg, in fact, in not necessarily being against a literal Zionism of sorts for Jews - whether it is Israel or elsewhere, so long as it facilitates their separatism from us and gets them out of our hair. Perhaps Zionism being in our hair anyway would be his point and the point of the likes of Soral and Dieudonne - whom, as you know, I don’t much care for.
50
Posted by Franklin Ryckaert on Mon, 16 Mar 2015 08:05 | # @ Carolyn Yeager 1) It is strange for one internet activist to blame another internet activist for only being an internet activist. 2) Nazism has no chance whatsoever in modern politics. 3) The only hope for our future are the “soft-right” political parties. They have a real chance of winning elections and they all are dedicated to the restriction of mass immigration. That is the first necessary step. Of course stopping all immigration and starting repatriation need also be done. But that can only be done when the political climate has changed and that would be the next task of said political parties. 4) Deals could be made with the receiving countries to accept their citizens in exchange for extra development aid. 5) There would be no more need for violence than the occasional force used by the police in the removing of illegal aliens. 6) Instead of murdering all Jews (obviously your secret wish) they should be send to Israel. Israel will be happy to accept Jewish immigrants. For that to happen it should be made clear that Jews just like Gypsies are not Europeans. 7) The “soft-right” is not the final solution but the beginning of the solution. 8) The major argument for stopping immigration and starting repatriation should be the preservation of national identity and one should not try to hide behind “proxy-arguments” such as overpopulation, environment, or economical reasons. 9) Of course Jews, Liberals and non-Whites will accuse us then of “racism” or “Nazism”. That’s why it is so important to not appear as “racists” or “Nazis” and here comes the usefulness of the “soft-right”. 10) The situation in the US is different from that in Europe due to its system of two parties, both controlled by Jews. 11) The only hope for America as I see it is to imitate the Jews in lobbying and infiltration of existing institutions. 51
Posted by Per Nordin on Mon, 16 Mar 2015 09:11 | # The interviewing Joshua Blakeney did with Greg Johnson is the best interview greg has done. I really like what Greg had to say. “Etnonationalism for everyone” 53
Posted by Carolyn Yeager on Mon, 16 Mar 2015 18:24 | # Franklin R: I did not call you an Internet activist; I would not raise you to such a high standing. I wrote: “You [...] belong to no party or organization. You are merely spectators keeping yourselves safe.” You have a Blogger account but no Blog. The extent of your Internet activism is to write comments here and there. Franklin Ryckaert is not your actual name. There are no pictures of you. But you like to get your pseudo-name around the Internet as much as possible. You are not an “activist” by any stretch of the imagination. Why do you lie like you do? 54
Posted by Franklin Ryckaert on Mon, 16 Mar 2015 19:40 | # @ Carolyn Yeager Well Mrs Kahant (< Kahane?) ever heard about a writers pseudonym? Whether one considers daily posting (often very extensive) comments on various websites, “internet activism” or not is a matter of opinion. In both cases no “lies” are involved. You have a habit of deflecting attention to side issues when the debate becomes too inconvenient for you. So at long last, tell us what you would do with Jews and other non-Europeans in a “non-humane” way, compared to which even the Nazis were too soft. 55
Posted by Per Nordin on Mon, 16 Mar 2015 19:51 | # Yes, I think it time for you now Carolyn to answer the questions:
- “So at long last, tell us what you would do with Jews and other non-Europeans in a “non-humane” way, compared to which even the Nazis were too soft.” 56
Posted by Carolyn Yeager on Tue, 17 Mar 2015 02:53 | # I have no plan on how to rid White homelands of Jews and non-Whites. I never said I did. I leave that to the men. I think that as things stand now, it’s near impossible. However I think the “Hitlerian” National-Socialists showed the way and I have no complaint with what they did. You are the ones with the complaints, so it is up to you to come up with a better plan. As a woman, I just distinguish between the men and the boys. It’s all boys here. It’s interesting how you like to spend time arguing with me instead of taking on some real men. Although I admit, they are hard to find. 57
Posted by DanielS on Tue, 17 Mar 2015 04:27 | # Carolyn Said I think the “Hitlerian” National-Socialists showed the way and I have no complaint with what they did. You are the ones with the complaints, so it is up to you to come up with a better plan.” Well I do have a complaint with Hitlerian “national socialism” and what they did. So does anyone with a modicum of intelligence and decency. Still, it may seem ironic to you that I get along well with German nationalists (ones wise to the J.Q. etc) as I meet them passing through. What is so disappointing about the American input to WN is that I thought Metzger was more representative than he actually is. I was rolling up my sleeves and ready to get to work advocating all of our European peoples..not aware that this sewer line of Nazism was coughing-up all over the place through (mostly American, or American influenced) “WN” channels. If one is trying to marshal a cooperative effort amongst European peoples then Hitlerism is a failure from the get-go, as his world view turns Slavic peoples and other Europeans into enemies. It is plain. And it is a stupid, unnecessary shame that some so-called WN White advocates cannot see this. It is also an obnoxiously supremacist and militaristically aggressive worldview which would pass this off as “the way it is.” They were/are so over-the-top and tactless as to have played monumentally into stigmatization of the most fundamentally reasonable positions with regard to racial classification and management. We are coming up with better plans. Some people don’t want to hear these ideas. They want to hear Hitler and Jesus. They are so locked into these world views that they simply do not see what they do not want to see; and they tell themselves that taking a Hitlerian view is just another angle under the same rubric, we all have the same enemies and we should all be able to rally behind Hitler. White nigger Andrew Anglin says that he is not against Polish people. However, if you are for Hitler then you are against Polish (among other Slav and other European) people by definition. Period. I doubt that I am the only one who would not be sad if his head were cut off, dipped in polyurethane and mounted on a post on the Oder River. But Anglin and other Hitler advocates simply ignore the fact that there are people who are totally loyal to Europeans, that includes being loyal to Germans and German nationalists, of course, who feel this way about Hitler’s world view, so violently divisive and utterly disrespectful of other Europeans as it was. On the other hand, it is a perfectly reasonable WN position to say, “you know, Hitler had u, v and w right, but x, y and z wrong. There were reasons for his positions and errors in judgement but his mistakes were significant and fundamental enough so that we have to reject him on balance and as a leader.” That does not mean we cannot discuss some things that he had right. If, however, someone wants to be a German advocate only (a bad one at that) and endorse Hitler? At least that makes some sense. But don’t pretend to advocate All White people or all Europeans. While Don Black and Don Advo are dinosaurs, they are disappointing even with that excuse. Don Advo had one or two good ideas - White children as captives/slaves and his Constitutional Amendment was ok - but his and Don Black’s endorsement of the Hitler people is beyond irresponsible, it is utterly stupid. These guys along with Duke are saying we shouldn’t turn people off by cussing and using epithets, then they go around endorsing Hitler. Still, I’m more disappointed in Truck Roy. I’m guessing now that what he’s been passing-on as some of his own analytical gems may have been heavily coached by Horus (Murdoch) - who now has Roy more forthright in taking a “Hitler was really good, they just don’t understand” angle. Roy more or less confirmed that this was Horus/Murdoch’s angle in his last show. And he is becoming more bold in his endorsement of Hitler-heads Andrew Anglin, Renegade, Red Ice, Rodney Martin and wannabe Hitler-head Angelo John Ganucci. Metzger is right. The Right are full of people who are just too wacky and stupid. No normal person wants to fight other Europeans, but if you are left no choice then so be it. Those who advocate Hitler now, particularly with the advantage of hindsight, are the biggest traitors to our people of all. No good person is against Germans and German nationalism. And by the same token, no good person holds up and endorses Hitler as “our” leader. As Europeans who care about ourselves, we do have a common interest in preserving our people, first and foremost (I hate it when people say that there is “nothing to conserve”). Most radically, that requires separatism, theoretically and literally. That is well before any sort of repatriation can be entertained. One efficient means to do this (separate) to begin with, is to establish a confederacy of nations based on our genetics and assortment accordingly . This can then be combined with intangible factors to aid us in coordinating our efforts (rather than fighting each other) to take-on oppressors and interlopers, while we reclaim our lands and borders. In looking at some of the Nordic and “racial compact” discussion that Per Nordin is suggesting, I still see too much of the old right wing “golden rule” in there - of “doing unto others”... i.e., doing what we can to ensure their survival. It goes too far. These people should be happy if we leave them alone; and we can agree to do that if they will get the hell out. As for those who would choose to intermarry and breed with them, I am very thankful to Bowery and Renner for bringing me to the position that they should be compelled to go and live with them. They and theirs will suffer for it, perhaps even to the extent that I would really like to visit upon them myself, if I had my druthers. But we certainly should not have to suffer, pay for and sustain the consequences of these people’s choices. 58
Posted by End the Fed / seize their assets on Tue, 17 Mar 2015 06:41 | # caller named Tim made a good suggestion that we need to think more ab. focusing on ending the Fed (their limitless money printing supply) and seizing their assets. 59
Posted by Per Nordin on Tue, 17 Mar 2015 08:28 | # “I have no plan on how to rid White homelands of Jews and non-Whites. I never said I did. I leave that to the men.” Fair enough, I agree, but we men need women to support us in some way. And we do need women’s votes etc. ” I think that as things stand now, it’s near impossible. However I think the “Hitlerian” National-Socialists showed the way and I have no complaint with what they did. You are the ones with the complaints, so it is up to you to come up with a better plan.” Yes, well I have given a better plan. “As a woman, I just distinguish between the men and the boys. It’s all boys here. It’s interesting how you like to spend time arguing with me instead of taking on some real men. Although I admit, they are hard to find.” I take action. But it’s not just about taking action, it is about taking action in a smart and intelligent way. If you do it the wrong way, you risk damaging our cause, that bring they fight back rather than forward. See the madman Anders Behring Breivik. Yes, he really took action, and killed 70 brainwashed socialist youth who was for immigration etc. But in what way did this actions helped Norway’s struggle? Not at all, rather he has only postponed any success in Norway for many years, very counterproductive. I think Greg Johnson has written about this: http://www.counter-currents.com/2010/09/first-do-no-harm/ Maybe Majority rights could interview him about this? 60
Posted by Per Nordin on Tue, 17 Mar 2015 23:48 | # Hello again Daniel. “White nigger”, What is that? “Andrew Anglin says that he is not against Polish people. However, if you are for Hitler then you are against Polish (among other Slav and other European) people by definition. Period.” I agree.These new history falsification “revisionists”. The Nazis started out to forced deport civil Poles from their homes, and moved in ethnic Germans instead. Many civilians and innocent Poles suffered and died during the Hitler regime, and the Nazis did not care. “Still, I’m more disappointed in Truck Roy. I’m guessing now that what he’s been passing-on as some of his own analytical gems may have been heavily coached by Horus (Murdoch) - who now has Roy more forthright in taking a “Hitler was really good, they just don’t understand” angle.” I agree with you on nazis etc. But why are you defending Metzger? Tom Metzger? He is a supernazi himself? White Aryan Resistance, KKK, skinheads, etc, right? “In looking at some of the Nordic and “racial compact” discussion that Per Nordin is suggesting, I still see too much of the old right wing “golden rule” in there - of “doing unto others”... i.e., doing what we can to ensure their survival. Nordish you mean, yes. I do not understand your criticism against the racial compact? Where do it go to far? I think you misunderstand it. It is meant that all races have a right to life, in their own places on earth. And that no race has the right to violate any other race or people. For example it was wrong by the Nazis to violate the Poles’ rights to their land, etc. But that does not mean we have to fight for other races, or ensure that they have a certain standard, etc in their own homelands. The racial compact is about to respect our place on earth and that no race has the right to violate some other race. McCulloch wants to basically break the contact between the races, we should not be interdependent, economic or otherwise. We must always be on guard and be able defend our race and our home countries, if there are enemies who wish us harm. Not all will respect our racial rights. Best regards, Per Nordin 61
Posted by Greg Johnson on Wed, 18 Mar 2015 01:32 | # Here is Hitler on April 29, 1945, the day before his suicide, in the document known as his Political Testament, as translated by Mark Weber: “I have also left no doubt that, if the nations of Europe were once again to be treated as mere objects of commerce, to be bought and sold by these international conspirators in money and finance, then the people that is really guilty of this murderous conflict will also be held accountable: Jewry! “Moreover, I left no one in doubt that this time millions of European children of the Aryan nations were not going to starve, and millions of grown men were not going to suffer death, and hundreds of thousands of women and children were not going to be burned and bombed to death in cities, without the real guilty ones having to atone for their guilt, even if by more humane means.” I think the reasonable interpretation of this is that Hitler is defending the mass killing of Jews—by more humane means than firebombing and starvation—as a just punishment for the role of Jewry in instigating the war. None of this would have come as any surprise to Hitler’s followers, either, since even before the war started, he stated in his Reichstag speech on January 30, 1939: “In the course of my life I have very often been a prophet, and have usually been ridiculed for it. During the time of my struggle for power, it was in the first instance the Jewish race which only received my prophecies with laughter when I said that I would one day take over the leadership of the state, and with it that of the whole nation, and that I would then, among many other things, settle the Jewish problem. Their laughter was uproarious, but I think that for some time now they have been laughing on the other side of their face. Today, I will once more be a prophet: If the international Jewish financiers in and outside Europe should succeed in plunging the nations once more into a world war, then the result will not be the bolshevization of the earth, and thus the victory of Jewry, but the annihilation of the Jewish race in Europe, for the time when the non-Jewish nations had no propaganda is at an end. National Socialist Germany and Fascist Italy have institutions which enable them, when necessary, to enlighten the world about the nature of a question of which many nations are instinctively conscious, but which they have not yet clearly thought out. “At the moment the Jews in certain countries may be fomenting hatred under the protection of a press, of the film, of wireless propaganda, of the theatre, of literature etc., all of which they control. If this nation should once more succeed in inciting the millions which compose the nations into a conflict which is utterly senseless and only serves Jewish interests, then there will be revealed the effectiveness of an enlightenment which has completely routed the Jews in Granted, Hitler is quite vague about the steps that come between public enlightenment and the annihilation of the Jewish race in Europe. He left those details to Himmler. 62
Posted by DanielS on Wed, 18 Mar 2015 04:25 | # Dr. Johnson, thank you. That is surely an incisive culling and remark on how we might look upon Hitler’s worldview and where we might move forward rather than engaging in endless debate over details in order to recast him as perfectly innocent of having anything beyond the normal active combatant targets of war. Per, let me respond to your # 53 Hello again Daniel. “White nigger”, What is that? Hi Per, ‘White nigger’ is a term of derision that I applied to Anglin to indicate my strongest disapproval of his platform in conjunction with the fact that he does look like one of the first gradients in evolutionary transit from sub-Saharin Africans - but in seizing upon that by calling him a “White nigger” I am being harder on the physical manifestation of his qualifications for being White, or a White advocate, than I would otherwise be if not for his Hitler platform. There may be times and places where I ought to be more diplomatic, but in the current state of WN, apparently as it is influenced by the Swarm and the Bugsers, actors are disingenuously taking advantage of the notion that we should be diplomatic with fellow WN, “we can’t have all this back-biting among the struggle” - we can’t let a “little thing” like Hitler stand between us. They would try to portray people who reject Hitler as the disloyal ones, the undiplomatic ones, the ones who are not team players, the ones betraying us. While people like Metzger and apparently Dr. Johnson have the skill to modify their positions with regard to Hitler, in recognizing his generally inappropriate (not only cosmetically inappropriate) rubric for coordination of European defense, someone like Anglin, who is pandering and misguiding one segment of Europeans (ultimately, against others) does not merit being addressed as a scholar or leading exponent, but rather in the likeness of his merit, for the mess that he’s created in the face of much thoughtful and better work that has gone before and which should have and would have had him take a different tact had he been of better judgment. “Andrew Anglin says that he is not against Polish people. However, if you are for Hitler then you are against Polish (among other Slav and other European) people by definition. Period.” I agree.These new history falsification “revisionists”. The Nazis started out to forced deport civil Poles from their homes, and moved in ethnic Germans instead. Many civilians and innocent Poles suffered and died during the Hitler regime, and the Nazis did not care. Thank you for your sane observation. I only want to emphasize that it is not only Polish that I care about. I wind up having to defend them more than I’d like as they tend to be a convenient target (or oversight) as American WN has developed.
I agree with you on nazis etc. But why are you defending Metzger? Tom Metzger? He is a supernazi himself? White Aryan Resistance, KKK, skinheads, etc, right? You aren’t familiar with TT. I am. I’ve heard him over the years. He’s a good one. He is not addressing a scholarly audience (though he does and will draw upon scholarly types where they help) but those who are skilled in more hands-on, every day ways; and I am sure you will agree that we certainly need that kind as well. Nobody’s perfect; he has a quirk of being somewhat changeable and “contrarian”, to be polite; or “contentious” (inclined to disagree) if you want to be more critical. I believe that is one of the characteristics that has allowed him to survive. If you look beyond his foibles, you will find an active and agile mind there. I am not saying he should be the lone guru and he would say the same thing. But appearances can be deceiving and the Jewish media has been skilled in turning people off to him, misrepresenting him. Still, while I think he is quite good overall, there are a few things of his platform that I don’t agree with and I have tended to focus on those simply because it is more practical to start with the limited cases: 1. He signs off many of his shows with the statement that “there’s no such thing as equality” - which is what I do not think is helpful - but very little in the content of his discussions has to do with promotion of inequality - i.e., supremacism. 2. “Might makes right” is another one I don’t much care for, though there is some natural rigor to it that needs to be respected - in fact, Greg Johnson has provided the best rebuttal of the notion. Still in fact, Metzger has been adamant in saying that he is “a separatist”. That supremacism is characteristic of the right wing - e.g. they are the ones who betrayed White workers by bringing in African slaves to undermine their living wage, etc (many examples like that he will provide). I think recently he has been saying he’s a “supremacist” but I believe that goes, once again, to his contrarian provocation (now that everyone in WN is denouncing supremacism), it does not reflect his underlying position. I am absolutely sure he would not want to be bothered with slaves or exploiting people. His calling himself a supremacist is quit a bit like calling his organization “Aryan” - a provocation, as “nobility”, to piss the Jews off. He hasn’t been in the KKK since the early 80’s (doing it originally at the encouragement of Duke). Though he did see some potential in the UK’s skinhead movement after he left the Klan, and encouraged it in The US for a while, he began to see it as a negative life style and went on to tell kids to grow their hair and go to college. Metzger learns from his mistakes. With that, he got away not only from John Birch, but Christianity and Nazism. Like any intelligent person, especially one with part German ancestry (his mother), of course he has had affinity for these things and appreciation for the skills and good ideas that went into NS, but like any intelligent person he also took a step away and was able to look at their program and leader critically, and find them wanting on balance - destructive to all Europeans, including Germans. That is not to say that they did not have some good reasons, but they did not manifest properly. Metzger generally calls these things foibles of “the right”. I have come to see this perspective critical of the right, like a cat, falling accurately on its feet time and again. I have even seen where Metzger would do well to take it a little further even - to drop these, what are right wing affectations - 1. the equality/inequality paradigm 2. might makes right . Do you see the common denominator of these things? They are right wing where they are concerned for objectivity beyond race. 3. Some aspects of Nature’s Eternal religion (Creativity) would probably render it similarly obsolete, on balance, as well. Nevertheless, Metzger has always been an advocate of all Europeans. He rejects Christianity as destructive to European peoples; he denounces Hitler advocacy as divisive. I do appreciate his former side-arm, Wolf Wall Street, for keeping me focused on the J.Q., and of course Metzger is wise to the J.Q., all the literature; nevertheless, he sees beyond that to understand the complicity - either naiive or disingenuous - of our own White right wing. And more, he does not duck reality. He realizes that we need men to fight. He understands the dangers of that. He rebukes taking on futile and petty fights; and provides good advice as to protect those who would have aspirations to function in an effective, underground way.
.................. “In looking at some of the Nordic and “racial compact” discussion that Per Nordin is suggesting, I still see too much of the old right wing “golden rule” in there - of “doing unto others”... i.e., doing what we can to ensure their survival. it goes too far. These people should be happy if we leave them alone; and we can agree to do that if they will get the hell out.” Nordish you mean, yes. I have only given these materials a cursory look so far. I take it you agree that the Nordish thing goes too far in wanting to ensure the survival of other races through vigilant aid and effort on our part.
That is possible as I only looked at it quickly and maybe associated it with the Nordish one.
I agree with the essence of it under the silver rule, as an agreement that we can leave them alone in their lands provided they do not create spill over effects, but I am leery of the term “rights” as invoking universals beyond the particular and relative concerns of Europeans. And that no race has the right to violate any other race or people. For example it was wrong by the Nazis to violate the Poles’ rights to their land, etc. Again, I agree in essence, but am hesitant of the language of rights. That’s being a bit too picky in this context (your not being a native speaker of English, etc). Still, we are European advocates and we should get away from our obsequious, universal concern for all goddamn races. We need European advocacy. It nauseates me when Duke misuses this concept by beginning all of his shows by talking about how he cares for all races and their right to flourish, “rights for everybody”. It is obnoxiously tainted with Enlightenment universalism as it is, but what really galls me is when he tries to say that all European advocates should take this position - just as “none should curse, or use epithets” because it will turn normal people off…and then…to take the cake..I am having to control my temper now…. I’d like to use an expletive…. OK, I will. ...its bad enough that he does this where European advocacy is needed and these things should be in the background. But then you will hear Dr. Dick trying to justify Hitler in unanimity, never saying anything critical of him except perhaps in the most grudging way to get it out of the way as quickly as possible. I guess he knows where his bread is buttered. This is being a somewhat petty in light of the fact that Duke does get some good factual information about Jewish power and influence out there. He is good for that and when I listen to him it is for that; but NOT for “theoretical expertise” - in that regard, he is mediocre at best. But just as soon as I hope to get away from Duke’s over generalization of our cause, so too, I want to get away from the appearance that I care mostly and particularly (let alone only) about Poles. This is being a bit picky in regard of your comments as well, but I’d like to get a bit away from the particular example of the Poles as I have had to defend them a bit more than than I am comfortable doing, instead of defending all European groups, as I would like and as represents my motives. I have a piece on the negative side of Poles on the back burner, but have been unable to bring it forward as criticism and hatred of Poles is overdone by the Nazi POV and thus, in turn, in American WN. Europeans may not realize this, but I grew up in an America where the “stupid people jokes”, were Polish jokes. The mere mention of the word “Polish” had immediate connotations to a joke about stupid people and that was basically it, to begin. But where it may go further in historical inquiry, Americans already hear too much of the Nazi view, the negative and exaggerations of Polish culpability, at that. Its that German/Jewish ( no friends of Poles either) diatribe of America that sidetracks the Polish and other European points of view. This kind of antagonism can, of course, make Poles overly identified as separate from WN (I have not been able to get them to participate at MR) and other European nationalisms as well. I have to make a little post on a theory that I have about Dr. Sunic, that he is a good man and excellent scholar, but he is a bit over influenced by reaction against communism, Croatia’s suffering for it and the Serbian war, Croatia’s historical alliance with NS Germany against it, and thus having a bit too much sympathy for the Nazi POV; and too much hope for American WN in the form that it has been in that light, against what he calls “petty nationalism” (it is very strange to me how he tends to see Poland as an aggressor) as a reaction for him against communism in some instances (the non equality thing being a reaction). I confess to having been enraged by some of his tear jerking symphonies for Germans and German American audiences, which culminate in an exclamation of “we’ll see who gets it next time!” That is not diplomacy, it is veiled war mongering; while it is an understandable wish to have the Nazis on your side against such a horrific opponent (incl, the YKW, of course), these grievances with communism and Serbian nationalism must be taken into account as having created a grief that might color his view into the false either or of communism or Nazism and thus running too much the risk of getting Europeans caught up in war with one another instead of cooperating. But that does not mean we have to fight for other races, or ensure that they have a certain standard, etc in their own homelands. Good. Agreed. It’s not only fighting though, but help, aid, concern in general can go too far. With regard to non-interventionism and isolationism, not fighting for other races, yes. However, this notion of non-interventionism has been abused in WN, to where you are constantly hearing, very disingenuously, that America should have stayed out of WWII, that we were on the wrong side.. Neither Communism or Nazism were a WN side. I very much favor maintaining the word “Nazism” to distinguish between a rogue regime and misled adherents as opposed to normal Germans and German nationalists. Really, Hitler was only on a stilted and affected German side; he started the war and he should not have prosecuted opposition to Jews and Bolshevism in the manner that he did. The territory lost to Versailles was minimal in comparison to his response. The Nations in between Germany and Russia were all sufficiently anti-Soviet and anti-Jewish such that alliances could have been worked out - with difficulty, true, but surely not more difficulty than the war as it was prosecuted. That did not happen because Hitler did not want to cooperate with these nations, he wanted their lands and their peoples out of the way. You don’t hear about that because White America is so Germanic and Irish (I guess many Italian Americans and other White Americans fall that way too) and they simply do not hear much from the Belarusian, Ukrainian and Polish perspective. More, the right wing WN of America, such as Duke, can gain money and audience from pandering to the US demographics as they are (let alone by losing backing by implicating our affluent sell-out elites as well) and it becomes a circulating currency that seems to have more truth value than it actually does. So, what you get is a big false either/or - Nazis or Jews, or Nazism or communism. (White Negro Anglin apparently jumped on the bandwagon of this false currency, this false either/or as well) Neither represent Europe in full, authentic motivation
Well, that sounds good.
Per Nordin Best Regards, DanielS 63
Posted by Per Nordin on Wed, 18 Mar 2015 13:28 | # Hello Greg Johnson, Thanks for the post, glad to see you write here. I really like that you seem to take a stand against “revisionism”, it has really become something out of a political correctness in the nationalist movements in Europe and US. Good you criticize it. Best regards, Per Nordin
Thank you for your long answer. I appreciate it when people take the time to write long, and detailed answers. You write very interesting and probably have to read what you wrote again. There is a lot to think about and additionally in English. Thank god for google translate
Yes, that movement is even more extreme than the Nazis when they totally want to exterminate all other races around the globe. Obnoxious movement if you ask me. What is meant by “J.Q.” ? “I agree with the essence of it under the silver rule, as an agreement that we can leave them alone in their lands provided they do not create spill over effects, but I am leery of the term “rights” as invoking universals beyond the particular and relative concerns of Europeans.” With racial rights, only in the form of negative rights, we have no right to violate some other races right to existence, freedom and independence in their own home countries. With racial rights does not mean that other races are entitled to any rights of our race, and vice versa. It’s all about letting be other races and let them live much as they want. It does not mean that we have an obligation to help them because they have a right to our assistance, or vice versa. Do you agree? “Still, we are European advocates and we should get away from our obsequious, universal concern for all goddamn races.” Yes, we must secure the survival of our race and our interests first. Once that’s done, if someone wants to send away a penny of money or clothes and food to any blacks in the jungles of Africa, it is quite ok as long as it does not affect us, that it leads to mass immigration from Europe etc. But they have no right to demand our help by the government and vice versa and for help so it should be voluntary and not at the expense of our own race. Agree with me?
I agree that it sounds a bit tedious when he raises it in every radio shows and so on. It sounds like a matter of course for us and it need not be said every time. But we must remember that everyone who listens, is not like us. They may be completely new half brainwashed people, and then it’s good to have a “soft start”. Our people are in large parts completely brainwashed generations, and that our people, in all cases the nordish peoples especially have a natural what should I say altruism to the world of all nations and races. This long before the Enlightenment. The Roman Tacitus wrote about 2000 years ago that the Germans and Swedes were very friendly to other races and gladly welcomed strangers and so on. This long before one Jew existed among our ancestors. So it’s not just about brainwashing of Jews in the media, but our people are naturally altruistic, individualistic, at least much more than Arabs, Jews, Africans, and even so than the Spaniards, Greeks, Italians, Serbs, probably Russians too. This, I am convinced that Jews who have influence in the media, are well aware, they have probably studied our mentality and know what points they should press. They utilize our natural individualism of trying to do something destructive of it and try to distort it. We in the nationalist movement is perhaps somewhat unique compared to our other members of our race, and people. We might belong to the few who are naturally more inclined to be loyal to our own people and not as altruistic as the rest of the population. We are something that a subgroup within our own race and people. My intelligent and good friend in Sweden said to me, “Per, before we can talk about our people and our race’s interests, we must first start by talking about all the other peoples and races interests and rights to life, otherwise we will never be able to reach out with our message. “ And he’s right. Troubled that it should have to be so, but so it is. I think we are inside this “national movement” and most socialize with other like-minded, gets a little blind. But we must understand that the propaganda that we need to use is not intended to convince the already convinced nationalists, but to reach out to people who disagree with us, and then you have to use the rhetoric that David Duke is doing, and repeat it all the time , over and over. Remember, there is an ongoing soft genocide of our race, we need to make a soft salvation of our race, I think it’s the only way. The scenario for the solution described in Turner Diaries, or the like will never work. I think we have two options, either our race dies out into a soft genocide or so we manage to rescue it through the soft propaganda, the soft counter revolution. But then we must learn to talk to our people in terms they can understand and feel is right. If we don’t talk about racial rights and racial respect etc, we will lose. And for me it is not just tactics, but I believe in racial rights also. “However, this notion of non-interventionism has been abused in WN, to where you are constantly hearing, very disingenuously, that America should have stayed out of WWII, that we were on the wrong side..” Do you think the US stood on the right side and was good that they went into the war? “Neither Communism or Nazism were a WN side.” Agree. Was US at that time on WN side? “I very much favor maintaining the word “Nazism” to distinguish between a rogue regime and misled adherents as opposed to normal Germans and German nationalists.” Very good points, I agree. “Really, Hitler was only on a stilted and affected German side; he started the war and he should not have prosecuted opposition to Jews and Bolshevism in the manner that he did. The territory he lost was minimal in comparison to his response. The Nations in between Russia were all sufficiently anti-Soviet and anti-Jewish such that alliances could have been worked out - with difficulty, true, but surely not more difficulty than the war as it was prosecuted. Totally agree with you. In his second book “The Destiny of Angels”, McCulloch write about this. You would like to read that book. By the way, do you have a email address I can write to you? Best regards, Per Nordin
64
Posted by fnn on Wed, 18 Mar 2015 22:53 | # Likely a lot of the radicalism of American WN comes from the fact that groups that espouse normality are effectively barred from what is normal politics (i.e., electoral politics) in the West. So pro-whites are reduced to talking to themselves on the internet-with the inevitable result. The Whittaker stuff is not much of a substitute for a real party that can credibly contest elections. So not much can change until some group can get PR implemented in one or more promising locations in the US. 65
Posted by DanielS on Thu, 19 Mar 2015 06:20 | # FNN, interesting comment. Per, will feedback to your comment in moment… 66
Posted by DanielS on Thu, 19 Mar 2015 08:37 | # Hello Daniel S, Thank you for your long answer… No problem.
Yes, that movement is even more extreme than the Nazis when they totally want to exterminate all other races around the globe. Obnoxious movement if you ask me. There are good and bad elements to it. On the good side, it does have people focused on our race first and foremost…treating our race as our religion, which I think somehow is what we should do ..GW disagrees, at least somewhat, but that’s a long, quite technical discussion… On the negative side its mixed in with some outdated philosophy and, as I understand it, Nazism. I haven’t read it so I cannot comment too much on their plans for other races. Most of its exponents have come across like brainwashed cult members and a bit too Hitler friendly. This guy was one who came across more sane: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TMubg1W586I Still, I don’t think Creativity is sufficiently sophisticated. Not necessarily very far off the mark, though. ........................
Maybe I should not put it that way - as taken literally, Us or Them - but I don’t like saying Jew Jew Jew so much. When I use “the J.Q.”, I do not mean Us or Them. I mean the Jewish issue.
With racial rights, only in the form of negative rights, we have no right to violate some other races right to existence, freedom and independence in their own home countries. With racial rights does not mean that other races are entitled to any rights of our race, and vice versa. It’s all about letting be other races and let them live much as they want. It does not mean that we have an obligation to help them because they have a right to our assistance, or vice versa. Do you agree? I can basically agree.
Yes, we must secure the survival of our race and our interests first. Once that’s done, if someone wants to send away a penny of money or clothes and food to any blacks in the jungles of Africa, it is quite ok as long as it does not affect us, that it leads to mass immigration from Europe etc. But they have no right to demand our help by the government and vice versa and for help so it should be voluntary and not at the expense of our own race. Agree with me?
I agree that it sounds a bit tedious when he raises it in every radio shows and so on. It sounds like a matter of course for us and it need not be said every time. But we must remember that everyone who listens, is not like us. They may be completely new half brainwashed people, and then it’s good to have a “soft start”. Maybe. Or maybe he is just pandering with excessive liberalism and saying what he needs to say in order to cover his more narrowly ethnocentric Klan days.
That is one example of his being theoretically inept. He says we should go around calling people racists, or “the real racists”... Thus, like a sucker, legitimizing and reconstructing the whole anti-racist, anti classifying position that has been our downfall. That is dubious enough for his part, but to try to tell others to rail against “racism” ...forget it. Much better when accused as racist to take occasion to transform it to what we mean by it: we classify people and discriminate accordingly. Not only would Duke universalize his soft pandering, to mudshark soccer mom gate-keepers, or whomever, but its an obvious veneer for this not so slick used car salesman. He and his cohorts want to sell Hitler as well. Yet he claims we shouldn’t say “nigger” because that would turn people off. Well, a good and sane audience that might and should come around to our position, is not going to recoil from judicious use of the word “nigger.” But good people will reject his and his cohorts selling of Hitler. “Don’t say ‘nigger’ but Hitler was ok.” As TT says, that’s the right wing: idiots driving lemmings over a cliff. ................................ The Roman Tacitus wrote about 2000 years ago that the Germans and Swedes were very friendly to other races and gladly welcomed strangers and so on. This long before one Jew existed among our ancestors. So it’s not just about brainwashing of Jews in the media, but our people are naturally altruistic, individualistic, at least much more than Arabs, Jews, Africans, and even so than the Spaniards, Greeks, Italians, Serbs, probably Russians too. Good point. And its a subtlety of your perspective that has GW and I thinking that it could be good to have more of your observations from the Swedish perspective. ............... This, I am convinced that Jews who have influence in the media, are well aware, they have probably studied our mentality and know what points they should press. They utilize our natural individualism of trying to do something destructive of it and try to distort it. That goes along with my experience. I can believe that.
good feedback.
It’s a matter of judgment and an age old question of politics - how far do you go in order to be more popular without selling out your fundamental message. MR is more concerned with truth than popularity but the two are not necessarily mutually exclusive, ultimately. My intelligent and good friend in Sweden said to me, “Per, before we can talk about our people and our race’s interests, we must first start by talking about all the other peoples and races interests and rights to life, otherwise we will never be able to reach out with our message. “ And he’s right. Troubled that it should have to be so, but so it is. I think we are inside this “national movement” and most socialize with other like-minded, gets a little blind. But we must understand that the propaganda that we need to use is not intended to convince the already convinced nationalists, but to reach out to people who disagree with us.. That is one approach. And while I am talking honesty and truth, honesty and truth - particularly as overly focused on only one unit of analysis - are not always the answer, and of course not always the answer in war, especially the kind of war we are in (I guess the Nazis are over indulging in this license of dishonesty under the banner of war). As ghostwolf radio man advises, you might want to wage war by deception and say that “you’ve changed your ways, take each individual one at a time…believe fervently in the right of all other races to exist”.. That’s a bit of a digression. Perhaps for some people it is best to start off saying that you care for all other race’s right to exist. Personally, I would be more comfortable saying that we are not supremacists. Ultimately, our goal is separatism and sovereignty, not to exploit or kill people. and then you have to use the rhetoric that David Duke is doing, and repeat it all the time , over and over. Not all of the rhetoric that Duke is using, no. I hope you haven’t been sent here by Duke. Besides his egoism, his approach is simply not the best in all ways nor for all platforms of WN. I wouldn’t even bother to interview him let alone promote his platform. I’m going to have to bring TT back to MR radio in order to talk about Duke. Remember, there is an ongoing soft genocide of our race, we need to make a soft salvation of our race, I think it’s the only way. Maybe. GW might be more sympathetic to that than me. I have a soft side, maybe, but I am more comfortable with being hard. Still, it takes all kinds, and I would not try to exclude your view off hand The scenario for the solution described in Turner Diaries, or the like will never work. I haven’t read the book but I don’t know of anybody who is recommending that. Metzger is not. I think we have two options, either our race dies out into a soft genocide or so we manage to rescue it through the soft propaganda, the soft counter revolution. But then we must learn to talk to our people in terms they can understand and feel is right. If we don’t talk about racial rights and racial respect etc, we will lose. You are free to experiment with techniques for reaching people. But, for example, you will not necessarily gain the respect of blacks by not calling them niggers. And for me it is not just tactics, but I believe in racial rights also. A “right” is a social construct. It is not necessarily or naturally and factually true. Nevertheless, it can be good and real as an agreed upon rule. But, as I was saying, having intention to genocide other groups is not very practical, let alone to go around announcing plans to genocide other races or Jews. “However, this notion of non-interventionism has been abused in WN, to where you are constantly hearing, very disingenuously, that America should have stayed out of WWII, that we were on the wrong side..” Do you think the US stood on the right side and was good that they went into the war? Neither Stalin nor Hitler was the “right side” in that war. The right side is the WN side, which Hitler violated. Belarusian, Ukrainian and Polish nationalism were against the Soviets. Hitler betrayed them. The correct position would have been to fight both Hitler’s and Stalin’s imperialist aggression as they were at the expense of other European nations.
Agree. Was US at that time on WN side? Not exactly, but I’m not sorry that they helped to defeat Hitler. I respect the courage and sacrifice of the men and women who fought and defeated him. Even so, it’s the wrong question. In 20/20 hindsight, it would’ve been best had Hitler not conceived, initiated and conducted the war on the lines and in the way that he did. “I very much favor maintaining the word “Nazism” to distinguish between a rogue regime and misled adherents as opposed to normal Germans and German nationalists.” Very good points, I agree. I agree. “Really, Hitler was only on a stilted and affected German side; he started the war and he should not have prosecuted opposition to Jews and Bolshevism in the manner that he did. The territory he lost was minimal in comparison to his response. The Nations in between Russia were all sufficiently anti-Soviet and anti-Jewish such that alliances could have been worked out - with difficulty, true, but surely not more difficulty than the war as it was prosecuted. That did not happen because Hitler did not want to cooperate with these nations, he wanted their lands and their peoples out of the way.” Totally agree with you. In his second book “The Destiny of Angels”, McCulloch write about this. You would like to read that book. good.
Best regards, Per Nordin
I will try to contact you by email later today. 67
Posted by Per Nordin on Thu, 19 Mar 2015 21:39 | # Hej Daniel, Just som comments. “He and his cohorts want to sell Hitler as well. Yet he claims we shouldn’t say “nigger” because that would turn people off.” Oh, do David Duke sell Hitler? Is he a Nazi you mean? What is your evidence for that? I´m not saying you are wrong here, I just don’t know to much about him. Read one of his books years ago “Den judiska rasismen” ( Jewish Supremacism,) , ok book. And his videos are ok. But I think he wrote about “revisionism” and other things I didn’t agree upon, but don’t remember him defending Hitler. That is bad if he does that. I don’t like his radio program focus what like 95% of Palestinian rights and the middle east, instead of focus on the things that really matter more, and are the most important, our race survival in our own homelands. “Not all of the rhetoric that Duke is using, no. No hihi, Duke certainly has not sent me here, have never talked to him ever, I send one email to him ones, but never got a answer. If he wanted to send someone argue his case, he surely would send someone else here, than a Swedish whose english is far from the best, and who need google translate program “But, for example, you will not necessarily gain the respect of blacks by not calling them niggers.” True, but they are not our target audience and you are right, we will not get any greater respect by not calling them “Niggers”, but why should we provoke them, and don’t see any point with that, or how that would do us any good calling them “Niggers” etc. In contrast, we get very little sympathy and credibility from the people of our race in general, if we use such unnecessary insults . And we need their support. “The correct position would have been to fight both Hitler’s and Stalin’s imperialist aggression as they were at the expense of other European nations.” Agree. I guess that’s what the Poles did. “I will try to contact you by email later today.” Yes, lets talk more there, I have sent a e-mail to Majority Rights e-mail address, did you get it? Best regards, Per 68
Posted by DanielS on Thu, 19 Mar 2015 23:49 | # Posted by Per Nordin on March 19, 2015, 04:39 PM | # Hej Daniel, Just som comments. “He and his cohorts want to sell Hitler as well. Yet he claims we shouldn’t say “nigger” because that would turn people off.” Oh, do David Duke sell Hitler? Is he a Nazi you mean? What is your evidence for that? I´m not saying you are wrong here, I just don’t know to much about him. On several of Duke’s shows he has mentioned “what reasonable deals that Hitler offered to Britain ...and how all that he wanted were lands appropriated by The Versailles Treaty”. He has never denounced Hitler. He is a close associate with Don Black, who just yesterday had Andrew Anglin on his show, and stated that there was no conflict between his (Black’s) and Anglin’s website platform (Daily Stormer). On the show Anglin announced his main inspiration as “Mein Kempf” and how perfect he found the book. The Daily Stormer regularly runs Black’s shows; it runs some Duke articles, perhaps shows as well (I am not sure how much, I don’t go to the Daily Stormer every day). Don Advo from the Don Black show also heartily endorses Anglin and Duke at the same time. Don Advo has no big problem with Carolyn Yeager (who first brought him into WN attention on her show). And yes, a regular on Black’s show, named “Jay” (who gave ‘stromfront’ its name), considers “the H” a hoax as does Anglin, who considers it an entire hoax. Black, Don Advo, Jay and Duke are copasetic with one another. Duke is also in line with with the Bugsers - Whitaker and Murdoch - who, again, apparently take the line that “Hitler just has an image problem, but deep down he was really quite right.” That has roots in Rockwell, who was an early influence for Duke. Regnery backed people often seem to have that common denominator as well. Advo and The Bugsers are fine with “Renegade” (Hunt, et al), who unabashedly endorse Hitler and deny negative attributions and crimes of Nazi Germany. The examples go on…. Read one of his books years ago “Den judiska rasismen” ( Jewish Supremacism,) , ok book. I listened to the audio version. There was a bit of scientism, but basically an informative book. And his videos are ok. He can provide good concrete information and arguments against Jewish power and influence. His personality and backing, theoretical and otherwise are more dubious. But I think he wrote about “revisionism” and other things I didn’t agree upon, but don’t remember him defending Hitler. It’s mostly the case that over the years, you will never hear him say anything bad about Hitler. But yes, he will go into examples of how reasonable Hitler was, how he did not start the war, did not want the war, how terrible the Allies were..etc. That is bad if he does that. I don’t like his radio program focus what like 95% of Palestinian rights and the middle east, instead of focus on the things that really matter more, and are the most important, our race survival in our own homelands. Yes, that is the kind of thing that I was getting at about our needing European advocates for our people, our selves. He goes on about other people.. He is probably pandering to women with that. “Not all of the rhetoric that Duke is using, no. I hope you haven’t been sent here by Duke.” No hihi, Duke certainly has not sent me here, have never talked to him ever, I send one email to him ones, but never got a answer. If he wanted to send someone argue his case, he surely would send someone else here, than a Swedish whose english is far from the best, and who need google translate program smile
So, it appeared to me that you might have been encouraged to feel out what I think of Duke and his platform. “you will not necessarily gain the respect of blacks by not calling them niggers.” True, but they are not our target audience and you are right, we will not get any greater respect by not calling them “Niggers”, but why should we provoke them, and don’t see any point with that, or how that would do us any good calling them “Niggers” etc. In contrast, we get very little sympathy and credibility from the people of our race in general, if we use such unnecessary insults . And we need their support. Some platforms probably should not - e.g., Occidental Observer - just because it is out of register with their style and it displays a kind of theoretical rigor to make rational arguments without relying on highly emotive terms Some platforms probably should use it quite liberally. Mostly for reasons of European law, MR should not use it. But ideally, a theoretically cutting edge venue will use it, but judiciously. It depends upon the situation, audience and how you use it. However, when you are in a situation where you are forced to be among blacks and experience how harrowing, oppressive and exploitative that can be and you hear someone use the word “nigger” it is an enormous relief to know that there are people with sense despite this planet of the apes, people who are on your side and clearly are not pussies who are going to fall for all the bullshit that people who haven’t had meaningful experience of them might believe. It provides a warning to would-be mudsharks that it is dangerous and that blacks are destructive to us; we will not be rused by diminutive intellectual rationalizations as to how “sympathetic” that decision would be and those people are. More, it “others” them as a group, while anti-racism has been “saming” them, as not different from us and conditioning our people as such for many years. So, “nigger” goes against the brainwashing of the Orwellian crime speak/thought crime so central to anti-racism. Anti-racism is something that Duke endorses. Again, he defines it in the Jewish way, not in the way that holds together through all uses in the everyday - which means to classify people and discriminate accordingly, which is a necessary feature of perception, organization and life. I am not saying that the word “niggers” should be used injudiciously, but it is precisely for wanting to be nice to the Uncle Tom’s and the other more decent ones, and not characterize them for the pejorative aspect of their patterns, as niggers, that the gates are opened for the more dangerous blacks and patterns. This makes the Oreos more dangerous in a way, as gate openers, and shows why it is necessary to characterize the whole pattern. It is not about provoking blacks. It is a signal to our people, that they are other, an overall pattern that has too many dangerous, hostile and destructive elements to treat as trustworthy neighbors. “Nigger” should not be overused or injudiciously, but to not be able to say it is only evidence of its being a thought crime, which, as Sunic says, starts as a violation of speech and ends in violation of association and ultimately, “thought crime.” Whereas saying “niggers” can be an efficient way of creating awareness, voicing agreement as to their group as entirely other (not making the exceptions the rule, as liberals are taught to do), and signalling the way to distinction from them and separatism. “The correct position would have been to fight both Hitler’s and Stalin’s imperialist aggression as they were at the expense of other European nations.” Agree. I guess that’s what the Poles did. Well, the Poles didn’t have very good choices in the situation and I am certainly not saying that I would have acted with perfect courage and honor as some people on all sides did, or that I could not have gotten swept up in some of the less than honorable nationalist conduct that some people on all sides did. But what I will assert confidently is that it is 20/20 hindsight and nobody around is guilty of crimes that were committed then. If we’re to use 20/20 hindsight (as WWII revisionists hope to do), then why carry on, just because Stalin and communism was even worse, as if Hitler was “the good guy”, all negative things said of him were not true, when it was perfectly clear that he wanted Europe up to the Urals under German control and the Slavic peoples of those lands effectively subservient or out of the way (even though their fundamental nationalist components were anti-Soviet and against malign Jewish influence)? “I will try to contact you by email later today.” Yes, lets talk more there, I have sent a e-mail to Majority Rights e-mail address, did you get it? Best regards, Per Yes, OK. 69
Posted by Hail on Fri, 20 Mar 2015 03:01 | #
Think about this. You must know that in the White countries outside Europe, we find very many “Holocaust survivors” (these days, many more “children of..”; “grandchildren of..”). That is what happened to some of these Jews. It is really simple. As with most things, it was all part of a historical process. The shocks of the 1930s and especially 1940s sped up a process already happening among European Jews over the previous few decades: The Jewish emigration from Europe, especially out of Eastern Europe. I recommend the book “The Dissolution of European Jewry” on this, with its detailed analysis of Census numbers and emigration records. Jewish emigration was already strong before Hitler (millions lived in the USA already), but thenthe rise of the anti-Semitic Hitler, active persecutions by his government, and the general chaos in Europe in the 1940s, sped that up. Many of those 104,000-110,000 will have died, of course. Very likely most of the dead Dutch Jews died in the final terrible months of late 1944 and 1945, when the German war machine was in process of collapse, and the camps suffered in terrible conditions; I would note that this is at the same time as German civilians—and Dutch civilians, and hundreds of millions of others across Europe and Asia—were, too, suffering and dying, even of starvation in some cases. Civilian starvation in Western Europe in 1944 and 1945. This was a bad, bad time for everybody. As for extermination. Actually, the very tenets of the Big-H Holocaust faith prove it false: Anne Frank was not “exterminated”, but died of disease near the end of the war, about the time Christian civilians across the warzone were also suffering and dying. An unknown, but large, number of these Jews survived and when the opportunity came up they emigrated: to the USA, Canada, Australia, South Africa, the USSR, and so on—and to Israel itself, indeed. Where, exactly, do you think the millions of Jews now living in Israel came from? Some left Europe through Displaced Persons Refugee Resettlement programs, many of these organized by the USA and U.S.-backed charity organizations. Gentiles left Europe this way, too. There was no Facebook or anything at the time, so it was easy to lose track of people. Other changes their names for understandable reasons. The large number who probably ended up in the USSR, a closed society, add to the uncertainty. All this “gray area” of uncertainty allows Holocaust pushers to make claims like “110,000 Dutch Jews were exterminated”. Another thing is that I think very many of Netherlands’ Jews at the time of the German invasion in 1940 were only very recent arrivals, maybe refugees from places to the east between the late 1910s and early 1940. Why would people without roots in the Netherlands (some had lived there only a few years, or even less than one year(!), by the time of the invasion) stay in the Netherlands, when there was opportunity in the USA, Australia, or Israel? This would be strange, indeed, and is a typical dishonest trick by Holocaust pushers. So a very large number of Europeans in 1950 were living quite far away from the places they’d lived in the 1930s, by force or choice. We can ask “Where did they go?” for so many communities across the map—But nobody ever asks (certainly not as a general political question, or a quasi-theological question), except about the Jews. How did you hear that “104,000-110,000” Jews from the Netherlands “did not return”? How many Christian Dutch were lost in the war, to all causes? Did anyone ever bless a magical number of Christian Dutch who died? No? Why not? Does anyone (except descendants of the dead) even care about this figure of dead Christian Dutch at all, except as trivia? The Netherlands was only briefly a warzone, though, and the USSR was nowhere nearby. Let’s ask how many Latvians died in the 1940s? Finns? Christian Poles? Christian Ukrainians? Hungarians? And so on. Only the Jews’ losses matter, lied about for decades, grotesquely inflated for decades (the real Big-H Holocaust ideology was only really born in the 1970s). Finally let me ask this: The 25%+ ethnic Latvian population reduction during the 1940s, “Where did they go?” A more reckless person would say the Soviet Communists killed up to 30% of an entire nation including many of its best, a true atrocity. Scholarly inquiry says that most of this population reduction was to emigration, though, to escape life under the USSR, while some were killed (about 10% were killed, 15%+ emigrated, I think it was). This kind of sober analysis is not allowed under the Big-H. 70
Posted by Hail on Fri, 20 Mar 2015 03:41 | #
A much more reasonable interpretation of the statement is that “more humane” means the mass imprisonment of Jews and total denial of basic civil rights, and then deporting them from Europe. Saying that “more humane” is a code for “mass killings” is really the height of word-gamery. The above is much more reasonable an interpretation because the long-standing stated goal, the actual Final Solution, according to all the top members of Hitler’s government interrogated on this subject, was imprisonment and forcible emigration, mass deportation. In such a process amid a war, many inevitably die. Something remarkably similar happened in the eastern German territories. Stalin’s Final Solution was the deportation of Germans east of the Oder-Neisse Line. This occurred. Of the twelve million who were expelled, quite a few died. This is all about “control of the narrative” and almost nothing more. If Stalin had ever produced a similar, rambling, 1,500-word document (as Hitler’s final testament was) stating in a single sentence therein that the expelled Germans of the east deserved their fate for being aggressors against USSR, in an alternate reality, people might use that single sentence to claim Stalin committed genocide against the Germans; in that alternate reality, if Hollywood came out with two or three movies a year about how evil the Soviet Communists were and how heroic its victims were, people would accept all proof of how evil Stalin was. (In our reality, I almost cannot even name a single movie in which the Soviets are shown as the villains in that era.)
71
Posted by Hail on Fri, 20 Mar 2015 04:36 | #
Correction: “people would accept all proof of how evil Stalin was and that Stalin ordered, organized, led, and committed a genocide of Germans.” Digging through the archives, I’m actually sure someone could find a statement of this kind in which Stalin justifies expulsions of the Germans. This is the equivalent to what Dr. Johnson has done above. There are people who use this kind of rhetoric (genocide of the eastern Germans) today but they are fringe figures. The large majority of people have never even heard of the post-war prison camps and the mass expulsions of Germans and the killings associated with those events. There are so many other examples. But never forget: Only the Jews matter. 72
Posted by DanielS on Fri, 20 Mar 2015 07:20 | # A tip to the reader, “Hail” has just dumped three piles of bullshit in order to distract from better comments above. It is obvious that this commentator is motivated by a land grab; disgruntled that Germany suffered a land penalty of its (at that time) eastern part; for having not been satisfied with small concessions on the Polish border and attempting, at enormous human expense, to take lands and move aside Slavic peoples up to the Urals in favor of Germans. It is too bad they could not have been satisfied with the borders as they were, or close to it, after Versailles. But they did have plans for territorial aggrandizement far beyond and including those territories of the nations that could have otherwise helped to ensure that any Soviet invasion was repelled. In losing land up to the Oder, Nazi Germany got a penalty that it deserved. Sorry pal. The deaths on all sides are tragic, but complaining about the borders now is war mongering and entails all the pseudo justifications that you try to muster.
Greg Johnson
http://www.counter-currents.com/2015/03/heidegger-on-nietzsche-metaphysics-and-nihilism/
73
Posted by Graham_Lister on Sat, 21 Mar 2015 00:25 | # In The Tree of Life, Malick seemed to ask (himself and his audience), “What is the relationship between individual memory, collective memory, the past, and history? Between remembrance and recovery? Where are the points of connection or intersection between these elements, and where do they diverge? How can the experience of any single human life be meaningfully situated within the context of not just human history, but the existence of the universe? Of course, Malick does not, in the space of 139 minutes, fully or directly answer all of these pressing points. But in his intense seriousness of purpose, Malick is closer to, say, Augustine writing his Confessions than he is to most of his contemporaries. Near the end of the fourth century, C.E., Augustine wrote, “Great is the force of memory, exceedingly great, O my God, a spreading limitless room within me. Who can reach its uttermost depth? Yet it is a faculty of my soul and belongs to my nature. In fact I cannot totally grasp all that I am. Thus the mind is not large enough to contain itself: but where can that part of it be which it does not contain?” This introspective passage from the tenth book of the Confessions sounds remarkably akin the poetic musings of Malick’s characters, whispered in voice-over and as if in prayer, on the film’s soundtrack; the sense of perplexed wonder that Augustine expressed with regard to the elusive power of memory. . . Full article here https://mubi.com/notebook/posts/terrence-malick-theologian-the-intimidating-exhilarating-religiosity-of-the-tree-of-life-and-to-the-wonder 74
Posted by Jeremy on Sat, 21 Mar 2015 00:54 | # Very interesting interview. Thanks for it. One thing I’d add though is that the Jesus-like divine figure predates both Buddhism and Pythagoreanism. The Jesus-like divine figure and many of the same or very similar details can be found not only in the Buddha but also in Krishna, the Egyptian gods Horus and Osiris, Mithras, Dionysus, Prometheus, etc. It seems that this basic divine figure or template was a familiar and traditional one in the broader Near Eastern - Mediterranean - Hindu Kush cultural area. Also, it wouldn’t be accurate to say that the Pythagoreans were rational and logical in the way we understand it today and to contrast them with religion and mysticism. The Pythagoreans themselves were a secretive, religious cult with mystical views. They had strange views such as prohibiting the eating and touching of beans, and a lot of their mathematics were more like numerology than what we’d regard as rational or logical mathematics. 75
Posted by Carolyn Yeager on Sat, 21 Mar 2015 01:42 | # DanielS writes (#71) What better comments? His love exchange with Per Nordin, maybe? Hail’s are the best, most informative comments in this thread - and DanielS [DS] calls them “bullshit.” This tells us that DS has his bullshit meter backwards - it is his very numerous comments (some under different names) that are BS. DS=BS, lol. I found Hail’s reply to Franklin Ryckaert [FR}especially good (#68) because it takes a lot of patience to gather and organize this information. Most people don’t have it so kudos to Hail! [Whoever he is, I don’t know.] We can’t forget that FR is concerned with accounting for the life of every last Jew ... IF he thinks their disappearance can be blamed on “Nazi” Germany. He is motivated by hatred for Adolf Hitler ... not a good basis for deciding on the truth of the so-called Holocaust of the Jews. I am always asking why FR cares so much about Jewish survival. And we know that as soon as the name Hitler comes up, Jews go berserk. Maybe FR could explain himself? 76
Posted by Greg Johnson on Sat, 21 Mar 2015 05:51 | # Hail, is it your view that Hitler believed that the Jews were responsible for a war in which millions of Germans had been shot, bombed, burned, and starved to death, and that it was his view that a just punishment for causing such a war was to deport Jews from Europe, and to give them food and medical care in the process—while his own German people lacked food and medicine? Because I think that most people might consider that absurdly lenient. Is it your view that when Hitler spoke of the vernichtung (annihilation) or ausrottung (eradication) of European Jewry, he was using those terms in a sense that fell far short of actually killing them? When one annihiliates rats or eradicates weeds, do they usually survive the process? Can you show me a place where Hitler said that he meant a wholly gentle and humane form or eradication or annihilation? Because surely he had to know that some people might think he meant killing people. If that was contrary to his intention, surely he took some pains to make that clear. I would like to get a sense of how revisionists handle what seem to me simple and naive questions.
77
Posted by Carolyn Yeager on Sat, 21 Mar 2015 14:51 | # “I would like to get a sense of how revisionists handle what seem to me simple and naive questions.” -GJ I’m not trying to speak for Hail, but I would like to tell Greg Johnson that if he wants to get a sense of how revisionists handle this issue, he should read some revisionist books, which he has not done. He seems to think it’s sufficient to just listen to or quote Mark Weber, who has lost all standing and respect in the revisionist community. Take some responsibility for informing yourself on this issue, Mr. Johnson, before you start claiming to know anything. For instance, Hitler’s public rhetoric tended to be a lot more heated than his actual policies. But also, you are constitutionally unfit to grasp the mind of Adolf Hitler. You will never think like him. 78
Posted by Franklin Ryckaert on Sat, 21 Mar 2015 15:09 | # @ Carolyn Yeager Holocaust revisionists want us to believe that the Nazis, who killed 200,000 of their own people in their Euthanasia Program (“Aktion T4”) and were prepared to kill some 30 million Slavic Untermenschen to create Lebensraum for themselves in the East, suddenly became utterly humanitarian when it came to “solving the Jewish question”, and that while the Jews were the group they hated most. That alone should raise suspicions when revisionists try to convince us that the plan was merely to “resettle” the Jews in the East. It is true that many testimonies by Jews about the Holocaust are ridiculous and that for many assertions no physical evidence can be found, still the fact remains that millions of Jews were deported and did not return and that for their absence no explanation can be found. Holocaust revisionism is incomplete without accounting for these missing Jews. Thank you Carolyn Yeager for suggesting that I am a “crypto-Jew” for caring for human lives, even of Jews. Perhaps I’m also a “crypto-Slav” for caring for the lives of Slavs! You had recently a program with the title “National Socialism without Hitler?” 79
Posted by Greg Johnson on Sat, 21 Mar 2015 16:55 | # @Franklin: There is no reason to think that Hitler and the Third Reich planned to kill 30 million Slavs. That is just Allied Propaganda. But it is certainly true that the Table Talk indicates that Hitler wished to colonize Russia and Ukraine and reduce the inhabitants to little more than helots or serfs. @Carolyn: I prefer a dynamic conversation rather than just looking at a static text. Perhaps you can recommend some reading on this issue, or copy-paste material, or even post links. Given that Hitler must have known that some of his underlings might have interpreted vernichtung (annihilation) and ausrottung (eradication), if that was not his intention, surely he would have explained that somewhere. Can revisionists point me to a source? 80
Posted by Greg Johnson on Sat, 21 Mar 2015 16:56 | # Correction: Given that Hitler must have known that some of his underlings might have interpreted vernichtung (annihilation) and ausrottung (eradication) as killing, if that was not his intention, surely he would have explained that somewhere. Can revisionists point me to a source? 81
Posted by Carolyn Yeager on Sat, 21 Mar 2015 18:03 | # To Greg Johnson: This is where you don’t get it. No National-Socialists would have interpreted it that way, as killing, as you seem to think they would. Even the Allies didn’t interpret it that way at the time. Only the Jews do so ... and dishonestly too. Stop wanting everything handed to you on a silver platter, with no work from yourself. It’s up to you to prove that Hitler meant that and did that. Your “reasoning” about it is inadequate as “proof.”
Hitler was not considered “infallible” by anyone in the Third Reich; that is a misunderstanding of the Leader Principle. You are full of misunderstands (to put it generously), but you do not wish to clear them up. They might interfere with your sense of morality. 82
Posted by Greg Johnson on Sat, 21 Mar 2015 18:24 | # @Carolyn RE silver platters. You and other revisionists support a certain position. I am asking you to convince me of it. That is not an unreasonable request. Your request, however, is unreasonable. Basically, you are asking me to convince myself of your thesis, because you are unwilling to provide me with an argument. But it is your thesis. So it is not unreasonable to ask you and other revisionists for a defense of it. 83
Posted by Carolyn Yeager on Sun, 22 Mar 2015 02:35 | # I’m not asking you to do anything. You say incorrect things, make unsupported assumptions, and when I point that out you respond that I am required to convince you of why you are in error. I am not. Be in error if you wish. As Heinrich Himmler said of the treasonous clique originating in the General Staff in an August 1944 speech: “But if you are a hair-splitter or word-splitter, of course, you can make any order into something else.” That is what you are doing. I, on the other hand, accept Hitler’s words as they were meant in the German manner of speaking, especially since the “more humane method of murder” (by gassing) did not take place—cannot be shown to be in the realm of reality. Also, I think Hail gave you a complete answer in #69. By not accepting it and asking him to repeat himself, you show yourself to be unreasonable. 84
Posted by Carolyn Yeager on Sun, 22 Mar 2015 02:50 | # GJ, FR, DS, GW and CL too— Take a look at this, just out ... compliments of the Jewish Anti-Defamation League. This is what you support with your “the holocaust happened” beliefs ... and your concern for morality even regarding Jews. It’s so touching. However, Jews won’t be concerned with morality regarding your progeny—although it doesn’t appear a single one of you has any progeny. 85
Posted by DanielS on Sun, 22 Mar 2015 05:54 | # Carolyn, Neither you nor Hitler have any progeny. GW has a daughter. I am in the process of looking for a suitable mate to have a child or two with. ..don’t know about the other guys. I certainly am not supporting any holocaust training courses. I am not even particularly interested in the subject at this point and only take-it-on to prevent people like you from associating and hindering our struggle for European sovereignty with unnecessary and egregious lies. You’ve delegated yourself as an attack dog, similar as Carville was for Clinton. “Hair-splitting and word splitting” is a projection of what you and your Hilter-head cohorts do, to no end, in order to side-track our cause into your bullshit. Look at how the Bugsers have got Angelo John Ganucci and Elana talking at Red Ice http://www.redicecreations.com/radio3fourteen/2015/R314-150320.php They really believe Hitler was totally cool and really just misunderstood thanks to creepy “revisionist” bullshit artists like you. They are talking about how “natural” NS Germany was. Thankfully, Graham Lister provides yet another, articulate argument against the idealization of modernity and the “wailing modernist” quest for the state of “raw nature” - its brutish, anti-social state is not our human condition; although Hitler may have pandered to stupid and crass women with this kind of shit to ultimately incite a headlong groundswell to European catastrophe. You think Nazism illustrated natural born leadership. Obviously, the opposite is true. These were characteristic followers, capable of logic without sufficient judgment. That their judgment was overcome was not entirely their fault. They were experiencing something like an allergic reaction to the Jewish virus. Nevertheless, better immunities and stability against these attacks are necessary. We are social creatures immersed in a moral order that is in the process of being sorted-out from the affectations of Jewish and other impositions, including the run-away reactions of Nazism. And it is no coincidence that arguing with you and other Nazis - because it is a reaction - is very much like arguing with Jews. Even so, this is a war that we will not lose and cannot lose on account of the tactless and anti-social, for the impervious foolishness of Nazsim, of people like yourself, of Hitler’s uncaring for the whole of European peoples - as he was not especially European himself, Europeans as a whole were not his interest (especially not R1a). Hitler was constitutionally unsuited to be a leader of Europeans and predictably only led to disaster for Europeans. 86
Posted by Greg Johnson on Sun, 22 Mar 2015 09:28 | # Carolyn, I don’t think that Hail offered a convincing argument. As I argued above, it does not pass the test of common sense plausibility. What really happened in WWII is a merely academic question to me, since I do not base my case for White Nationalism on what Hitler did or did not do. Even if the Holocaust is everything it is supposed to be, it does not undermine the truth of the ethnonationalist idea. The best answer to the Holocaust is to cease caring about it altogether. 87
Posted by Franklin Ryckaert on Sun, 22 Mar 2015 09:48 | # @ Carolyn Yeager {83} ”...This is what you support with your “the holocaust happened” beliefs…” That is a classical example of the fallacy of the false dilemma : http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/False_dilemma “Either you are with us or you are with the enemy”. But I’m sure none of us supports the Jewish Holocaust Indoctrination Program, independently of what we ourselves believe of the Holocaust, because we all understand full well why the Jews are pushing this program. In the first place it is to attain the status of immunity of criticism for themselves, and in the second place it is to discredit any form of pursuit of racial interests for Whites, so that they can continue to control, exploit and ultimately destroy us. The question whether the regime of a certain European country in recent history did massacre Jews or not is irrelevant for our right to survive. Therefore we should feel free to investigate what really happened. If Hitler had confined his reforms to Germany alone, without trying to expand at the cost of other European peoples, he could be a source of inspiration for all WNs. Inter-white racism and inter-white colonialsm is unacceptable for all non-German peoples, it is even unacceptable for modern Germans, so what are we talking about? 88
Posted by Graham_Lister on Sun, 22 Mar 2015 13:23 | # Greg I think you’re essentially right. The continued existence of say the Catalan people as a particular bio-cultural phenomenon in no way falls or stands by the historical events we are discussing. Jews and their inverted opposites (oxygen thieves of the worst sort) both assert the utter centrality of those events in human, and even no doubt, cosmic history. Both are engaged in 5th rate quasi-theological come ideological ‘arguments’ that have as much genuine relevance to European well-being as debating how many angels can sit comfortably on the head of the pin. For the Jews they exclusively claim ownership of both the Holocaust (not true the sense that other groups also suffered greatly under the Nazi regime) and hence, effectively, a monopoly on victimhood and human suffering. All the crap about the ‘unique’ nature of those events, in itself is a bogus and ideologically driven move, which in turn they ruthlessly exploit for futher ideological ends. This is doubly offensive as any observer of the human condition knows, there is plenty of suffering to go around and secondly the hyper-exploitative use of their own people’s suffering to give Israel a metaphorical blank cheque, shakedown money from Swiss banks etc., is so insidiously repulsive even fellow Jews call it out for the grubby conduct it is (Finkelstein’s book on the H industry most obviously). But the mouth breathing F people agree with the cardinality assertion. That yes the Jews are the alpha and omega of human history (whoops there goes that idiotic monomania again) and an attitude along the lines of “yes events under a particular German regime would have been the most important thing in history had they occurred, but they didn’t, however we would love to try to implement such ideas asap”. Which of course can only appeal to the psychologically abnormal and very low IQ types. The other thing about the F people is their stupidity come wilful intellectual dishonesty. The Nazi regime lasted less than 20 years, was responsible, directly and indirectly, for the deaths of millions of bona fide Europeans including Germans. That’s pretty strong empirical evidence via a ‘natural experiment’ that the model of politics and society that Hitler lovers propose is fundamentally flawed. Scientifically minded folk tend to respect such powerful empirical evidence. But the more ‘theologically’ minded can attempt to rationalise anything away in order to save the faith. Hey man ‘real’ liberalism/free-market economics/fascism/socialism/communism etc has ‘never’ been tried etc. I find such people and their way of ‘thinking’ to be extremely tiresome. And as they are at root engaged in a quasi-religion come ideological faith their obvious intellectual dishonesty prevents any constructive or positive dialogue - well mocking them can be deeply funny but hardly the best use of one’s time. If someone doesn’t embrace the very basic habits of intellectual honesty namely respect for evidence (all the relevant evidence) and the concept of falsification and falliablism then frankly I will not waste my breath, or typing upon them. I don’t mind honest mistakes or shortcomings in knowledge and understanding as these apply to all human beings, but it’s the damn intellectual dishonesty that I find the worst vice. I literally cannot stand such people. For more on my thoughts as to why fascism of any sort cannot work see my essay here http://www.majorityrights.com/weblog/comments/the_ghosts_of_the_suffered 89
Posted by Carolyn Yeager on Sun, 22 Mar 2015 17:21 | # “GW has a daughter. I am in the process of looking for a suitable mate to have a child or two with.” -DS LOL. You won’t have any more success with that than with anything else you’ve done. Please inform us when your first child is born ... if any of us are still alive. So GW is a one-child family man - that doesn’t create any population growth for his beloved White Britons, does it. So typical of White Nationalists not to want the responsibility of a family. “You’ve delegated yourself as an attack dog, similar as Carville was for Clinton.” What a ridiculous statement. I try to preserve the truth from attack by the likes of people such as yourself. You are also a copy cat, DS - you take my words and turn them around against me or someone else. You have zero originality. Graham Lister is an excruciating bore. He fits in here perfectly. 90
Posted by Greg Johnson on Sun, 22 Mar 2015 17:39 | # Graham, I disagree regarding National Socialism and Fascism. They did not fail. They were destroyed by the Allies and international Jewry, who were threatened by them because they showed signs of being fantastic successes. Hitler was not solely or even largely responsible for World War II. The British and the French started WWII. Hitler started a war with Poland, over German territories held captive by Poland. He started the war after exhausting negotiations for a diplomatic solution. We now know that the Poles would not made a deal because they believed false promises made by the British to protect Polish territorial integrity. The bad faith of the British is proved by the fact that they declared war on Germany for invading Poland but not on the USSR, which also invaded Poland. Obviously, Polish territorial integrity did not matter. What mattered was a pretext for war, which the British manufactured merely by throwing Poland into a two front war that caused unimaginable suffering. In short, Hitler may have started a war with Poland, but the British made sure he had no other choice. Hitler attacked the USSR, a regime that should have been exterminated on principle by all European powers, just in time to save all of Europe from a massive Soviet invasion. Yes, Hitler had evil colonial intentions toward the Ukrainians and the Russians. But it is a lie of Allied propaganda that he planned to exterminate 30 million Slavs. On balance, I think that Hitler was the greatest statesman of the 20th century, and a genuine “Great Man” of history. Those who are interested in exploring this further should read my review of Russell Stolfi’s Hitler: Beyond Evil and Tyranny http://www.counter-currents.com/2013/05/r-h-s-stolfis-hitler-beyond-evil-and-tyranny-part-1/ 91
Posted by DanielS on Sun, 22 Mar 2015 17:56 | #
“GW has a daughter. I am in the process of looking for a suitable mate to have a child or two with.” -DS LOL. You won’t have any more success with that than with anything else you’ve done. I’ve had my successes dear. And there is no way that you would give me credit for anything, so your opinion is worthless. Please inform us when your first child is born ... if any of us are still alive. I don’t need to inform you of anything. I think there is a good chance you will be dead before my first one is born. LOL. So GW is a one-child family man - that doesn’t create any population growth for his beloved White Britons, does it. So typical of White Nationalists not to want the responsibility of a family. What do you know of the reasons he has for having one child? Its obviously none of your business anyway.
What a ridiculous statement. No. It’s true. And you are invited to leave. Bullshit. You are also a copy cat, DS No I am not Carolyn. you take my words I take your words? are you crazy? and turn them around against me or someone else. Not an accurate assessment dear. But I don’t care because I don’t respect your opinion. Really not true. But I am not going to itemize my more original ideas. Who the fuck are you? Nobody. Graham Lister is an excruciating bore. He fits in here perfectly. Not a bore, and plenty welcome here.
92
Posted by Carolyn Yeager on Sun, 22 Mar 2015 18:04 | # “Carolyn, I don’t think that Hail offered a convincing argument.” GJ #85 Naturally, nothing would be since your mind is already made up, without reading a single serious revisionist text about it. As everyone knows, you think you can argue any point of view, on anything, and win because of your (to your mind) brilliant debating skills. But your problem with Holocaust comes from something other than what you say it does. It comes from your sexual orientation, and maybe Christian Lindtner’s does too. Is this getting too personal for Majority Rights? I only say it because it is the underlying reason for so much anti-Nazism. For Greg and Counter-Currents, it’s alright to talk about the “Nazis”, that’s fine, good fun, but not to allow it to ever return. If more and more White people became convinced that the “Holocaust” did not happen at all, it might allow that taboo about “Nazis” to be broken. You can’t have that, can you? I was going to say earlier that defeatists like Per Nordin and DanielS would have been put into detention work camps in National Socialist Germany. That’s the real issue with all you weak guys. 93
Posted by DanielS on Sun, 22 Mar 2015 18:40 | # This post was for Graham to answer, but I’d like to answer from my point of view as well: Posted by Greg Johnson on March 22, 2015, 12:39 PM | # Graham, I disagree regarding National Socialism and Fascism. They did not fail. They were destroyed by the Allies and international Jewry, who were threatened by them because they showed signs of being fantastic successes. The nationalist and socialist aspects of NS, upon which its domestic success and whatever popularity it had was based was sold-out by Hitler who had imperialist aspirations all along. This imperialistic ambition was entirely consistent with his thinking all along - not a provoked response, but bound to provoke a catastrophic response. Graham and Franklin are right. It is not that “NS” didn’t have some good ideas going, but it had an underlying grounding in imperialist aggression and elitism with a pseudo justification of its being “natural” for human societies. Hitler was not solely or even largely responsible for World War II. The British and the French started WWII. He was more responsible than any single person. The British warned him that they would go to war if he invaded Poland. He did anyway. And EVERYONE knows that he was not going to stop at his demands for the Versailles territory. Hitler started a war with Poland, over German territories held captive by Poland. These were not German territories Greg. They were territories decided by an entire world war, a war that said that they were no longer German or no longer exclusively German. On the Polish border, there were only four cities of any size that Germany might dispute as having been taken away despite having German history or population. Danzig was made neutral; probably as a concession to the fact that it had been bitterly disputed in history and had, at times, been Polish as well as neutral. Anyway, it was the decision of an entire world war that it should be neutral. . Poznan was the Poles’ ancient capital. It is true that the Germans held it for 123 years, and it was rather audacious for the Poles to take it back but it was righteous that they did, because it was a central Polish city that was stolen from them. Bromberg and Thorn were not captive German territories. These towns made logistical sense to give to Poland (if you look at the map you can see why). You can say that there were captive German populations there as there were captive Polish populations in what became German territory. If Hitler were truly the statesmen you wish to see him as being, a war of the scale he wound up engaging would never have been initiated over such small disputes. But everyone knew that was not the limit of his campaigns anyway. You can say Hitler made reasonable demands - if you believe his words in those “negotiations”.. I sure don’t. That was how he made it sound as an excuse. It does not take much perception to see that he was a war monger. His very words breathe of it (years before these pseudo negotiations and years before the war started). All he wanted was Danzig and to secure “the corridor” so he needed to bomb and starve the cities up to the Urals?.... hmm. He had no plans of doing that beforehand? Hitler wasn’t making honest proposals to Polish territorial integrity. The bad faith of the British is proved by the fact that they declared war on Germany for invading Poland but not on the USSR, which also invaded Poland. It seems as if Britain was playing mostly with the concern to minimize German power the same as they had in WWI. They were the uncomfortable allies of Russia in WWI as well. And, Max Hastings has published a book recently discussing how Churchill tried to sell a plan in 1945 to fight the Russians in order to liberate Poland, but he had his hand smacked for such a “crazy"and impractical plan. Obviously, Polish territorial integrity did not matter. What mattered was a pretext for war, which the British manufactured merely by throwing Poland into a two front war that caused unimaginable suffering. Hitler caused the suffering Greg. He had the power to not go to war. He could have had everyone on his side against the Soviets if he only did not have the wish to take the eastern lands and move their peoples out of the way in favor of Germans.
Of course he had a choice to not go to war. Hitler attacked the USSR, a regime that should have been exterminated on principle by all European powers, just in time to save all of Europe from a massive Soviet invasion. Could have, if Hitler could have cooperated with other eastern nationalisms. But that was not in his plans. Yes, Hitler had evil colonial intentions toward the Ukrainians and the Russians. But it is a lie of Allied propaganda that he planned to exterminate 30 million Slavs. He wanted to breed them out of the way, discourage their thriving (in their own lands) and he certainly would kill anyone who fought against him. He was among the worst ever. A catastrophe. Those who are interested in exploring this further should read my review of Russell Stolfi’s Hitler: Beyond Evil and Tyranny http://www.counter-currents.com/2013/05/r-h-s-stolfis-hitler-beyond-evil-and-tyranny-part-1/ I might look into this stuff. Per has sent me a PDF of a book that makes a similar argument. But really - Mein Kampf - Table Talk - the results of the war. One doesn’t need a great deal more than that. His charms and the things that he did have right are blinding you and having you gloss over glaring epistemological blunders - errors of the most important kind. 94
Posted by Greg Johnson on Sun, 22 Mar 2015 18:49 | # Carolyn, you go “personal” because you can’t argue. It was a mistake to try to take you seriously. 95
Posted by DanielS on Sun, 22 Mar 2015 19:13 | # Posted by Carolyn Yeager on March 22, 2015, 01:04 PM | # “Carolyn, I don’t think that Hail offered a convincing argument.” GJ #85 Naturally, nothing would be since your mind is already made up, without reading a single serious revisionist text about it. He asked you to point out those parts that you feel are supposed to be so convincing. You act like everyone has time to waste with your nonsense. He did win the debate Carolyn. Easily. I believe regarding sexual orientation that Hitler said he was not looking under every bed. You make a very big deal out of a marginal and limited phenomenon. Spreading accusations everywhere - Dr. Lindtner? He has a son. You seem to see queers everywhere. Are you a carpet muncher Carolyn? If 3 percent of the population, or whatever it is, goes that way, are discreet, go to their bars, don’t do with children…who gives a shit? They can’t make me do it can they make you? Haven’t you seen some of these people and doesn’t it strike you as obvious that some are highly genetically disposed to that? And haven’t you known racist queers? I have. These people can help our side and are frequently motivated to do so. I’m not saying their orientation should be encouraged or congratulated, but it is one issue that does not merit priority concern. Don’t associate with them if you don’t like them. I don’t hang out with them and I don’t see them all around. Is this getting too personal for Majority Rights? Yes. I only say it because it is the underlying reason for so much anti-Nazism. Sure, everyone who doesn’t like the Nutzies is a queer. LOL! For Greg and Counter-Currents, it’s alright to talk about the “Nazis”, that’s fine, good fun, but not to allow it to ever return. If more and more White people became convinced that the “Holocaust” did not happen at all, it might allow that taboo about “Nazis” to be broken. You can’t have that, can you? You want to make what is true false and what is repugnant good. I was going to say earlier that defeatists like Per Nordin and DanielS I may be many things, but I am no defeatist. Can’t speak for Per, but it sounds that he is seeking grounds for victory where yours has already failed utterly. Ha ha ha! You sure are a good saleswomen! Oh boy, I want to bring back NS Germany so I can be put into a work camp….and what was it? half a sausage and half a loaf a bread and bowl of soup? Are you a nigger lover, a Jew lover Carolyn? You like E1B1B1 Adolf Hitler don’t you? And what about HItler’s little thing? Wouldn’t you like to be the one who tinkles on his face? Why wouldn’t I want Hitler to be in charge after he discussed his plans for the Slavs? Of course…sure, come to the east Hitler lovers…get comfortable…have a little dream…just don’t expect to wake up. 96
Posted by Carolyn Yeager on Sun, 22 Mar 2015 20:51 | # “Carolyn, you go “personal” because you can’t argue. It was a mistake to try to take you seriously.” -Greg Wrong. I am far more serious than you about this subject. You are playing around with demanding to be convinced by me when you have no intention of admitting to being convinced. At the same time, you won’t educate yourself. Most of these issues do come down to personal feelings about “How will this benefit me?” All you pseudo intellectuals pretend that you are completely objective; your personal life must be kept out of it. But the devil is in the details, right? - the personal details. You’re a White Nationalist because you’re White ... and you don’t like non-Whites with low IQ’s and lack of appreciation for White culture mucking up your world. You can accept that, why not the other? I cannot take anyone here seriously. I only commented to correct major stupid statements. But getting involved in time-wasting “debates” which only generate more and more stupid statements to correct is not at all in my interest. So I am finished here for now. I am sorry if you felt my manner of argument was insensitive to you. Do a word search on Hitler’s use of Vernichtung in all his speeches and writing, and you should get the idea. To DS: So long Danny-boy. Wow, you really get pornographic! I’m copying what you just wrote as a classic. I don’t think you’re going to find a nice White girl to marry you when you have a mind like this. 97
Posted by Graham_Lister on Sun, 22 Mar 2015 21:47 | # Oh dear Greg I just finished listening to your podcast with GW and Danny and I was thinking “well he seems relatively sane” (and I enjoyed the discussion of historicity - which I think is true of biological/complex systems in general. Populations of multicellular organisms, with discrete and differentiated tissues and organs, tend not to evolve to single cell life forms etc). And then we have the silly Hitler worship. If he’s a great and successful ‘statesman’ Europeans and especially Germans don’t need enemies. I wonder what the hell an unsuccessful statesman looks like? If Adolf is the answer what’s the question? How to precipitate the deaths of millions of Europeans??? Folks might have noticed I don’t do religion and so I don’t do the ‘great men’ theory of politics or history. For one it’s psychologically infantile “oh Mr Big will come along ‘solve’ all of our problems”. That ascribing of some sort of politico-historic omnipotence to an individual is the state of mind very small and psychologically immature children have towards their parents. Adults should not entertain such notions. It has far too much of the echo of a messiah and some sort of eschatology. Ghastly nonsense. Secondly, history and historical change is a far more multifactorial and complex phenomenon than any ‘just-so’ story/notion of ‘great men’ historiography. But I do recognise that debating someone’s theology - religious or political - is generally a waste of very precious time. 98
Posted by "Far Right" meets Putin on Sun, 22 Mar 2015 21:51 | # “European “far right’ groups meet with Putin
European far-right politicians in Russia to support Putin Associated Press EU links lifting Russia sanctions to peace in Ukraine - Associated Press Putin describes meeting to take Crimea before referendum Associated Press Putin says plan to take Crimea hatched before referendum - Reuters About 150 members of Russian nationalist and right-wing European parties—including Greece’s Golden Dawn and Germany’s National Democratic Party—met in Russia’s second city Saint Petersburg to berate the West for its stance on the Ukraine conflict and to promote “traditional values”. Far-rights groups across Europe have become vocal supporters of Russian President Vladimir Putin over his handling of the Ukraine crisis, prompting allegations they have reached a Faustian pact to help burnish the Kremlin’s battered image. The growing ties come despite Moscow’s claims it is aiming to counter what it sees as “fascism” in Ukraine, where pro-Western protesters swept a Kremlin-backed president from power last year. “We do not support the sanctions against Russia over the Ukraine conflict,” Udo Voigt, a member of the European Parliament from Germany’s National Democratic Party, told the conference. “It is incredible what patience Russia and President Putin have shown in the face of NATO’s aggressive policies.” Former head of the British National Party Nick Former head of the British National Party Nick Griffin takes part in the International Russian Conse … But the Russian federation of Jewish communities said it was extremely worried about such a meeting in “one of the cities that suffered most from the Nazis”, saying it was “particularly cynical” given Russia would celebrate the 70th anniversary of its victory over Adolf Hitler’s Germany in May. Organisers said the forum was intended to strengthen links with right-wing groups across Europe and help shape a common agenda. “This meeting is the first foundation stone towards constructing the new world that we are obliged to build,” said Fyodor Birukov, from the pro-Kremlin Rodina party that organised the event. “I see this forum as a way pushing the fight back against liberalism and what we call modernism, the destruction of traditional values including Christianity throughout the modern world,” said Nick Griffin, former head of the British National Party. - ‘Fascist friends’ - “Russia is about tradition and Christianity and it’s very important that traditionalists from Russia, Europe and America get together to present our ideas more effectively to the general public.” Sunday’s meeting also sparked condemnation from Russia’s liberal opposition, with several demonstrators outside the hotel venue holding placards reading “No to Nazis”. Putin opponent Alexei Navalny, who was jailed last month for two weeks, wrote on Twitter: “The fascists have strangely and very quickly turned into Russia’s friends.” “It is scandalous for Russia to welcome the heirs of Mussolini and Hitler,” one of the protesters outside the meeting, Natalia Gerasimova, 57, told AFP. Fringe far-right groups from around Europe have sent observers to monitor votes by pro-Russian separatists in eastern Ukraine that sought to legitimise their rule despite widespread condemnation from Kiev and the West. France’s National Front did not attend the meeting but its leader Marine Le Pen appeared on Russian state television on Saturday to condemn EU sanctions against Moscow and anti-Russian “propaganda”, which she claimed is being done “under orders from the US”. 99
Posted by tinkle little white dwarf star on Sun, 22 Mar 2015 23:45 | # To DS: So long Danny-boy. Wow, you really get pornographic! I’m copying what you just wrote as a classic. I don’t think you’re going to find a nice White girl to marry you when you have a mind like this. Where is the pornography in what I said, Carolyn? His little thing with his niece is well known. Since you brought up the matter of looking under people’s beds, maybe you like this? He could have picked up some extra cash in Dubai, perhaps you too.. Isn’t there some irony in a Hitler worshipper castigating others for having a mind which will never appeal to nice people when they rebuff the nasty little thing that is her “mind”? 100
Posted by Operation "Unthinkable" on Mon, 23 Mar 2015 09:25 | # Operation “Unthinkable” http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Unthinkable#cite_note-OpRep-1-4
http://www.amazon.co.uk/Finest-Years-Churchill-Warlord-1940-45/dp/0007263686
101
Posted by Greg Johnson on Mon, 23 Mar 2015 19:42 | # It was the policy of the British government to stoke Polish intransigence toward Germany in order to spark a war, giving the British a pretext for starting a Second World War. It hardly exculpates the British that they later momentarily considered fighting the USSR over Poland’s devastated remains. 102
Posted by Greg and Metzger proposed on Mon, 23 Mar 2015 20:31 | # Posted by Greg Johnson on March 23, 2015, 02:42 PM | # It was the policy of the British government to stoke Polish intransigence toward Germany The Poles were intransigent? They could see what was coming. For 123 years they told stories, longed and fought for their nation to return. Not only were they willing to fight The Soviets, they had done so admrably - thwarting a Soviet advance that was headed for Berlin. After less than 20 years of existence, Hitler threatened their return to existence out of his habit and view of tradition. in order to spark a war, Hitler wanted to spark the war. Giving Hitler a pretext for starting a Second World War. Greg. Are you kidding? You’ve read Mein Kampf. War was a way of life for him. Poland was Friedrich the Great’s Imperial Trophy ground. Poland fought for 123 years to regain its nation and to Hitler (whose idol was F the Great) Poland’s very existence was anathema. You’ve read Table Talk? Borders were held to be what could be imposed. It hardly exculpates the British that they later momentarily considered fighting the USSR over Poland’s devastated remains. It makes a big difference. And, they were only temporarily devastated by Hitler’s asshole campaign. Greg. Man. I am not against you. Don’t you understand? I mean, these guys were into burning libraries. I’m/we’re not against you, not against Germans, nationalists. I totally understand what hell it is to be a White man in America. It is absolutely unbearable. It is torture. It is hell. This is no joke. If I were a German American, well, I probably would not want to be bothered with the views of those who got in the way of Hitler’s plans. I probably would be talking the same way as you guys. Do you see? I am not claiming to be above it. But I would be mistaken. The Easterner’s really are not so different from the Germanics and Westerners. These are not people you want to fight and who want to fight you. Metzger says it well: when Hitler came into Czechoslovakia, he was surprised to see all these blonde children. He didn’t travel enough. He did not know foreign lands well enough. The same is true for Americans. I know. I went through this. The shocks of seeing what these countries were like by contrast to the pejorative stories told through American propaganda (I thought Russian women were ugly! Can you imagine?). I was totally unprepared for this. I was still fighting fights that were irrelevant. I don’t know if you have been to the east…but I can’t describe the shock I felt…when I saw places like Poland…like Russia (Petersburg)... I was told these places, these people were somehow bad? Then you realize the power of propaganda. Metzger altered his view when he saw satellite photos of the streets of Moscow. He did it and so can you. I know you don’t want to be told by me, but I am beside myself. What can I do? We are not against Germans and not above the kind of rage those among the rage of the Nazi regime experienced. I totally understand. But there is a big problem in being a locked in diatribe between Jews and German (Americans). I think a good conversation might be you, Metzger and I. If you are open, maybe we should try for that.. I guess that he’d be willing. 103
Posted by Per Nordin on Tue, 24 Mar 2015 18:23 | # Carolyn Yeager: “I was going to say earlier that defeatists like Per Nordin and DanielS would have been put into detention work camps in National Socialist Germany. That’s the real issue with all you weak guys.” In what way am I defeatist do you mean? And this is not defeatism?: Carolyn Yeager posts 55: “I have no plan on how to rid White homelands of Jews and non-Whites. I never said I did. I leave that to the men. I think that as things stand now, it’s near impossible.” “Near impossible” and you call me and others defeatists ??? Carolyn Yeager : “That’s the real issue with all you weak guys.” Excuse me, but how can you make such judgments about me and others that you do not know? As you have not even met? How can you judge whether I am “weak” ? And about the detention work camps in National Socialist Germany, if Hitler were alive today, I believe it would rather be those of your ideologically like-minded he had sent to the camps, who dishonor his memory by his mere appearance, looks and behavior: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NHxBKMUlEjg https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vlR9FtW3Yok Also with their shaved heads and tattoos, they would qualify nicely in Hitlers concentration camps. Carolyn Yeager : “I cannot take anyone here seriously. I only commented to correct major stupid statements. But getting involved in time-wasting “debates” which only generate more and more stupid statements to correct is not at all in my interest.” And I can not take you seriously that require answers from others but refuses to answer simple questions. Carolyn Yeager :“It comes from your sexual orientation, and maybe Christian Lindtner’s does too.” Really? Seriously? Again, how do you think that you can know things about people you do not know? And what does sexuality have to do with this matter? You now sound like the jew Sigmund Freud. 104
Posted by Sweden on the brink on Wed, 25 Mar 2015 10:42 | # “Sweden headed over a cliff”
105
Posted by Per Nordin on Wed, 25 Mar 2015 19:16 | # “Sweden headed over a cliff”: Are you asking if I am doing something about it? Who said I was not doing anything about it? I have done something about it since the 90’s. But I can not turn the ship alone. But fortunately the national resistance is increasing in Sweden every year. Unfortunately our enemies mobilize as never before and are doing everything they can to destroy the Swedish nation and our folk and race. How this will end is impossible to say. Anyway I do my duty to my people and my race, I do what I can. Are you doing your duty anonymous? 106
Posted by We're doing something on Wed, 25 Mar 2015 20:23 | # Posted by Per Nordin on March 25, 2015, 02:16 PM | # “Sweden headed over a cliff”: Are you asking if I am doing something about it?
Maybe Carolyn, or some other stupid right-winger, but certainly not I.
Excellent! My point exactly. We are here to help you. Lets turn this together, as it is a strenuous task turning the big gear. The heavy gear that is tough and very fundamental to turn. But fortunately the national resistance is increasing in Sweden every year. Unfortunately our enemies mobilize as never before and are doing everything they can to destroy the Swedish nation and our folk and race. I know. How this will end is impossible to say. Join us in organizing separatism (as opposed to the usual right wing crap) and it will end in victory. Sorry for being cryptic, Per. Would you tell me what you think of this?: http://majorityrights.com/weblog/comments/euro_dna_nation The version on Kelso’s site might be a bit better because I was able to edit that version whereas the MR version was put up before I had editing privileges…. Here is the version on Kelso’s “White News Now” http://www.whitenewsnow.com/lounge-white-patriots/32824-euro-d-n-nation.html MacDonald edited one version (and liked it), but it has not come to fruition yet.. I’m excited at the prospect of his speaking to GW and I before long about it.. 107
Posted by Per Nordin on Wed, 25 Mar 2015 23:22 | # We’re doing something: I am sorry, I apologize, I misunderstood your post. Thank you for your post I agree. Will take and read the link. Daniel: I’ll try to get back to you shortly and answer your long letter, is a little stressed so just write a little shorter here first. Carolyn: In your post 29, you wrote: “P.S. As to police actions in the east, those are not denied and never have been. Of course Jews were killed and executed for carrying out sabotage against the Wehrmacht and SS battalions, their support services, German infrastructure, and for hideous atrocities committed on captured German troops. Many of these Jews were too dangerous to be kept alive even in concentration camps; it took more personnel than was available to watch over such crafty characters, which included women and children..”
You are not denying for example, such mass shootings of jewish women and children at Mizocz Ghetto ?: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mizocz_Ghetto
108
Posted by Faurison's "method for clarity" on Thu, 26 Mar 2015 15:18 | # On today’s (March 26th, second hour) Stormfront Radio show, Don Advo said that he was deeply moved by an Institute of Historical Review* conference where he met Robert Faurison. Faurison spoke of his “method for getting clarity”, which was to first translate something from German to French then to Latin, then to English, then back to French. Don Advo thinks this is great. “A statue should be erected for Faurison for his concern for truth.” As for this “method” of gaining clarity, it seems reminiscent of the old “telephone” game, wherein information gets lost with each transmission until the original message is completely altered by time of the last transmission. Or, in the case of Faurison, perhaps it is more like a card trick, distracting people with focus on his language and other academic skills.
109
Posted by Open letter to Max Hastings on Thu, 26 Mar 2015 16:38 | # Open letter to Sir Max Hastings: Dear Max Hastings, I am writing you from the nationalist site, “Majority Rights.” It started out as a free discussion site and thus entertained a variety of arguments, some highly stigmatic. Over the past few years I have taken its general direction from free discussion to a platform which essentially represents the interests of native Europeans and Native European nationalists. With that, our platform rejects Hitler and Nazism of necessity and by definition. Nor will it be beholden to religion. Further, it treats Jewish people as non-European, thus not in our interest group. Perhaps controversially, we are critical of them, seeing them as over represented in 7 societal power points; and will speak irreverently of them in order to make it clear to Nazi types, that they do not have a corner on not wanting to be beholden to Jewish influence. Nevertheless, though we do look upon Jews as a largely hostile influence to European interests, we are not a single cause site. Nor are we supremacists. Rather, we take a separatist and universal nationalist position. We seek sovereignty, not killing. Majority Rights is carving out a niche, one might say, for sane nationalists. On the other hand, Hitler idolatry has become a kind of strange politically correct litmus test among popular “White Nationalist” web sites. Needless to say (to you) I believe this is a catastrophic association for a movement - for White = European people and their National boundaries - which does not, or should not, be represented by what is in fact the imperialism and supremacism of the kind Hitler had in mind. Our site has even become less popular for this editorial stance against Hitler. The same litmus test among WN which maintains Hitler idolatry comes with an outright vilification of Churchill. Part of why this has happened, I surmise, is because “White” Americans are far and away German(ic) and secondly Irish. Thus, with America in decline and plausible arguments that Jews are a prime cause (e.g., https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7nBzJdQB5r4), Hitler gains more currency as his views circulate untroubled by those Americans of European descent demographics not highly represented in America, whose interests were in conflict with Hitler’s aspirations. With that, it has become the agenda of many WN to vindicate Hitler as “the good guy” even, to argue that The US was on “the wrong side of the war.” Some hope to “disprove” the holocaust. (we recently spoke with Dr. Christian Lindtner for his expertise in debunking holocaust deniers). The same White Nationalist culture has taken to vilifying Churchill for his Jewish ties and for opposing Hitler. Thus, we come to my reasons for seeking an interview with you. Between your film, “The Necessary War” and your latest book on Churchill, you have purveyed crucial information to balance this distorted perspective of White Nationalism. Particularly helpful to argument is your discussion of “Operation Unthinkable” - especially because you are critical of it as highly impractical, it seems to show that Churchill was not a mere cynical pragmatist who merely sold-out Poland to the Soviets. By contrast, it is a frequent contention of WN that Churchill’s whole “ostensible” reason for declaring war in defense of Poland was belied by his sheer willingness to let them fall under Soviet control. Next, WN typically argue that Churchill was put up to war solely by his Jewish ties and sponsors. I consider that perhaps Churchill thought he was availing himself of Jewish help in taking on a rogue Nazi regime - that the Nazis actually were a bad regime (believe it or not, that is unthinkable in popular WN) and wanting to reign supreme over hitherto free nations. There was a discussion just the other day between two well known “White” activists, both PhD certified, in which they acknowledged that Churchill cited the Jewish role behind communism (and that goes against the claim that Churchill was a thorough philoSemite), but that he saw Zionism as an option for decent Jews. It is apparent that something like Israel, if not Israel, then some place for a Jewish nation, would be the ethical nationalist position - and a position that Churchill may have been assimilating. There may have been Judeo-Christian reasoning to this as well, seeing Israel as the Jews’ destiny and so on. In fact, the Balfour Declaration for British help in reclaiming Israel in exchange for Jewish help in getting The US into World War I is cited by WN as Jewish control instead of perhaps what was perceived (perhaps mis-perceived) an equitable nationalist deal for “Jewish help.” To prominent WN, the Balfour Declaration is “proof” that the only motivation to go against Germany in World War One was in Jewish interests. That argument is rebutted, among other examples, by yours and Sir Hugh Strachan’s discussion of the atrocities committed by the Kaiser’s army in Belgium. If we could discuss these matters with you it could bring crucial balance on these issues and put a desperate lot on a better course. There is another article of faith in WN that your film brought into focus as being off-the-mark. Versailles is invariably taken as having been entirely unfair to The Germans and Hitler perfectly within reason to overcompensate in response. I observe only four cities on the Polish border that Germany might have found hard to relinquish, but did not merit a renewed world war: Poznan was justifiably returned to Poland. The Versailles committee making Danzig neutral again seems fairly reasonable given the context and history. Bromberg and Thorn made logistical sense to give to Poland so as not to extrude so far into Poland and its sea access. Not entirely unreasonable. Moreover, Poland had already demonstrated staunch resolve to resist Soviet invasion, thus rebutting another Nazi argument, that they needed to invade Eastward in order to pre-empt a Soviet advance. The Sudetenland is more difficult to argue and that is where I need even more help from you. Again, of course, it is assumed that Hitler was entirely within reason to demand it as part of Germany. So, I ask, why did Versailles give The Sudetenland to Czech? Was it a territorial buffering and penalty for a war seen as having been caused by Germany? Was it compensation for The 30 Years War’s devastation of the Czech population? A few other questions emerge as result of your discussions with Margaret MacMillan - More controversial still, but raising what seem to be legitimate red flags from a “WN” perspective… ..as evidence that a German victory would have been generally negative for Europe, she provides an example of Kaiser Germany having been very “hard on the Bolsheviks.” Was that bad? Wasn’t it maybe they who needed still harder treatment? She provides another scenario in which Versailles might have done better to be even harder on Germany by breaking it up, perhaps even into regional fiefdoms. Indeed, that may have prevented a World War (no small matter) but what would prevent these small and relatively powerless fiefdoms from being taken advantage of by Jewish interests and Neo Liberal internationalism to the detriment of Europe as we are now experiencing? - such as with Sweden being on the brink - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UHsXWYaTlik There probably is some overcompensation on the part of Jewish interests and Neo Liberals in response to the war, but evidence points to a longer evolutionary pattern of antagonism to native European interests - e.g., https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ip08PzkWO4s - moving through stages of naivete, to disingenuousness, to overcompensating, inaccurate, counter-productive response. Do you see the possibility that this pattern is not an illusion and if it is real, as it seems to be, the possibility to discuss what we might do about it with the help of an accurate and sane reading of European history? R.S.V.P. 110
Posted by DanielS on Sat, 28 Mar 2015 16:02 | # Dear Daniel, How sad - here is yet another naive and ignorant victim of the lies of Faurisson and Germar: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NGsxhqGZ58M All the best, Christian BTW: In his Posen speech, Himmler explains that “ausrotten” means “umbringen” or “umbringen lassen” - Faurisson forgot to tell, as usual. Sent: Saturday, March 28, 2015, Subject: Fw: 5083 Un bouddhiste américain se lance dans le révisionnisme Subject : An American Buddhist launches into revisionism. Brian Ruhe is a Buddhist American, very influential, it seems, in Vancouver, who has taught Buddhism for 23 years, organizing retreats on philosophy and meditation, a Buddhist author of several books, also broadcasts many videos. But here at the end of last year he discovered revisionism. On 31 December he was broadcasting the following video, in English only: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NGsxhqGZ58M The video is entitled “It is illegal to discuss the Holocaust.” Here you go, basically, what he says:
....yet another naive and ignorant victim of the lies of Faurisson and Germar. 111
Posted by Lindtner + Humphreys on Sun, 29 Mar 2015 07:58 | # Christian Lindtner and Kenneth Humphreys to appear in international conference:
112
Posted by DanielS on Mon, 30 Mar 2015 08:25 | # I was frankly a little concerned about being snitchlike, and would not have said anything had this guy not made a highly public video of himself. Thus, he deserved fair warning, and I believe Christian and I acted ethically to try to help him back off of that path.
113
Posted by DanielS on Mon, 30 Mar 2015 09:10 | #
Best, Christian 114
Posted by Graham_Lister on Mon, 30 Mar 2015 10:40 | # As long as it is healthy, the American constitutional tradition will give rise to competing opinions about the laws and public policies necessary to secure freedom—and not only in regard to racial preferences. For this reason, Mill’s progressive liberalism and Burke’s conservative liberalism, along with the life of the larger liberal tradition of which they are outstanding parts, deserve the careful attention of those dedicated to the preservation and improvement of constitutional government in America. Read more: http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2014/05/08/giving_liberalism_its_due_and_taking_it_to_task_122567.html#ixzz3Vrd9SJvu Danny & GW perhaps MR should have more about the American vision of freedom to statisfy our more liberal readers? 115
Posted by DanielS on Mon, 30 Mar 2015 10:59 | # You know I am no advocate of that, Graham: “As long as it is healthy, the American constitutional tradition will give rise to competing opinions” Because it is Cartesian, the American Constitution will always give rise to competing opinions and an ever elusive foundational quest to still and stay the abyss ....searching for its solutions where? perhaps in a point somewhere in one’s head? The only thing I believe that you misunderstood about my endorsing “freedom” (in the DNA Nation) particularly for the American context and those Europeans in, or subject to, diaspora, is that it provides a difficult basis for our liberal enemies to argue against as we attempt to gravitate to our natural own kinds. I don’t defend The U.S. Constitution and you are quite welcome to lambast it. Perhaps we can provide you a good foil to do so, if that is what you mean. You should understand, however, that while I was an iconoclast in doing so myself, among “White Nationalists” back in 2009, now it is virtually expected, commonplace for WN to denounce the Constitution as a solution; and while Hitler has gained disproportionately as the go-to “answer man”, defenders of the Constitution have become the freakish minority among WN Not that there aren’t plenty of uninitiated and experts, even, who need to hear your criticisms of The US, its Constitutional liberalism and liberalism generally; your critiques of that are important, even if they do lack a tad of sympathy* for some who’ve been burdened under Cartesian illusion, the duplicitous language games of Jews and the cruel experience of females in those ultra fickle circumstances. * I mean, look at what you are doing to these poor Americans. They are freaking-out. It’s time again for that talk about the dark side of “self actualization.” 116
Posted by Pope presses EU on African refugees on Sun, 19 Apr 2015 08:05 | # Pope presses EU to do more to help African refugees
see full article: http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/n…418-story.html 117
Posted by Render unto Ceasar: i.e., WN on Mon, 20 Apr 2015 17:45 | # Sound advice for WN policy on Christianity from Greg Johnson:
118
Posted by Archbishop of Canterbury on Tue, 21 Apr 2015 18:11 | # Archbishop of Canterbury: ‘Must take in Mediterranean migrants’
119
Posted by Dude on Tue, 21 Apr 2015 22:22 | # Worth a chat? http://www.redicecreations.com/radio3fourteen/2015/R314-150401.php 120
Posted by Accounts requested on Thu, 23 Apr 2015 05:15 | # Note that William Pierce adopts the fatalistic position that a people are aggressive or they die. Is that true? It seems rather a mechanistic presumption underpinning catastrophe. Accounts requested - where do they go too far, where do they not go far enough? To what matters should they apply? 121
Posted by Lindtner + Humphreys on Thu, 23 Apr 2015 18:30 | # Lindtner + Humphreys Christian Lindtner and Kenneth Humphreys to appear in international conference: FYI: There will be an important international conference on the New Testament in Roskilde, Denmark on June 21-24, 2015 Gospel Interpretation and Q-Hypothesis. 122
Posted by Pope Pius XI on Sat, 25 Apr 2015 22:14 | # If you can ignore the fact of the author being Jewish (from Brown U.), the website being Jewish (NPR) and the attendant perspective, there is nevertheless some interesting discussion here about the relation of Mussolini and Pope Pius XI: The Pope and Mussolini: The Secret History of Pius XI and the Rise of Fascism in Europe. 123
Posted by The Bible, The Devil's Book on Thu, 07 May 2015 08:11 | # TT reads from The Bible, The Devil’s Book. Discusses what has been made into a rivalry with Duke, mentioning that he actually got far more votes in Southern California than Duke did in Louisiana.
126
Posted by DanielS on Tue, 12 May 2015 04:13 | # Chris Impey lectures us monks on how to think about space exploration ...and competition in that regard with China: If we were not burdened with having to fund our displacement by the third world, if we could cooperate and not be burdened with obstructions of the jealous and contentious among our own, we would be in outer space now, setting up resource mining facilities on the Moon and Mars, etc. ...as China is set to do… ..and we could be cooperating to fund through the Euro DNA Nation - which is, in part, conceived to create the broad economic base to fund and defend ourselves against China and to foster space exploration.
Although there are intriguing possibilities for terraforming in outer space, it is incredibly hard, an incredibly hard environment for people, would accommodate a small amount of people at most, is extremely expensive and would take a huge amount of time: our best solution by far is to take care of the home planet.
127
Posted by The Bible The Devil's Book on Tue, 19 May 2015 05:36 | # The Bible The Devil’s Book: http://www.resist.com/war_network/radio_station/war_radio_2015/20150213-TT.mp3 128
Posted by Lindtner + Humphreys: Roskilde, June 21-24 on Tue, 02 Jun 2015 05:27 | # Lindtner + Humphreys Christian Lindtner and Kenneth Humphreys to appear in international conference: FYI: There will be an important international conference on the New Testament in Roskilde, Denmark on June 21-24, 2015 Gospel Interpretation and Q-Hypothesis. 129
Posted by Darkness, Darkness on Fri, 12 Jun 2015 15:18 | #
Darkness, Darkness Gong, Boring 130
Posted by Roskilde Q Festival 2015! Lindtner/Humphreys et.al on Fri, 12 Jun 2015 15:23 | # Welcome to the Roskilde Q Festival 2015!
Christian Welcome to the Roskilde Q Festival 2015! Some of the papers discussing the hypothetical nature of Q(uelle) etc. are now available to the public, thanks to the good offices of Prof. Dr. Heike Ormazu of the University of Copenhagen. The conference is sponsored by the Velux Foundation. http://teol.ku.dk/abe/arrangementer/konference/
Click here to view papers: https://www.dropbox.com/sh/vi2wucwoad2c2x3/AACfQ7lnYroASIbOiVeLbSuAa?oref=e&n=230197033 (Heike Omerzu shared these files using Dropbox. Enjoy!) 131
Posted by June 21-23 - Roskilde: Lindtner / Humphreys on Fri, 19 Jun 2015 15:23 | # Roskilde Festival 2015! -Lindtner, Humphreys et.al
http://teol.ku.dk/abe/arrangementer/konference/
(Heike Omerzu shared these files using Dropbox. Enjoy!) 132
Posted by Lindtner report from Roskilde conference on Mon, 29 Jun 2015 19:30 | # http://jesusisbuddha.com/news.html
The pope, as known, is a Buddhist Sâri-Putras disguised as the successor of Simôn Petros - the first mythical Mahâyâna bishop of Rome. The Christian SP is a “reincarnation” or “transformation” of the famous Buddhist SP. This will be obvious to anyone who compares the relevant Buddhist sûtras with the corresponding Christian eu-aggelion, or “gospel”. The Greek term is a synonym of the Sanskrit. That SP would turn up again was predicted already in Buddhist canonical scriptures. All Buddhist scholars are aware of this fact. But the path to friendship, peace and fraternity must be paved by honesty and courage and historical truth. Lutherans also have a problem of their own with regard to the Buddhists sources of the New Testament gospels. This became abundantly clear during the past few days at the Roskilde conference on “Gospel Interpretation and Q-Hypothesis”, organized by the Faculty of Theology, Copenhagen University, and sponsored by the Velux Foundation. As veteran Danish professor of NT, Mogens Müller, dictated: We do NOT want to hear about Buddhist sources! Scholars of the New Testament will be taking up this old problem of the fourfold Gospel at the Roskilde Q-Conference 21-24th of June 2015. Professor Francis Watson has discussed the puzzle in his recent book: Gospel Writing. A Canonical Perspective. Here is a youtube-interview:
A possible solution ignored by Watson is offered here by the great American theologian Dr. Robert M. Price. A Buddhist key to the puzzle of the fourfold Gospel canon. http://recordings.talkshoe.com/TC-20430/TS-983542.mp3 Dr. Price has just published “The Human Bible” 2014. Can be ordered from Amazon. This very important work contains references to Buddhist sources normally ignored by other NT theologians. On May 22. 2015 Dr. Price also discussed the problem of Buddhist sources to the New Testament. http://recordings.talkshoe.com/rss20430.xml Here is an image of Dr. Price in one of his possible previous incarnations as Wodan.
136
Posted by Laurence Rees on Fri, 24 Jan 2020 20:52 | #
137
Posted by David Cole Stein classic shifty pivot on Fri, 31 Jul 2020 00:00 | #
Post a comment:
Next entry: Ancient and modern – Part 1
|
|
Existential IssuesDNA NationsCategoriesContributorsEach author's name links to a list of all articles posted by the writer. LinksEndorsement not implied. Immigration
Islamist Threat
Anti-white Media Networks Audio/Video
Crime
Economics
Education General
Historical Re-Evaluation Controlled Opposition
Nationalist Political Parties
Science Europeans in Africa
Of Note MR Central & News— CENTRAL— An Ancient Race In The Myths Of Time by James Bowery on Wednesday, 21 August 2024 15:26. (View) Slaying The Dragon by James Bowery on Monday, 05 August 2024 15:32. (View) The legacy of Southport by Guessedworker on Friday, 02 August 2024 07:34. (View) Ukraine, Israel, Taiwan … defend or desert by Guessedworker on Sunday, 14 April 2024 10:34. (View) — NEWS — Farage only goes down on one knee. by Guessedworker on Saturday, 29 June 2024 06:55. (View) |
Posted by Revelation To Europeans on Sat, 07 Mar 2015 02:33 | #
Dr. Lindtner has revelations for Europeans
Thank You