Why the Germans? Why the Jews?

Angry face

Warum die Deutschen? Warum die Juden? Gleichheit, Neid und Rasenhass 1800-1933 is the title of the new book by German historian Götz Aly, the author of another controversial recent work, one which focused on the economic aspects of the Third Reich: Hitler’s beneficiaries: Plunder, Racial War and the Nazi Welfare State.

The subtitle translates as “Equality, Envy and Racial Hatred from 1800 to 1933” and quite neatly encapsulates both Götz’s thesis as well as the particular historical period under examination, which ends with the assumption of power by the Nazis in 1933. The publisher’s webpage, which can be accessed here, includes a press release with outline summary as well as a downloadable version of most of the first chapter.

Neither seem to be available in English, so I provide a quick and dirty translation below the fold (usual disclaimers apply). I would expect that a book dealing with this particular subject matter, and especially one by an author as internationally controversial and as faithful to the canonical account as Aly, will have little trouble finding an English-language outlet in due course.

At first sight, Aly’s proposition might appear to simply be a Goldhagenesque retread. However, in focusing on the time period that he has chosen, Aly effectively discounts the religious anti-Semitism which had been a salient feature of “German” society since medieval times, and places the emphasis instead on the racial anti-Semitism which did not take form until the mid-to-late 19th century. If we are to take his thesis as set out, then 20th century German animus towards Jews arose not from their status as a ‘People Apart’ or as an Antichrist, or from what Goldhagen described as an “eliminationist antisemitism” which was “the cornerstone of German national identity” but rather out of a new and completely modern sense of jealousy and envy at the alacrity with which Jews were able to negotiate the challenges, and profit from the opportunities, presented by Modernity.

It’s an interesting perspective which bears some serious consideration.

Press Information (12 August 2011) (extract)

Why did Germans murder six million Jews? That’s the question that contemporary Germans need to answer if they wish to reach an understanding of their own history.

In the 19th century it was a fear of the future that animated most Christian Germans. With Jews it was different. They came to an understanding that economic freedom, political liberalisation and the industrial revolution represented for them a unique opportunity. They charged ahead. They sent their children to the best schools. By 1900 Jewish pupils were achieving success in the Abitur at a rate eight times higher than gentiles. Jews streamed into the professions, into white collar occupations and into entrepreneurial pursuits. The reaction of the less upwardly mobile Germans was one of envy and jealousy. They demanded ‘more equality’ and ‘protection for Christians not Jews’, not out of an imaginary sense of superiority but rather from a lack of education and entrepreneurial drive. Christian Germans sought refuge in the Collective and sought to restore their self-esteem through the deprecation of others. Thus arose the populist anti-Semitic hatred.

Envy flourished in concealment. With envy came as well an unacknowledged recognition of and shame in their own failure. From 1933 the elevation of anti-Semitism as an instrument of state policy began to relieve individual Germans of their personal shame and sense of responsibility. That helps to explain why although most Germans did not participate directly in the later violence against Jews, they did consider their disenfranchisement as appropriate. They delegated their aggression to the State. This afforded the Hitler regime the opportunity to transform the malice felt by individuals into the impersonal project known as “the Final Solution to the Jewish Question”.

Aly has also produced a lengthy article for Der Spiegel which elaborates upon his thesis. I have been unable to track down an existing English version so I have produced a translation. First though, a short scene-setting extract from the opening chapter of the book itself (available in the original at the publisher’s link above):

The Question of All Questions

Why the Germans? Why the Jews?

Why did the Germans murder six million men, women and children simply because they were Jews? How was that possible? How could such a civilised, cultured and productive people summon up the necessary criminal energy? That remains the Question of All Questions, the one that Germans must answer if they are to understand their own history, or when they attempt to explain the therein embedded stories to themselves and to their children.

Jew who emigrated to Germany from the neighbouring states to the east were delighted once having crossed the German border. They treasured the security of being within the Reich, the economic freedom and the educational opportunities for their children, which after 1812 were offered by Prussia and later the Kaiser’s Reich. Pogroms which were still a regular occurrence in both eastern and south-eastern Europe as late as the early 20th century were but a distant memory in Germany. Despite all their encumbrances Jews, especially in Prussia, had excellent opportunities to press forward with their own self emancipation. However, and paradoxically, the additional freedoms that Jews came to be granted simply fomented more anti-Semitism, and in a novel form. ...

I wrestled for a while with the title of Aly’s Spiegel essay, Auf dem Boden des Neids which literally translates as “In the soil of envy” but I suspect that it is more likely a play on words which may be lost on a non-native speaker. Eventually, and after consultation with a native speaker, I chose to render the title as follows in the hope that this may be closer to author’s original meaning:

On the Basis of Envy

by Götz Aly

The more the Germans talk about the Holocaust, the more they come to believe that it must have been the work of extra-terrestrials.

The question of how the Holocaust came about continues to occupy historians and commemoration specialists. But instead of providing straightforward explanations, they indulge themselves in verbal contortions. They talk of rapturous enthusiasm for a ‘redemptive’ anti-Semitism, or of a coldly impersonal ‘objective’ anti-Semitism or of the paranoid worldview of ‘racial’ anti-Semitism. I’ve no idea what they’re on about; I for one know of nobody in Germany who would own up to having such a crazed adherent to any of these for a father or grandfather. The journalist Inge Jens reports that although her father was in the SS he was not a national socialist. My doctor’s father told me that as a child he had played as a soldier-farmer in the black earth region [refers to Southern Russia, presumably. Ed.] and his father had been in the SD ‘thankfully though in a totally unimportant department’. Recently I asked two respectable colleagues around my age “What did your father do back then? Was he involved in the war?”. Both hesitated and then mumbled “Um, haven’t actually asked him. No, I’ve never really looked into it.”

The more that Germans speak of the Holocaust, the more it becomes a kind of alien presence within their collective history. They refer to ‘the culprits’, or to ‘the Nazis’ or to ‘the Nazi State’ as if they were speaking about extra-terrestrials. Little insight can be gleaned from that. The same with all the theories about fascism, which trivialise the genocide as a throwback to a prehistoric barbarism, or put up systemic models as a smokescreen, and attempt to shift the historical burden onto a distinctly German form of development or onto an ostensibly definable group of ideologues. Such naked abstractions enable the adherents of such theories to distance themselves from events and to enjoy the warm feeling that they would have stood on the better side of history. Goethe mocked the self-deception of the theoreticians who would rather that “actual phenomena themselves disappeared, and their place taken by illustrations, concepts and yes, even just words.”

These days the occasional public personality may still be subject to public moralising if it should be disclosed that he joined the Nazi party as an 18-year-old in 1944. However when my neighbour discovered a carefully-packed bust of Hitler beneath a tree-stump he was removing, nobody seemed to care. But just who was living there in 1945? It turns out to have been an elderly Protestant clergyman and his wife. “Charming folks” they were depicted as being, charming would also seem to have been how they regarded their Führer. The other day after a lecture a student showed me her diamond-studded gold ring. “Thanks to your book Hitler’s Beneficiaries I’ve found out where it came from,” she said and then continued: “Such a ring would never have come from our family. My grandmother, a very ordinary woman, acquired in 1943 at an auction of Jewish property.”

Shortly before she died my mother came to speak about her friend Annemarie. Under pressure from her husband, she had given her handicapped baby over to a Euthanasia Clinic and had suffered for it ever since. My bookcases were built by a very pleasant, elderly carpenter from East Berlin. About a year ago he asked quite out of the blue: “What are you actually up to here?” - “I’m writing a book about German anti-Semitism.” - “Yes, my uncle was involved in all that. First with the Gestapo in Dessau, then in Russia. In 1942 he told my mother that he had shot children there. He later settled in West Germany and drank himself to death.” Embarrassed and baffled shaking of the head.

The overwhelming majority - hundreds of thousands - of such murderous stories were never even hinted at, they are buried forever. Nonetheless millions of German photo albums with their pictures of daily life, weddings and soldiers tell us more about the social realities of Hitler’s Germany than all of the theorising and inflated rhetoric about the ‘Nazi regime’. As inhuman as the crimes were from a moral and legal standpoint, the underlying causes remain all too human, in a literal sense.

Anyone who simply states that the genocide of six million people is a consequence of earlier anti-Semitism projects a demonic image on the wall, but fails to identify the forces which created and nurtured that Demon, and which allowed it to flourish. Better that one should ask: when and under what circumstances did the German develop the inclinations that later led them to actively support, nod approvingly at or passively tolerate the systematic exclusion, expulsion and murder of Jews and other ‘undesirables’. Prior to 1933 both Christian and Jewish Germans had repeatedly pondered the special nature of German anti-Semitism. Their conclusions seem rather facile today. Quite rightly too, since particularly awful crimes require particularly complicated, perhaps even ultimately unfathomable, causes.

But in this case the causes are not unfathomable. They can be easily discerned in the 130 years of German history prior to Hitler’s seizure of power. Already by 1831 the Jewish writer Gabriel Reisser was maintaining that straightforward envy was at the heart of enmity for Jews: “...Of every hundred expressions of annoyance at Jews, ninety-nine can be traced to this cause.” Heinrich Heine was less worried about reactionaries than about German democrats, then termed ‘Demagogues’, like the populist ‘Champions of the Nationality’ such as Ernst Moritz Arndt or Friedrich Ludwig Jahn. But why was that? It was due to their focus on achieving unity for the German ‘cultural nation’ at the expense of universal human rights and sentiments like “...with our victory, a few thousands Jewish heads will roll, and then only the best.” Friedrich List - revered today for his untiring support for a German Customs Union and for railway construction - called for political rationalists to express their animosity towards Jews, according to contemporary Jewish writer Berthold Auerbach. List feared the rapid advance of the Jews and wished to protect his Christian compatriots.

Despite such obstacles German Jews were able to drive forward with their self-emancipation. In 1812 Prussia granted them limited civil rights, including protection under the law, freedom to trade and open access to well-developed Gymnasia and universities for their sons, who had long been trained to read and write. The Christian German population was much slower in its development and became envious of Jews and their cosmopolitanism, urbanity and intellectual faculties, as well as their business sense and general upbringing. An 1848 survey of the situation of the Jewish minority reported that “It is the increasing affluence and the particular work ethic of the Jews which are coming under attack by those social classes which are disadvantaged by such activity.” Jews strode ahead, ascending the social hierarchy at a rate three or four times faster than their often barely-literate Christian counterparts, hundreds of thousands of whom were having to leave their villages for the newly industrialising cities.

In 1886 some 46.5% of Jewish pupils achieved a secondary school leaving certificate, by 1901 this had increased to 56.3%. Over the same period the proportion of Christian children graduating from secondary school crept up from 6.3 to 7.3%. The same statistics confirm the extent to which Jewish parents were concerned that their daughters should also receive a higher education. In Berlin in 1901 11.5 times as many Jewish girls attended higher educational institutions as Christian girls, taking into account their respective representation in the overall population. Success at the Gymnasia translated into corresponding success at the university level. While the Jewish population of Prussia was at the time only around 1%, about 10% of all university students were Jewish. Jews began their studies noticeably earlier, studied faster and achieved generally better examination results. Prussian statisticians noted that “Jewish students seem on average to be more capable and more diligent than Christians.”

Christian students typically sought out careers in government service, a field from which Jews were excluded. Consequently Jewish graduates needed to pursue opportunities in the private sector, often as independent operators. These endeavours met with astonishing success. According to the historian Shulamit Volkov, Jews in Frankfurt paid on average four times more tax than Protestants and eight times more than Catholics. In Berlin tax receipts from Jews accounted for 30% of municipal income, although Jews constituted only 15% of taxpayers and barely 5% of the population. Similar situations applied in other cities. The adversaries of Jews soon came to latch on to these glaring differences, which were anything but imaginary.

The journalist and politician Wilhelm Marr, who in 1879 first coined the term ‘anti-Semitism’, railed against the “social predominance of Semitism”. His crudely-phrased pamphlets often included an observation that the Christians in this city or that were much less able to provide their fellows with a decent education. In 1848 Marr had been a member of the left-wing faction in the revolutionary government in Hamburg, but his personal and political aspirations were not realised. Being the loser that he was, he came to despise those whose own social success had been so brilliantly visible. He marketed his texts as “Cries of Pain of the Oppressed”. “We just can’t compete with this alien tribe”, he lamented in the name of justice and equal opportunity. For him it was a case of agile, nimble Jews and dim German indolence; the usurious, talented Jews confronting the ethical seriousness of German Christians.

Marr and dozens of other anti-Semites took on the role of spokesmen for the slower-witted German majority, who demanded, and received, the protection of the state against the economically adept and intellectually gifted Jewry. But they didn’t know what to do with it. More often than not, the protection that was afforded them only served to expose their own backwardness and incapability, their failures became even more painful. They lost all sense of self-assurance and in this fertile ground the seeds of racial theories began to sprout. The primitives were to be elevated to the intellectual and spiritual peak of humanity. Hopeless students, hidebound owners and businessmen couldn’t just be allowed to continue whingeing indefinitely about the superior performance of their Jewish competitors. That was damaging to one’s own morale, and simply enhanced the sense of defeatism. What was needed was a transformation of the politics of envy and anti-Semitism into a functioning framework for racial defamation.

In contrast to the majority of Jews, most Germans were fearful about the increasing level of political and economic freedom, which represented both risk and discomfort. Accordingly, many retreated at a quite early stage into the warm bosom of the Peoples’ Collectivism. No matter where their political affiliations might lie, reactionaries, conservatives and socialists alike denounced liberalism as an infernal work of the Jews. In the context of the French Revolution, Egalité stood for the equality of all citizens before the law. but the Germans interpretation was one of equality of material outcome, to be guaranteed by the State. The cry rang out at every opportunity “Injustice! We demand our own Place in the Sun!” They basked in their status as the eternally oppressed. Society was transmuted into State, which they anointed as “Our Father, the State.”

Between 1880 and 1933 various anti-Semitic organisations prominently exploited this victim mentality, a mentality which is still somewhat in evidence in contemporary Germany. Demands arose for “Justice” and “Equality” for the downtrodden. The most prevalent slogan , which originated with the Berlin anti-Semite and court clergyman Adolf Stoecker, ran “Please, just a little more Equality!” Their expectation was that the State would shield the common man from any economic turbulence or crisis, from wage-dumping, foreign competition and, especially, the Jews. Far from simply stoking up resentments, however, the anti-Semites also presented the ordinary German with an incentive to pursue his own happiness, to build his own self-esteem by putting one over on the Jews.

And so came into being the tensed-up, self-inadequate and soon to be hate-filled, German, a Person without a Core. In the aftermath of war and defeat he charged hither and thither, drawn to extremist factions by their marching around in lockstep, their uniforms and their punch-ups, the fluttering standards, the supreme Leaders and their fellow travellers. Wolfgang Mattheuer immortalised the character with his 1984 work Jahrhunderschritt (Stride of the Century).

Jahrhundertschritt, Wolfgang Mattheuer (1984)

With his tiny torso and even tinier brain the fellow steps out with a giant’s stride, the left leg naked, thrust rigidly forward, with the sharply-angled bare foot forming the stub of a swastika. It’s the leg of someone who can’t afford shoes. The left arm takes a right-angled hooked form, the fist balled-up in a communist salute. The other foot, the knee and heel of its oversized leg rigidly posed, is shod in a hefty soldier’s boot. The Century Strider’s tiny head has shrunk below the collar of his uniform, as if he doesn’t want to be noticed. His own actions and motives seem sinister. He seems to be both decisive and yet tremulous at the same time, thirsting for action, but uncoordinated in his movements - lacking balance, without equilibrium. It seems unclear whether he, right arm extended straight up in the Hitler salute, can maintain the tension, whether he will be able to maintain the giant’s stride, or whether he will, in the next moment, stumble. He yearns for validation, he demands to be led.

A more optimistic counterpoint to the Century Strider (which Mattheuer later reproduced several times in different forms [See Note below. Ed.]) is provided by Marc Chagall’s 1917 work En avant les voyageurs. Colourfully rendered, this depicts a young Jew, fashionably attired, leaping forward in a most determined fashion, seemingly about to burst out of the frame of view. He’s leaning strongly forward, spurning any possibility of retreat, conscious of the direction he wants to travel and sets about it with great certainty. He’s breathing free, radiating joy, curiosity and good humour. His giant’s stride leaves the past far behind, under his feet the green wooden hovels of the Shtetl are already receding over the horizon.

Le voyageur, en avant!, Marc Chagall (1917)

The future-minded Jew and the weak, disoriented and somewhat mentally erratic German moved closer and closer towards each other after 1918. War and inflation led to a collapse of the old social hierarchy. The German majority made up its educational deficit, accustomed themselves to urban living and became much more upwardly mobile. The educational policies of the Weimar Republic tripled the number of Abitur students and, in so doing, unwittingly laid the foundations of a National Socialist intelligentsia. While Jews comprised 10% of all university students in 1900, by 1930 this had fallen to merely 4%. In 1914 Jews earned on average five times more than the average German, by 1928 it was only three times more, and trending sharply downwards.

The post-war social levelling did not, however, result in any lessening of the animosity towards Jews. On the contrary, increasingly closer contact exacerbated anti-Semitism amongst those for whom Jews represented competitors for professional advancement, economic success or social prestige. Aggressive envy is often most marked between different groups of similar social standing than it is between groups with greater material differentiation, social contact between the latter being rarer. “It was the new-found sense of parity which gave the social resentment of the Angered its edge,” wrote Max Scheler in 1912. He characterised it as a ‘spiritual self-poisoning’ which gave rise to an unrequited yearning for revenge, leading in turn to feelings of ‘hate, anger, envy, resentment and malice.’

Envy arises out of weakness, timidity, lack of self-esteem, self-inflected feelings of inferiority and excessive ambition, character flaws which the envious take pains to conceal. Should the Object of his Envy suffer some diminution in his own privileges and advantages, if he were in some way to get it in the neck, then the Envier can enjoy a quiet spell of Schadenfreude. Does the Envied Jew deserve any aid or even any sympathy? No! He always knew better than anyone else! Strolled around with his nose in the air! Always opening his big trap! Let him take care of himself! And thus the Envier satisfies his moral scruples, sticks his hands in pockets and turns away. If others should then harass the Envied, disenfranchise him and deport him, the little Envier declares “What’s that to do with me?” His conscience remains unperturbed, it wasn’t he who did it.

Among the latterly upwardly mobile was my Munich grandfather Friedrich, a warm-hearted bloke who would be among the last people you’d choose to send off to fight a war. In 1931, when my mother was eight and pestering him continuously to let her have a ride on the escalator in the Jewish-owned Uhlfelder department store, the first in the city, he told her quietly but firmly “We don’t go in there.”

Note: With regard to Mattheuer’s ‘Century Strider’ it is indeed the case that he has developed its replication in various forms into something of a cottage industry in recent years. He has produced a number of statues on the theme, usually of bronze, which adorn public places across Germany. I came across this one in Leipzig, at the entrance to the Contemporary History Forum there.

Angry face

It’s actually quite a striking piece in this form, much more so in my view than the original artwork, and probably quite fitting for the location, which is an exhibition focusing on totalitarianism and extremism in 20th century Germany.

That said, I must say that I concur with sentiments expressed elsewhere concerning the peculiarly German propensity for ritual self-abasement, which is really what the Jahrhundertschritt is all about. It seems to me distinctly unhealthy that a modern, functioning democracy, and one that is today without question the most significant nation-state in Europe, should continue to feel it necessary to express its mea culpas in quite so dramatic and public a form.

Posted by Dan Dare on Thursday, October 20, 2011 at 12:49 AM in Books
Comments (152) | Tell a friend

Comments:

Posted by Graham_Lister on October 20, 2011, 04:14 AM | #

You are probably aware of this work (again by a mainstream academic).
“The Jewish Century”

The provocative argument that underlies this idiosyncratic, fascinating and at times marvelously infuriating study of the evolution of Jewish cultural and political sensibility is that the 20th century is the Jewish Age because “modernization is about everyone becoming urban, mobile, literate, articulate, intellectually intricate…. Modernization, in other words, is about everyone becoming Jewish.” A professor of history at UC-Berkeley, Slezkine plays a delicate game here. Knowing that his grand statements are more metaphorical than supportable with historical fact, he maps out a new history of Jewish culture over the past 100 years in four radically diverse but cohesive chapters. In a history of Jewish group identity and function, Slezkine depicts Jews as a nomadic tribe that functions as a promoter of urban cultural and economic change. The book’s last chapter (“Hodel’s Choice”) uses the image of the daughters of Sholem Aleichem’s famous milkman Tevye to discuss the three great recent Jewish immigrations—to America in the 1890s, from the Pale of Settlement to the Russian cities after the revolution and to Palestine after the birth of Zionism. Through these migrations, Slezkine argues, the modernism of Jewish culture spread throughout the world. Nearly every page of Slezkine’s exegesis presents fascinating arguments or facts—e.g., that “secular American Jewish intellectuals felt compelled” to become more Jewish when they were allowed into traditional American institutions. While not strictly a traditional history, Slezkine’s work is one of the most innovative and intellectually stimulating books in Jewish studies in years.

Not quite the same topic but probably of interest in this context.

Posted by Graham_Lister on October 20, 2011, 04:24 AM | #

Can someone fix the link in my previous post - it seems to have gone a bit funny. Thanks.

http://www.amazon.com/Jewish-Century-Yuri-Slezkine/dp/0691119953

BTW excellent snippet there:

Goethe mocked the self-deception of the theoreticians who would rather that “actual phenomena themselves disappeared, and their place taken by illustrations, concepts and yes, even just words.”

One or two commentators here seem to suffer from a similar malady.

Posted by Lurker on October 20, 2011, 04:38 AM | #

Graham - fixed.

Posted by Leon Haller on October 20, 2011, 05:45 AM | #

Dan Dare,

Thanks for the translation. Very interesting stuff, even if this Aly seems, as you imply, like a typical German, abasing himself ethically in Le grand suck-up to Jewry. These Germans really need to get it over it, already! One certainly doesn’t see endless (or any) hordes of ex-Soviets or present Russians (let alone Russian Jews) weeping over their countrymen’s collective treatment of the East Europeans they conquered and oppressed over a far longer period than the Third Reich’s existence.

That said, I suspect there is more than a little truth to Aly’s thesis. Ordinary Germans undoubtedly had a different mindset from the Jews, one which placed the former at a disadvantage in the new urban ‘competition’ unleashed by the Industrial Revolution, and its accompanying social and economic changes, for which the mercantile Jews seem to have been superbly prepared by both history and culture (perhaps also by religion and biology). Of course resentments would arise, especially in light of the Christian past, with its demonization of Jewry, as well as the newer racial theories.

My suspicion is that the Holocaust really did occur (though why is Aly sticking with what I thought is the long-discredited 6 million figure?), and that it’s not really all that hard to explain. It was the work of a comparatively small number of Nazi fanatics - true believers - abetted by wartime circumstances of tyrannical order-following combined with attendant chaos providing ‘cover’. Modern German asslickers, and their Jewish masters, profess to be shocked, just shocked, that in wartime, faced with general military tyranny, economic hardship, accurate fear of (Judeo-)Bolshevism, and worries over personal and familial survival, regular Germans didn’t stand up to the Nazi authorities to protest the ‘discriminatory’ treatment of the Jews (after all, very few ordinary Germans were aware of the actual workings of the concentration camp system, and there never was any final order authorizing the Holocaust).

Yeah. Like lots of tenured professors in comfortable Western countries ‘stand up’ against the lies of PC, against the affirmative action persecution of white men, against the debasement of academic standards at the heart of multiculturalism ... yeah, so much easier to have stood up for Jewry under the Nazis ...

Enough with these “how did it happen” narratives.

Posted by Leon Haller on October 20, 2011, 05:59 AM | #

BTW, what does this word mean: “whingeing”?

Posted by Mr Voight on October 20, 2011, 07:05 AM | #

Reminds me of this family I knew who got robbed. Instead of congratulating the home invader on his ingenuity, the father shot him - and the rest of the family didn’t even report it to the cops. What a bunch of envious jerks.

Posted by anon / uh on October 20, 2011, 08:01 AM | #

One or two commentators here seem to suffer from a similar malady.

Let’s talk about your maladies though. Or are you too sore yet from the equestrian butthexing delivered by Dasein and Haller?

Posted by anon / uh on October 20, 2011, 08:25 AM | #

Leon,

But it’s the QUESTION OF ALL QUESTIONS!

That said, I suspect there is more than a little truth to Aly’s thesis.

There isn’t. Take the flagrantly straw mannish “Person without a Core”. Oh really? So the mercantile caste pushing entartete kunst has a core, and the people obsessively writing books about “Blut und Boden” haven’t. Ok! Welcome to the fun house of anti-German intellectualism. Up is down, black is white, nothing is as it seems!

Anyone who simply states that the genocide of six million people is a consequence of earlier anti-Semitism projects a demonic image on the wall, but fails to identify the forces which created and nurtured that Demon,

Oh please.

An 1848 survey of the situation of the Jewish minority reported that “It is the increasing affluence and the particular work ethic of the Jews which are coming under attack by those social classes which are disadvantaged by such activity.”

Let me see if I have this straight: Jews are wrongly emancipated seinen Unwerk zu treiben. They create conditions in which the natives cannot always compete and so fall behind. Then the natives become restless and thirst for a reassertion of their priority. They fail, and seventy years later, some asshole native writes a book that really the Germans were just envious to become Jews. Ok.

The future-minded Jew and the weak, disoriented and somewhat mentally erratic German moved closer and closer towards each other after 1918.

Avanti! avanti! Juden an die Front des Progressivismuzisisizizz!! sozialdenken, Hirschfeldian buthexxing!!

he told her quietly but firmly “We don’t go in there.”

Ohhhhhhhhh. Now that’s serious business. A Person without a Core, was his opa. An homuncular krautisch Envier of Jewish $ucce$$ was he.

This shit is just more bizarre armchair psychoanalyzing of the Bad Guys, the intellectual’s equivalent of the monthly Bild cover story exploring that burning question, “War Hitler Schwul?”

Everyone ought to read The Jewish Century as it is an unbelievable cock’s crow of Jewish triumphalism, full of everything with which we’ve ever charged them, but spun affirmatively. Not nearly enough has been said of that book. MacDonald or someone competent needs to review it, comparing all of its affirmative with Jew Crit’s negative attributions.

Posted by anon / uh on October 20, 2011, 08:32 AM | #

Aggressive envy is often most marked between different groups of similar social standing than it is between groups with greater material differentiation, social contact between the latter being rarer.

So what you’re saying, Herr Aly, is that population groups that are more alike than unlike tend to compete directly for resources and social dominance. I can’t wait for his Macbook-edited critique of sociobiology which proves that all races are the same and not in competition!!!

Posted by anon / uh on October 20, 2011, 08:40 AM | #

In contrast to the majority of Jews, most Germans were fearful about the increasing level of political and economic freedom, which represented both risk and discomfort. Accordingly, many retreated at a quite early stage into the warm bosom of the Peoples’ Collectivism.

Bad, silly, pathetic when it’s goyim.

They basked in their status as the eternally oppressed.

Noble and endlessly compelling when it’s yiddim.

I mean, the yiddim never bask in their status as the eternally oppressed. It’s like apples and oranges. Jews don’t “whinge”. This too shall pass referred to kidney stones.

Posted by Dan Dare on October 20, 2011, 10:16 AM | #

@Leon Haller

BTW, what does this word mean: “whingeing”?

To whinge about something is to incessantly complain, mewl or whine. As in the common Antipodean usage “Whingeing Poms”, referring to recent migrants from the Motherland who sometimes found life Down Under rather less appealing than they been led to expect.

Posted by Silver on October 20, 2011, 10:49 AM | #

BTW, what does this word mean: “whingeing”?

Heh, I thought only Australians said whingeing/whinger. The American equivalent is whining/whiner, which is seldom ever heard here. (Also equivalent to the Australian expression “having a sook.”)

You once asked me why I sound more American than other foreign interlocutors. The reason is I started on usenet and ntalk back in ‘95 and easily over 90% of my time has been spent conversing with Americans. I figured out early on that some written expressions, despite being proper English, sound foreign to American ears, so I began to tailor my sentences to with a view to sounding more normal to Americans. Now it’s just habit*.

(In case you’re wondering, the reason that I began chatting with so many Americans is I was long fascinated by America by the time I got on the net, going back to this America family (Germans) that lived across the street* when I was a kid. Fantastic people. Father’s name was Chester—how American is that? It snowballed from there. For example, hardly anyone here knew a single thing about football (‘gridiron’) yet in high school I could easily have named you the top ten rushers per conference. Yes, I eventually ‘moved’ to America, but it didn’t last long. Loved some aspects, was disgusted by others. Funny thing is, I arrived in the country well prepared to hate ‘the racists’; by the time I left the country I’d ended up hating the niggers. My father had two sisters in Detroit. My parents heard plenty of horror stories but I was disinclined to believe them. After seeing a bit of America I’m inclined to believe every word.)

* Case in point. Here it’s ...road.

Anyway, I’m glad you feel dismissive about this history schmistory crapola. Dan, I gather, is a historian, so naturally he’s going to suggest that “It’s an interesting perspective which bears some serious consideration.” Interesting or not, I don’t think it bears any serious consideration at all. Not among normal people, who could dedicate themselves to any one of a thousand more efficient tasks than slogging out (“considering”) historical debates.

My suspicion is that the Holocaust really did occur (though why is Aly sticking with what I thought is the long-discredited 6 million figure?), and that it’s not really all that hard to explain. It was the work of a comparatively small number of Nazi fanatics - true believers - abetted by wartime circumstances of tyrannical order-following combined with attendant chaos providing ‘cover’.

Depends on what you mean by “The Holocaust.” Maybe you’re just covering your ass. I don’t mean in the sense of security or social standing. I mean that in case greater evidence emerges you don’t want to look like an idiot (or ‘more evil’ than what a racist is already assumed to be).

Personally, I couldn’t care less whether it happened exactly as claimed or not. It’s the idea that I’m not allowed to doubt it that pisses me off. It just so happens that having looked into I see a lot more reason to believe the gas chambers are a steaming pile of bullshit than not to.

The Phora’s a rather useless forum but there are some excellent holocaust debates in the archives between some very knowledgeable people. There was a very competent but very exasperated exterminationist there who I think some suspected of being Robert Jan van Pelt (but I may be remembering wrong), which should tell you something about the caliber of the debaters (whether it was van Pelt or not, that he could be suspected of being is enough).

(after all, very few ordinary Germans were aware of the actual workings of the concentration camp system, and there never was any final order authorizing the Holocaust).

Lol, not when you put it like that there wouldn’t be, no. This sounds like you almost expect to be shown an order stating, “I, Adolf Hitler, hereby authorize that “The Holocaust” commence.” What’s really telling is there aren’t any documents that they can spin as constituting an ‘order.’ That’s why they rely so much on indirect references like Himmler’s Poznan speech. I’m perfectly willing to accept its authenticity and that it referred to killings taking place; what I’m not prepared to accept is that it constitutes proof of the wholesale extermination program presented to us as “The Holocaust.” A “meeting of minds” is entirely plausible on the small scale. Such meetings of minds happen all the time across small scale projects, or across smaller aspects of larger projects. Not everything that happens requires exquisite planning, not when the next step—and the value of the next step—is obvious. It seems extraordinarily doubtful that a project on the scale of the alleged gassings could occur merely as a result of a meeting of minds though. And to doubt that it could is obviously no sin.

Posted by Hail on October 20, 2011, 12:33 PM | #

Why did Germans murder six million Jews?

Why do many people continue to believe this fairy-tale?

How did a nasty bit of wartime atrocity-propaganda come to permeate Western consciousness, as THE defining event of history—the point to which all prior history naturally leads, and from which all subsequent history flows; and such that study after study, analysis after analysis, rehashing after rehashing—from the most erudite-scholarly to the pulpiest of fiction*—is still published examining it, 70 years after the events allegedly occurred?

(*—It’s all essentially a big fiction, of course. The core of the narrative is fictitious, and has been proven so again and again. New research is still being published today. See, e.g., Sobibor: Holocaust Propaganda and Reality).

Posted by Alaric on October 20, 2011, 12:41 PM | #

More yawn-inducing jew refuse. When Whites achieve something, it’s due to institutional racism. When jews achieve something, well it’s because the best rises to the top. Not because they’re ethnic nepotists, oh no. Jews weren’t (and aren’t) disliked because they’re nationwrecking little shitheads, it’s because they’re so much better than those jealous losers. What tripe. Is the writer another jew or simply a marxist?

It’s unbelievable that a fetid turd like the Jahrhundertschritt came from the hands of an Aryan. Simply unfathomable.

Posted by Graham_Lister on October 20, 2011, 01:44 PM | #

I think that “The Jewish Century” is definitely worth reading. An oddly honest if outrageously triumphalist work.

Posted by the idiot on October 20, 2011, 06:59 PM | #

Sadly, plenty of British expats seem to whinge in most countries that are unfortunate enough to take them in so Australia is not alone. Britain is screwed up but so is this awful new place we decided to settle in, I hate the weather, I hate the natives, I hate the political system, I hate the prices, I hate how their spiders are one inch bigger in diameter than ours.

Anyone who can make it through the whole The Jewish Century deserves a medal. A pat on one’s own back now and then is good but this is something else, even if one accepts its argument (perhaps a careful reminder about what WN narratives should not be like lest the majority of people vomit, anon/uh or is that a different creature?).

As for the supposed German propensity for self-flagellation, it’s the same all over the continent: everyone had a hand in exterminating the Jews, some had a colonial past, everyone mistreated their minorities, xenophobia and the extreme right are on the rise. Similarly, you can still find nationalist pieces in Germany as in elsewhere. I don’t buy that there’s something special in G’s case, even with the holocaust.

Posted by Lurker on October 20, 2011, 07:06 PM | #

Silver - whats happened to you? You’ve suddenly gone all reasonable in the last few months.

Leon - as pointed out ‘whinging’ is a variety of whining. eg Children whinge when they cant stay up late, or are told to do homework. Commonly used in British/Australian English but in the UK whining is used too.

Posted by anon / uh on October 20, 2011, 09:31 PM | #

The Phora’s a rather useless forum but there are some excellent holocaust debates in the archives between some very knowledgeable people.

Would you be so patient as to point me to those? I know I could search, but searching through the Phora brings me down, man. I’m looking for a quick-and-dirty refresher course in HoloHoaxery.

This sounds like you almost expect to be shown an order stating, “I, Adolf Hitler, hereby authorize that “The Holocaust” commence.”

Oh, it exists. In the same drawer as the “We, the Aryans, hereby declare ourselves to have existed. We promise. Signed, The Aryans. PS- Now please stfu about us.”

Posted by FB on October 20, 2011, 09:57 PM | #

You know about this board, right?

http://www.codoh.com/forum/index.php

Posted by anon / uh on October 20, 2011, 10:40 PM | #

No, but to hell with a refresher course, this thread is killing me with lozozozozozozozozoz!!!!

thanks bro

Posted by Hail on October 20, 2011, 10:49 PM | #

I’m looking for a quick-and-dirty refresher course in HoloHoaxery.

(1) Evidence for Mass Killings at Treblinka. (3 minutes).

(2) A very good quick Overview of the Holocaust Myth is the conclusion (chap.16) to a little book entitled The Gas Chamber of Sherlock Holmes. The book is truly fascinating in its own right, an in-depth “literary analysis” of the Myth. Highly recommended are chapter-1 (a kind of extended abstract) and chapter-3 (exploration of the deep origins of a ‘fear of showers and disinfection’ meme in the Ostjude consciousness going back many decades, the apparent germinal seed of the Myth).

(3) Search site:ihr.org with any Holocaust keywords to access decades worth of scholarly material in Willis Carto’s Journal of Historical Review.

These is the kind of above-board statistics that you can only reliably find in Revisionist literature (JHR, Vol.9 #4):

To this day, many believe Dachau was an “extermination camp”.

(4) One Third of the Holocaust video series.

Posted by anon / uh on October 20, 2011, 10:55 PM | #

Hail -

Excellent, excellent, excellent. Precisely what I was after. I’ve never even heard of (2). Printing it out now.

(exploration of the deep origins of a ‘fear of showers and disinfection’ meme in the Ostjude consciousness going back many decades, the apparent germinal seed of the Myth)

lolz. That’s a new one to me. It’s said that when Garibaldi introduced the Sicilians to soap, they tried eating it. Probably there is a general fear of this newfangled “shower” business in the legend.

Actually I downloaded the entire IHR website a year ago, just in case. Wish I’d done so with JTR while it was up.

Posted by Dan Dare on October 20, 2011, 10:59 PM | #

And I had so hoped that this thread wouldn’t degenerate into yet another H-related bunfight.

Ah well, serves me right I suppose, I should have known The Swarm would turn up. They always do.

Posted by Desmond Jones on October 21, 2011, 01:32 AM | #

Pogroms which were still a regular occurrence in both eastern and south-eastern Europe as late as the early 20th century were but a distant memory in Germany.

This statement, by itself, reveals, IMO, that Aly is nothing more than a self-serving liar.

“What was the truth?
According to British historian Norman Davies:

Press reports in the West of “Pogroms in Poland” though accepted by Jewish commentators, were repeatedly discredited by the investigations of independent British and American observers. The so-called pogrom in Lwów, in November 1918, turned out to be a military massacre where three times more Christians died than Jews. The so-called pogroms in Pińsk in March 1919 turned out to be work of a panicky lieutenant, whose order to execute thirty-five suspected Bolshevik infiltrators was described by a US investigator as “fully justified by the circumstances” the pogroms in Wilno in April 1919 and
again in October 1920 were occasioned by the Red Army’s hasty retreats, and by military reprisals against suspected collaborators.“139 In turn, Polish émigré historian Adam Zamoyski, presenting typically Polish evaluation of the situation, wrote:

The collapse of law and order in November 1918 produced a rash of anti-Jewish outrages in country areas and in towns such as Lwów and Pińsk. Further violence and some shootings took place in the wake of military operations between the Poles and the Bolsheviks, since some leaders of the [Jewish]Bund had called on all Jews to further international revolution by supporting the Red Army. Hostility to wards the Jews was inadvertently heightened by American and British Jewish pressure groups at Paris Peace talks of 1918. It was at their insistence that such states such as Poland were made to sign “Minorities Treaties”, which subjected their treatment of their Jewish citizens to international scrutiny. As well as encroaching on their sovereignty, it was an insult to the Poles with their long tradition of toleration… In the first two years of Polish independence, powerful groups of American and British Jewry were seen to be advocating the curtailment of Polish sovereignty apparently in unison with German interests, while Jews were in the forefront of the Bolshevik invasion of 1920. The average Pole felt the Jews were not on the same side as him.140

What one can probably easily agree on is that Gibson’s outlook on the Jewish question was consistent with views of the US government. American historian Frank W. Brecher characterized the main features of these views in the following way:

• The East European Jew was closely associated with, if not the actual leader, of the Communist world movement, which represented the major extant threat to Western interests in Europe and elsewhere
• If the Jew was the victim of popular violence, it was largely his own fault, due to his revolutionary activity, rapacious economic behavior using business methods “that would not be tolerated in the United States,” cultural separatism, and political disloyalty to his particular country of residence
• Religious bigotry hardly played a role in anti-Jewish persecution”

139 N. Davie s, God’s Playground, vol. II, pp. 262-3.
140 A. Zamoyski, The Polish Way. A Thousand Year History of the Poles and their
Culture, New York 1988, p. 345.

CONTROVERSIAL REPORTS ON THE SITUATION OF JEWS IN POLAND…”

Interestingly, years before Hitler came to power an American diplomat, THE US AMBASSADOR IN WARSAW HUGH GIBSON was saying that an element of Jewry was an extant threat. Of course he was dubbed an anti-semite who “had done more mischief to the Jewish race than anyone who had lived in the last century” by Supreme Court Justice Louis Brandeis and his associate Felix Frankfurter.

http://www.studiajudaica.pl/sj14kapi.pdf

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hugh_S._Gibson#Poland_and_the_Jewish_Question

Posted by Dan Dare on October 21, 2011, 02:02 AM | #

Desmond (and others) - please remember that the above text is an essay article in a weekly news magazine and therefore does not carry references or footnotes. The book itself is en route from amazon.de and when it arrives I will make a point of looking up what sources Aly cites for his claims about progroms, and will happy to do the same for any other claims that may be in dispute.

Posted by Silver on October 21, 2011, 03:00 AM | #

Uh,

Try http://www.thephora.net/forum/forumdisplay.php?f=105&order=desc Best stuff I recall reading dated from 07/08. Any lengthy thread involving “Basil Fawlty” is good.

Remember, informing yourself about this issue means you now want to go out and start killing Jews. There can’t possibly be any other reason anyone would look into it.

Posted by Captainchaos on October 21, 2011, 03:26 AM | #

everyone had a hand in exterminating the Jews

And based upon that assumption, what debt, if any, do you suppose Europeans owe Jews? In asking that question, I assume you belief the European worthiness of life is not based in the degree to which that life is useful to Jews but on the contrary is an end unto itself.

Posted by Captainchaos on October 21, 2011, 03:45 AM | #

Dare has no small emotional investment in a historical narrative that strays as much as possible away from a vindication of the National Socialist worldview that yet allows him to maintain his racial consciousness. The survival of the German people is absolutely vital and totally indispensable to the survival of his English people. He knows that. Yet the actions of his own immediate forbear were in near absolute contradiction to that critical insight. A million Germans burned alive in large part by the RAF. Really, it would have been more merciful to have herded those “Krauts” into gas chambers, though no less genocidal.

And on a note somewhat discordant with the above, I’m glad to see Dare back as well.

Posted by Graham_Lister on October 21, 2011, 04:10 AM | #

@Dan Dare

And I had so hoped that this thread wouldn’t degenerate into yet another H-related bunfight.

Dan I agree with you. The total over-obsession with those events is really dull. The Jewish claim that they experienced an ‘unique evil’ is hogwash (in that any Jewish suffering is not qualitatively different from others - Jews have no monopoly on historical suffering); but equally the rabid ‘deniers’ on this subject are the inversion of the Jewish claims to unique historical significance - seemingly everything rides on the precise status of those events for both sides.

It’s unedifying and rather ill conceived. I prefer .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) and his general approach which is to vigorously deny that there is anything, in a strong sense, unique about that regime or its actions. In other words to start the process of the normalisation of German history, thereby relativising it in comparative terms with other similar regimes.

Not only is this approach far more subtle and sophisticated, hence ‘reasonable’ it also the intellectually right approach to the topic. Equally useful is also to point out a la Finkelstein the enormous ideological use/manipulation of certain historical events by organised Jewry for ruthlessly self-serving ends.

@Mr. Haller

Rigorous - more like rigor mortis. Theology is rather moribund surely? It rather lacks anything like a dynamic impulse if we are being kind. Most American ‘Christians’ couldn’t name a theologian let alone explain their arguments. And no .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) and .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) do not quite count in this context.

I’m joking, of course the study of the past is useful and perhaps you will be Aquinas redux?

Posted by Graham_Lister on October 21, 2011, 04:25 AM | #

Well everyone sensible would agree the events of WWII were a tragedy and utterly disastrous for Europeans including many ordinary Germans caught up in those events.

But go figure that’s what happens when a particularly insane brand of ultra-militarism is put in charge of the place.

Opening up an expansionist war on multiple fronts against multiple enemies is generally a really dumb idea, not least for for the everyday people whose lives are lost or ruined by such folly. Oh dear now I will be accused of being ‘a commie’ no doubt.

Posted by Dasein on October 21, 2011, 05:19 AM | #

I suspect the title of Aly’s essay may also be a reference to bodenständig (autochthonous/native/rooted in the soil), a term in common use during the NS era, and which has overtones of ‘extreme’ nationalism today.

Posted by Captainchaos on October 21, 2011, 05:35 AM | #

overtones of ‘extreme’ nationalism

I wonder what “extreme” English nationalism would look like. Would the English just copy Krauts or would their nationalism, red in tooth and claw, be a few decibels lower, consistent with their “Being” and all that?

Posted by Dasein on October 21, 2011, 05:39 AM | #

MacDonald’s chapter on NS in Separation and its Discontents is excellent (National Socialism as an Anti-Jewish Group Evolutionary Strategy). SAID is perhaps even better than CoC. It provides a science-based rationale to normalise anti-jewish worldviews. ‘Oppose those things favoured by organised jewry’ is an excellent nationalist rule of thumb.

Everyone ought to read The Jewish Century as it is an unbelievable cock’s crow of Jewish triumphalism, full of everything with which we’ve ever charged them, but spun affirmatively. Not nearly enough has been said of that book. MacDonald or someone competent needs to review it, comparing all of its affirmative with Jew Crit’s negative attributions.

www.vdare.com/articles/stalins-willing-executioners

Let’s talk about your maladies though. Or are you too sore yet from the equestrian butthexing delivered by Dasein and Haller?

Surely you’ve confused me with someone else? I don’t remember equestrian butthexing the good doctor.

Posted by MOB on October 21, 2011, 06:25 AM | #

Is Götz Aly Jewish?

Much of what Götz has written is factually correct but suffers inaccurate interpretation. I don’t consider “envy” to be the best term with which to describe the reaction of Germans to Jews in their midst. What occurred there was a culture clash, not so coincidentally the name of the website that I’m trying to create. Culture clashes can be seen all around us, and they’re only resolved on the basis of power.

Education was simply not a value among the masses in Germany. This fact carried over into the U.S. as well. I was quite surprised, years ago, viewing a chart that showed levels of educational attainment by religious groupings, to see that Lutherans were way at the bottom; for some reason, I wouldn’t have expected that. I was also surprised to see that Quakers ranked even higher than Jews, which may explain at least partially why Jews seem so fond of attending Quaker schools.

Götz doesn’t understand that what Jews saw as normal behavior, ordinary Germans could very well see as sloth. I say this largely because of my own experience, as the first American child born into an entirely German family, newly emigrated from what I envision as a quite impoverished Northern German farm area. My strength was intellectual giftedness, out of which my preferences and tendencies grew. And those preferences and behaviors, which in a Jewish family would have been nurtured, were despised as character deficiencies, laziness, and not knowing my place. Values are like operating systems; they contain invisible permissions and restrictions. Good and Bad always have to be seen in context.

Jews are very different from most other people, intentionally. I think the more common reaction to differentness in a person or group is repugnance and shunning. Hatred and envy enter the equation when personal hardship becomes intense enough to trigger them. I see Jewish acquisitiveness in the way that I see obesity or chronic drunkenness; whatever mechanism exists in people of moderation that prompts them to stop when it’s enough, that mechanism doesn’t exist in Jews. Nothing is ever Jewish enough for them. I see them as painters who enter rooms of many colors and proceed, automatically, to paint every single square inch brown. Every nook and cranny must be painted brown; nothing can be left as it was.

Instead of “exposing” why poor, ignorant, indolent Germans hated Jews, Mr. Aly should expose the fact that in mob fashion, the Jewish collective enters into the Earth’s most desirable places at the time, and proceeds automatically to debauch and destroy everything that made it desirable in the first place.

Posted by anon / uh on October 21, 2011, 07:43 AM | #

Well, I’m a very casual German scholar myself, and I’ve never seen the name “Aly” anywhere in books, records, annals, news, etc. It certainly doesn’t conform to conventions of German nomenclature. Yet there are analogies such as the surname of Robert Ley. He appears quite German in his photos, indeed Nordic.

And those preferences and behaviors, which in a Jewish family would have been nurtured, were despised as character deficiencies, laziness, and not knowing my place.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jante_Law

The only safe collective is a jealous collective.

Posted by anon / uh on October 21, 2011, 07:53 AM | #

Dasein,

You gave him a short humorous show-ride on the other thread, unacknowledged by all, of course.

www.vdare.com/articles/stalins-willing-executioners

Dang. Forgot about that one. Have read it, LOL. There’s too much of this stuff to keep straight.

Posted by anon / uh on October 21, 2011, 08:00 AM | #

Oh dear now I will be accused of being ‘a commie’ no doubt.

не имейте страха, товарищ! You are in good company.

Even the Captain is sensible to the folly of Nazi war aims, I believe.

Posted by Leon Haller on October 21, 2011, 09:06 AM | #

@Mr. Haller

A rigorous doctoral program. Good for you. Now with wishing to appearing to be snide, if say physics, mathematics, biology etc., are at the top end of the scale for rigor in post-graduate studies and say various forms of ‘business studies’ near the bottom where precisely would theology be placed?

Rigorous - more like rigor mortis. Theology is rather moribund surely? It rather lacks anything like a dynamic impulse if we are being kind. Most American ‘Christians’ couldn’t name a theologian let alone explain their arguments. And no Benny Hinn and Jack van Impe do not quite count in this context.

I’m joking, of course the study of the past is useful and perhaps you will be Aquinas redux? (Lister)

——————————

Alas, Mr. Lister, you keep lowering yourself in my estimation. Surely you know that theology is an extremely rigorous discipline - assuming one is studying it at a rigorous institution, as I am. Actually what I am studying is Catholic Thought, which has a huge philosophical component to it. If you think studying Aristotle, Augustine, Aquinas, Ockham, and many other classical philosophers (eg, I have to do a required course on the German Idealists) right up to modern theologians like Rahner and other contemporaries is not rigorous, then you are far less intellectually aware than I had been giving you credit for.

Theology is hardly moribund. You don’t mean that, do you? Perhaps you meant ‘useless’. Your own Oxbridge churn out large numbers of refined books in theology (not to mention, obviously, philosophy).
My own program emphasizes Catholic philosophy/theology as a living tradition.

I’ve made one new friend since starting my program. He was an undergraduate (chemical? I think) engineering major at Rice (one of the best universities in the US).

Many of the professors here are European.

What is the relevance of the theological ignorance of the American majority? (I’m sure the average Brit could easily distinguish between Hobbes and Hume; no, let’s make it easier, between Thomas Cromwell and Thomas Cranmer? Of course, an impromptu lecture betwixt pints and darts ...)

I’ve never heard of Beny Himm or van Impe (you do understand I’m Catholic, yes?).

I’ve made clear why I’m here: to study the faith in order that I might better provide the correct ethical foundation to the cause of Western preservation. We shall just have to wait and see whose work is finally more useful.

Posted by Søren Renner on October 21, 2011, 10:04 AM | #

BTW, what does this word mean: “whingeing”?

It means, Mr. Haller, that you can’t be bothered to search for a definition. Google is your friend in a case like this.

Posted by Dan Dare on October 21, 2011, 11:04 AM | #

I’ll be witholding detailed commentary until after reading the book, but thus far one half of his questioning title remains to be directly addressed. His response to “Why the Jews?” appears to quite fully formed, but the obvious corollary to “Why the Germans?” is totally ignored.

As well as wondering “Why the Germans?” he should also be asking “Why not the French? Why not the English?” Both France and Britain also had sizeable and very visible Jewish populations which had a fractious relationship with their hosts. In addition, manifestations of official anti-Semitism, unknown in Prussia/Germany were very prominent in both countries. I’m thinking here particularly of the Dreyfus Affair and the 1905 Aliens Order.

So, then, why the Germans and why not the French or English?

Posted by Hail on October 21, 2011, 11:33 AM | #

Dan Dare wrote:
I had so hoped that this thread wouldn’t degenerate into yet another H-related bunfight.

Consider if: (i) somebody with MR posting-rights posts a lengthy textual-bloviation pertaining the implications for European Mankind of a Geocentric universe, without a trace of irony. (ii) Various commenters point out that the poster’s premise is false, and so all that follows from it is false, (iii) The original poster gets angry, yells at commenters for “degenerating the thread into yet another Geocentrism vs Heliocentrism squabble”, when all he wanted to do was discuss Geocentrism in peace!

You are referencing, here, a Geocentri — err, Holocaust-affirming — book, premised entirely upon the notion that The Most-Documented Event In Human History is also The Most-Important Event in Human History. It pushes the line, now totally mainstream, that ALL Germanic history — and by extension all European history — leads directly to the “Judenrampe” at Auschwitz. That seems to be what the book is all about.

Why do Germans/Europeans possess a uniquely-unparalleled Evil?

Why Germans, indeed.

Posted by Hail on October 21, 2011, 11:52 AM | #

MOB wrote:
Education was simply not a value among the masses in Germany.

1850, Literacy
85%: Prussia (can read and write)
61%: France (can read)
52%: England (can read and write)

(From National literacy campaigns: historical and comparative perspectives).

As for North America:
Interestingly, this claims that in the USA at the outbreak of the Civil War, 97% of Northern-Whites were literate; as were 91-92% of Southern-Whites, and 93% of English-speaking Canadians.

Posted by TabuLa Raza on October 21, 2011, 01:30 PM | #

I was gonna tell LH I’d be glad to look up the word for 5 bucks.

Posted by Herman on October 21, 2011, 01:35 PM | #

I must correct Mr. Aly in one point. It is simply not true that Jews were excluded from government service in pre-WWI germany. E. g., the first president of the German Reichsgericht, the supreme court in Germany which was established after the founding of the German Reich in 1871, was Edouard Simson, a Jewish law professor from Koenigsberg, who was nobilitated after his retirement in 1888.

Posted by Hail on October 21, 2011, 02:35 PM | #

The journalist and politician Wilhelm Marr, who in 1879 first coined the term ‘anti-Semitism’, railed against the “social predominance of Semitism”

Jimmy’s great-great-grandfather, I presume.

Herman wrote:
It is simply not true that Jews were excluded from government service in pre-WWI germany.

See Also: Court Jews. (Hofjuden). Even the Jewish Encyclopedia, linked, admits that Jews had considerable influence in the royals courts of central Europe in the old days.

Posted by Silver on October 21, 2011, 03:17 PM | #

Lurker,

Silver - whats happened to you? You’ve suddenly gone all reasonable in the last few months.

Now there’s an observation running uncharacteristically against the grain for you. There’s hope for you yet, young Lurker.

That prompts me to offer you these words of advice.

Lurker, Lurker, circle-jerker,
Listen not ye to Guessedworker.

The verbose plots of Leon Haller
Are not the better part of valor.

Sticks and stones may break your bones,
Race breaks the heart of Desmond Jones.

Would race be heeded near and far
But for NSM and Jimmy Marr.

Words that help and words that hinder;
Issue which from Alex Linder?

Empty ardor, empty solace
Are all one finds in Hunter Wallace.

Of racial issues be aware,
For history’s ken there is Dan Dare.

Fierce opposition fast declining
Could yet prove a Silver lining!

Posted by Graham_Lister on October 21, 2011, 03:37 PM | #

Silver - geez I didn’t make the literary cut. Always next time I guess.

For those in the UK Karl Pilkington is having some ‘interesting’ encounters with black Africans on “An Idiot Abroad 2” on Sky.

Posted by Silver on October 21, 2011, 04:10 PM | #

Graham,

Fwiw, you were certainly carefully considered. (Something about forgoing “Mister”—Alex Kurtagic’s novel) . Alas I have no beef with you and the couplets were meant as admonition. Captainchaos also deserved a mention; but “chaos,” I was stumped…

Posted by Dan Dare on October 21, 2011, 04:27 PM | #

“Being admonished by Silver is like being savaged by a dead sheep.”

Posted by Graham_Lister on October 21, 2011, 04:39 PM | #

Silver - it’s OK glad you have no beef with me.

.(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) - interesting little video.

Dan Dare - are you a historian? Do you have a view on Ernst Nolte?

Posted by Dan Dare on October 21, 2011, 05:18 PM | #

Graham: No, not professionally and, like the curate’s egg, good in parts. In my view Martin Walser put the better case for ‘drawing a line under the past’ and I never found Nolte’s ‘rat cage’ defence very persuasive.

Posted by Desmond Jones on October 21, 2011, 05:45 PM | #

Opening up an expansionist war on multiple fronts against multiple enemies is generally a really dumb idea, not least for for the everyday people whose lives are lost or ruined by such folly.

Unless of course it is felt that your race faces an existential threat. After all, isn’t that the reason for MRs very existence.

Why did Hitler take this epic gamble? This surely is the fundamental question. Even if the conquest of living space can be rationalized as an act of imperialism, even if the Third Reich can be credited with a remarkable effort to muster its resources for combat, even if Germany’s soldiers fought brilliantly, Hitler’s conduct of the war involved risks so great that they defy rationalization in terms of pragmatic self-interest.3 And it is with this question that we reconnect to mainstream historiography and its insistence on the importance of ideology. It was ideology which provided Hitler with the lens through which he understood the international balance of power and the unfolding of the increasingly globalized struggle that began in Europe with the Spanish Civil War in the summer of 1936. In Hitler’s mind, the threat posed to the Third Reich by the United States was not just that of conventional superpower rivalry. The threat was existential and bound up with Hitler’s abiding fear of the world Jewish conspiracy, manifested in the shape of ‘Wall Street Jewry’ and the ‘Jewish media’ of the United States. It was this fantastical interpretation of the real balance of power that gave Hitler’s decision-making its volatile, risk-taking quality. Germany could not simply settle down to become an affluent satellite of the United States, as had seemed to be the destiny of the Weimar Republic in the 1920s, because this would result in enslavement to the world Jewish conspiracy, and ultimately race death. Given the pervasive influence of the Jews, as revealed by the mounting international tension of the late 1930s, a prosperous future of capitalist partnership with the Western powers was simply impossible. War was inevitable. The question was not if, but when.”

Tooze, Wages of Destruction p. XXV

Rather prescient, no?

Posted by FB on October 21, 2011, 06:00 PM | #

DJ, that excerpt establishes the author as a conformist historian repeating same old, same old nonsense (ie, Hitler was crazy). Fact: the Third Reich wanted a small war (with Poland), it got a big one instead. Hitler assumed that GB would act like a rational player and not go to war over a border dispute with Danzig. He was mistaken. Simple. The origins of that conflict can be thusly summarized. Result: unprecedented Jewish power and the ideology of “human rights” as the West’s new dominant religion. Amen.

Posted by Ryan on October 21, 2011, 08:31 PM | #

DJ, that excerpt establishes the author as a conformist historian repeating same old, same old nonsense (ie, Hitler was crazy).

That’s assuming that the idea of Jews being powerful, influential, hostile, and posing an existential threat was crazy.

The mainstream, “conformist” view does of course assume this. It considers any belief in the disproportionate power and influence of Jews as being “crazy” and “anti-Semitic”.

If you don’t think it’s that crazy, then the excerpt suggests something quite different.

Posted by Desmond Jones on October 21, 2011, 10:57 PM | #

DJ, that excerpt establishes the author as a conformist historian repeating same old, same old nonsense (ie, Hitler was crazy).

Yes, FB, but that is the whole point.

If you don’t think it’s that crazy, then the excerpt suggests something quite different.

Touchdown!

Posted by Graham_Lister on October 22, 2011, 01:45 AM | #

Unless of course it is felt that your race faces an existential threat. After all, isn’t that the reason for MRs very existence.

So if invading France, the Netherlands, most of Scandinavia, most of central Europe and the ex-Soviet Union (did I miss some others too?) is clever or wise policy then I don’t know if the conversation can reasonably go on. Expansionist militarism probably isn’t the most sensible policy instrument at this time (or indeed then).

And many of the leading lights of the regime we are discussing were certainly ‘odd’. For example Himmler’s bizarre occult interests etc.

Posted by Desmond Jones on October 22, 2011, 02:20 AM | #

No one said it was clever or wise. It is acknowledged that the risks were so great that they defied rationalization in terms of pragmatic self-interest. However, in the face of racial death, it was inevitable that the German people would fight to survive. All creatures fight for life Dr. Lister. Survival is virtuous.

Posted by Graham_Lister on October 22, 2011, 02:49 AM | #

It is of course important to tolerate the beliefs, opinions and flagrant idiocies of all men. At some point, though, a line must be drawn.

Posted by Silver on October 22, 2011, 03:22 AM | #

However, in the face of racial death, it was inevitable that the German people would fight to survive.

The Nazis invaded Poland in order to stave off imminent racial death.

Right.

Posted by Chip Farley on October 22, 2011, 04:36 AM | #

The Judeo-Bolsheviks were coming. Uncle Adolf did the best he could (sadly he couldn’t save East Germany, the GDR, from falling to them…)

Suvorov’s thesis

Suvorov challenges the widely-accepted view that Adolf Hitler and the Nazi regime attacked an unsuspecting USSR on June 22, 1941 with a much superior and better prepared force. Instead, Suvorov argues that the Soviet Union was poised to invade Nazi-controlled territories in July 1941.

Suvorov claims that Stalin successfully manipulated Hitler into removing the “buffer zone” (Poland) between Europe and the USSR. Suvorov further argues that Stalin’s goal was the export of communism to other countries. Once Hitler ‘broke the ice’, Soviet victory in the large-scale war that followed would enable the USSR to impose Stalinist regimes on most of Europe. In this theory, Nazi military aggression would ironically form the icebreaker for a communist invasion.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Icebreaker_(Suvorov)#Suvorov.27s_thesis

Everyday I wake up I thank God for Uncle Adolf. As Revilo P. Oliver noted, he bought Western Civilization several decades time (until Cultural Marxism was unleashed upon us by the Jew, leading to the current ‘Death of the West’ as documented by Pat Buchanan.)

Posted by anon / uh on October 22, 2011, 08:25 AM | #

Fact: the Third Reich wanted a small war (with Poland), it got a big one instead. Hitler assumed that GB would act like a rational player and not go to war over a border dispute with Danzig. He was mistaken. Simple. The origins of that conflict can be thusly summarized.

You leave out far too much, buddy.

Well, you leave out one crucial component of the origins of German expansionism, the plain desire to enfranchise the resources and populations of the east for the benefit of Germany and presumably also of Western Europe. The blueprint was drawn up the moment Rosenberg had a chance to bend Hitler’s ear and feed him horror stories of dispossession by the Bolsheviks. So another fact is that the desire to take control of the Pivot was conceived much earlier from various influences like Haushofer’s ideas, German irredentism and “Ostalgia”, Volksdeutsch émigrés, the experience of Bolshevik revolutions at home, and perhaps before anything, the ideological climate of German racialism and Hitler’s own Napoleon complex. Hitler became a vector of all these influences and duly a monomaniac who, no matter what, would have sought to go to war with Russia.

I don’t call Hitler “crazy” and disregard those who do, but I classify that as genuine, clinical monomania. And as nearly half of Germany’s grain and fatty oil imports were coming from the Russia up til ‘41, as I have pointed out before, he further concluded, irrationally in the psychological sense, that they might just make a grab at the breadbasket and “rid the world of the Bolshevik plague” in one swipe. But those imports were necessitated by the expansion of their military. This is the same vicious agricultural cycle as occurs anywhere else. The more mouths to feed, the more grain is needed, and the more uncomfy entanglements result.

I believe that at root of all National Socialism is the true story of its origins in the Auslanddeutsch circles of Sudetenland and Austria. Now Hitler was not personally involved therewith, but received dispensation from Drexler, who had been. Much in the way of Jews who often became hardened in their ethnic strategy by being the minority, these guys felt surrounded and dispossessed by Slavs in the crown lands. Thus “National Socialism” as doctrine was born. Twas this paranoia, this obsession with being “swarmed” that carried over to Munich, was reinforced by the Bolshevik agitation there, reinforced by the likes of Rosenberg, and fed into the greater German stream of romantic irredentism and geopolitical daydreaming with shades of the Knights and all that — an extraordinarily potent brew that an identifier with all things militaristic and “great” like Hitler could not help swallowing and acting out when the moment came.

But the only relevant point to be made is that the NSDAP ultimately obliged itself to attempt to gain direct control of the Pivot Area by the very militarist ideology that lifted them out of depression — the more input they required the more “logical” it became to cut out middlemen, basically. Not nearly enough has been written about this.

I’d have no problem if you had not reduced the whole of the conflict to Hitler’s assumptions of how just one other player would behave. But like every other reich-romantik you don’t turn that flashlight on Hitler’s assumption about Stalin’s plans, which was another wild confirmation bias made tragic for by being located at the head of a very efficient military. And the reason is plain: Hitler’s stupid monomaniacal attack upon Russia must be defended at any cost, so the narrative of secret Soviet plans for invasion has grown up around this question like a bramble thicket to obscure the known facts of German war aims, trumpeted all over the fucking place, irrational assumptions, and culpability in overextending themselves. The hidden feeling is that it would be discomfiting to admit that Hitler and the gang were just paranoiacs who self-fulfilled their paranoid prophecy of Bolshevik takeover by stirring up a war they couldn’t win, systematically underestimating everything around them.

This is merely to say that Germans are too provincial for geopolitics and world war. As two consecutive losses thereat might lead one to suppose.

Posted by anon / uh on October 22, 2011, 08:34 AM | #

Everyday I wake up I thank God for Uncle Adolf

You thank the man who consigned us to the ghetto, and died without admitting his mistakes.

As Revilo P. Oliver noted, he bought Western Civilization several decades time (until Cultural Marxism was unleashed upon us by the Jew, leading to the current ‘Death of the West’ as documented by Pat Buchanan.)

You just have it all worked out, haven’t you. Name to name to name to name. Like pieces on a chessboard.

Posted by Dan Dare on October 22, 2011, 10:00 AM | #

You thank the man who consigned us to the ghetto, and died without admitting his mistakes.

He got his own back in the end though.

]Hitler’s Revenge

Posted by Chip Farley on October 22, 2011, 10:55 AM | #

You thank the man who consigned us to the ghetto, and died without admitting his mistakes.

He made no mistakes, and is today worshiped by some as a God.

‘Savitri Devi integrated Nazism into a broader cyclical framework of Hindu history. She considered Hitler to be Kalki, the tenth and final Avatar of Vishnu, and called him “the god-like Individual of our times; the Man against Time; the greatest European of all times”,[3]’

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Esoteric_Nazism#Savitri_Devi

You just have it all worked out, haven’t you. Name to name to name to name. Like pieces on a chessboard.

That’s right. You may wish to check out the views of some of those I named. They are called books… they won’t hurt you if you open them up!

Posted by anon / uh on October 22, 2011, 11:21 AM | #

You thank the man who consigned us to the ghetto, and died without admitting his mistakes.

He made no mistakes, and is today worshiped by some as a God.

Like Jesus, yes?

Posted by Jimmy Marr on October 22, 2011, 01:15 PM | #

Lurker, Lurker, circle-jerker / Listen not ye to Guessedworker.
The verbose plots of Leon Haller /  Are not the better part of valor.
Sticks and stones may break your bones /  Race breaks the heart of Desmond Jones.
Would race be heeded near and far  / But for NSM and Jimmy Marr?
Words that help and words that hinder:  Issue which from Alex Linder?
Empty ardor, empty solace /  Are all one finds in Hunter Wallace.
Of racial issues be aware /  For history’s ken there is Dan Dare.
Fierce opposition fast declining /  Could yet prove a Silver lining!

I like poems, Silver. Thanks for composing and posting this one. It also gives me an opportunity to say how much I am enjoying the reading of Miguel Serrano’s Adolf Hitler: El Ulitima Avatara, which relates to other comments on this thread. The book is a mixture of history, autobiography, mythical cosmology, and psychology.
It seems the Serrano experienced something of a sleep disorder from a fairly young age in which he frequently got mentally stranded in some sort of paralytic no-man’s land between sleeping and waking. His lifelong struggle with this condition led him to consult several prominent personalities as well as others who fall more readily into a class of trance mediums. Under the influence of someone he calls refers to as Maestro, Serrano devoted himself to participating actively in his episodes of waking paralysis.
His exchanges with Carl Jung are of particular interest because, in addition to his theory of archetypes and the collective unconscious, Jung had personally experienced Hitler’s presence for a short period of time and described the experience to Serrano who came to believe that Hitler had been acting in a state similar to those of his own experience, which he considered to be a state of surrender to racial archetype.
From what I am learning, Anon/Uh is nearly correct in his comparison of this view with that by which some Christians view Jesus. The most notable exception that I can detect is that Serrano presents the information from a polytheistic standpoint wherein various avatars of various archetypes (Gods) are fighting in a terrestrial analog of cosmic war.
The take away point for me is not the desirability of complete victory or defeat but understanding the cosmological dependence on struggle itself and the role of Hitler in identifying the opposing archetypes and potentiating a more complete polarization, which is yet to come. Comparing again to Jesus: “I bring not peace, but a sword”.

Siege heil.

Posted by Desmond Jones on October 22, 2011, 05:15 PM | #

Result: unprecedented Jewish power and the ideology of “human rights” as the West’s new dominant religion. Amen.

It’s a good summary but what did this new ideology produce?

Germany could not simply settle down to become an affluent satellite of the United States, as had seemed to be the destiny of the Weimar Republic in the 1920s, because this would result in enslavement to the world Jewish conspiracy, and ultimately race death.

Britain settled for affluent satellite status. It lost its empire. It bankrupted the nation. It is still occupied by the American military. It is a nation, like most of Europe, enslaved to Wall Street debt and facing impending racial death through a slow motion genocide. Was it prudent and clever for the UK to spend its bounty and spill its blood to war with Germany? Isn’t that why we gather here? To discuss the impending racial death of the Western world and how to resist it. Do we all suffer from some psycho-pathology because the vast majority of the world denies there is any threat? Maybe so.

Posted by Jimmy Marr on October 22, 2011, 06:44 PM | #

Hadding Scott recently posted a comment at VNN that gives a thumbnail sketch of his understanding of Hitler’s position with respect to the invasion of Poland.

http://www.vnnforum.com/showthread.php?p=1330412&posted=1#post1330412

Posted by Dan Dare on October 22, 2011, 07:14 PM | #

Rather than being bamboozled by Hadding’s Propmin-authorised fairytale version you can get the version for grown-ups here:

http://majorityrights.com/weblog/comments/sowing_the_seeds_powder_keg_on_the_baltic

Posted by anon / uh on October 22, 2011, 07:27 PM | #

Yes, Jimmy, another die-hard apologist for a powerful man’s fatal mistakes.

You’re smarter than this. You’re enough of a man to not be a dupe of Serrano’s Hitler-worship.

But in a spirit of la dispute pour la dispute, let’s look more deeply into Hadding’s points.

1. The Treaty of Versailles gave Germany an indefensible eastern border.

Indefensible against what? Oh, right, the looming threat of Soviet invasion. As yet unproved and by the way improvable. It is, as ever, necessary to distinguish that which one wishes to be true and that which cannot be established as true. What’s left is what happened. Germany’s invasion of Poland, then Russia, without a shot fired by the latter.

2. Germany had to be concerned about the military threat posed by the Soviet Union.

A threat they in any case brought entirely to bear on themselves by their poor planning and lack of materiel preponderance. Yes, it takes a pack of hyenas to bring down one lion, but while you’re lionizing the lion, the hyenas are stumbling away from dinner, fat and laughing at you. A threat that, again, is only postulated, presupposed, asserted, assumed. There was no stipulation in the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact that prohibited amassing of materiel along any border.

So they got Poland and Czechoslovakia, and all should have been well with the Reich. But what do they do? Why, attack Soviet Russia head-on! I guess mere “border security” wasn’t their long play after all.

I’m sure Hadding has another list of points absolving Hitler of that madness, too.

3. Germany’s efforts to reach an accommodation with Poland, so that the indefensible border would no longer be a problem, were thwarted, largely as a result of British meddling.

Have you ever seen the dialogue of the Athenians and Melians in The Peloponnesian War? The Athenians, who in any case were set to conquer this small unimportant island to flex their muscles at the Spartans, allowed themselves the attempt to rationally persuade the Melos delegation that joining the Delian League was in their interest, precisely because to refuse would mean their destruction. These of course are preemptive terms which force the second party into a desperate defensive posture; no people, no being, willingly concedes itself to dominion by another. The Poles, remember, had been down the road with Germans a couple times before, and were loath to accommodate a hostile neighbor. You imply that they ought to have been accommodating, welcomed all the Germans racing across an autobahn through their territory (how about you get behind the Pan-American Highway, Jimmy??); as though Hitler was an angelic messenger of peace. Precisely as he liked to pose and excuse himself when his plans went wrong, and guys like Hadding, and the truly out-there Chip Farley, are all too ready to believe.

Congratulations guys, you’ve fallen for the oldest trick in the book: believing a politician.

4. Worse than that, there were some positively jingoistic Poles: It seems to have fallen down the memory-hole that Poland occupied part of Czechoslovakia simultaneously as Germany occupied the western part. And indeed there were some atrocities against ethnic Germans in Poland.

Tit-for-tat, equivalency game, tu quoque — proves fuck all. I’m going into this blind, and Hadding had better shape up.

5. While Germany’s effort to make a defensive arrangement with Poland had been foiled, Britain began sabre-rattling over the German occupation of western Czechoslovakia (but not over the Polish occupation of northeastern Czechoslovakia).

Indeed, Poland had its ambitions. Interestingly Czechoslovakia very sensibly gave up the “< 1%" of land demanded by Poland. It is undeniable that Poland was suffering from a bit of little man's syndrome in a big man's fight. What does this tu quoque prove about Adolf Hitler? Nothing. It proves other politicians were at the time were in the throes of irrational demands upon their neighbors, the same romantic irredentist demands cherished by German patriots.

6. Under the circumstances, with the looming threat of a war in the west, it made very good geopolitical sense for Germany to develop good relations with the USSR and to arrange a partition Poland with the USSR so as to have a short and defensible eastern border far from Berlin.

Undeniable, in itself.

7. The attacks on German radio stations, the immediate provocation for the German invasion of Poland, were probably not mere inventions of German propaganda as was alleged at Nuremberg. There were many such incidents, and the only evidence that it was all a hoax was the word of the mysterious Alfred Naujocks.

Nazis never did any wrong. Always honorable, honest, fair, blameless, and good. No deceit, no treachery, no foul play ever crossed their minds, it was all Soviet lies lies lies cooked up for Nuremberg. And Brutus and Cassius ... are honorable men.

8. It was crazy for Britain and France to go to war against Germany over Poland. Neville Chamberlain complained to Joseph Kennedy that he had been pushed into it by the USA and the International Jews. The continuation of the war by Britain after the fall of France was even more crazy.

Far crazier for Germany to be dragged into war against Russia. Oh but I know, it was “necessary” — Joe was about to attack!!!! Suvarov sez so. Every step of the way, you guys are led by your romantic idealism to make excuses for the missteps of this war-monger who dragged us into the abyss, and damned well knew what he had done at the end of it.

Posted by anon / uh on October 22, 2011, 07:42 PM | #

Dan,

Great link. I never saw that entry. Basically then, Versailles created another set of intolerable conditions at the eastern frontier, for both neighbors.

I wrote elsewhere of the tensions caused by Stalin’s own drawing of the political boundary of Tajikistan, with Tajik majorities marooned in Uzbekistan, and Uzbeks marooned in Tajikistan to the south. Sounds trivial, but the terrain is very rugged and they weren’t / aren’t Americans buzzing around in cars. No good trains either.

What this comes down to is the psychological loss aversion of WNs to admitting that their idol was fallible, and responsible for the extent of the mess we’re in. If the actions had not been so extreme (or so extreme that ... ), neither would the ongoing reaction. They’ve identified too much with this one man and his movement and so everything must be interpreted to suit their romantic attachments. And now it’s open Hitler worship.

HITLER THE GOD. No kidding!

Posted by Jimmy Marr on October 22, 2011, 09:08 PM | #

I get your point, Anon/Uh, and I thank you for suggesting that I’m smart enough not to “fall for it”, but as you have noted romantic pre-dispositions tend to color our perceptions. Since there are scholars of significant note (e.g. Hoggan) who offer unorthodox interpretations on this issue, it seems prudent on my part, to recognize the issue as fraught with ambiguity.

Reading history appeals to me about as much as reading economics appeals to you. I’ve tried Hoggan twice this year and can’t cut it. Suvorov is on the shelf as well, but I’ll never read it either. And even if I did, what would it prove: That I sought the advice of those who offered a perspective to which I was already in sympathy?

How can I escape those predispositions? And how would I know when or if I had?

It seems to me that the best I can hope for is to realize that the ultimate truth of world history is probably something like a Rorschact inkblot, and take responsibility for my prejudices. I could work night and day rung down evidence to support my bias, but my efforts would only belie my assertions.

As you’ve pretty much said, I’m in love with Hilter and the aesthetics of the Third Reich. This was not always true. It’s only come about since about 2006 when I started to figure out how bad the Jewish media was lying about Palestine. From there it all began to unwind for me. I discovered that the distortion favored Jewish interests. I knew if the media was lying day by day the result would be a falsified history.

Meanwhile, local Jews were using every dastardly trick in the book to shut down my university discussion group because we were talking about Palestine. Like Hitler, “Gradually, I began to hate them”.

I attacked them, just like Hitler attacked Russia. I took control of the group and used it as a Kamikaze weapon against their Holy Hoax. I wasn’t even certain it was a hoax at time I started, but knowledgeable people came to my assistance anonymously and I barraged my enemies week after week with the ammunition they provided me. Neither Jews nor the history department would dare to debate me on the subject. They only resorted to calling me a hater, anti-Semite and Nazi and working behind closed doors to pass a resolution in the faculty senate for a change in the university bylaws that allowed my to defy them on their own filthy academic turf.

As long as I had to stand up every Friday afternoon and call those bastards out on their lies, I was willing to do the research necessary pull it off, and as a side benefit I developed the convictions of my courage, but I no longer need to give public presentations, so I’m not going to become a WWII historian just to justify what I freely admit are my aesthetic biases.

A more worthwhile question is Why do I have these predispositions? How much is environmental vs. biological? I’ve been bombarded with lies my entire life. I have no control group by which to compare. I can only guess, so shall I trust the work of Jews and their castrated White minions, or put my faith in the words and actions of Adolf Hitler?

Posted by Desmond Jones on October 22, 2011, 10:37 PM | #

Oh but I know, it was “necessary” — Joe was about to attack!!!!

It was a question of simple survival.

Despite the extraordinary extent of the Wehrmacht’s victories, the space under Germany’s control in the autumn of 1940 was not, therefore,the self-sufficient Lebensraum of which Hitler had dreamed. Nor did Western Europe provide a promising platform from which to fight the long war of attrition that Britain and its backers in the United States were clearly determined to force on Germany. In economic terms, the Wehrmacht’s victories in 1940 did not release Germany from the dependence on the Soviet Union into which it had entered a year earlier.
100
In fact, in the short term the only way to sustain Germany’s Western European Grossraum at anything like its pre-war level of economic activity was to secure a vast increase in fuel and raw material deliveries from the Soviet Union.
101
Only the Ukraine produced the net agricultural surpluses necessary to support the densely packed animal populations of Western Europe. Only in the Soviet Union were there the coal, iron and metal ores needed to sustain the military-industrial complex. Only in the Caucasus was there the oil necessary to make Europe independent of overseas supply. Only with access to these resources could Germany face a long war against Britain and America with any confidence.

Wages of Destruction, Tooze p.420

...the ‘bread basket of the Ukraine’ played a key role in all the various military-economic assessments of the Barbarossa campaign prepared over the winter of 1940-41. For Hitler, it was the key priority, to be achieved prior to any other military consideration,the importance of which was only reinforced by the alarming decline in the German grain stocks. By December 1940 the entire military and political leadership of the Third Reich was convinced that this was the last year in which they could approach the food question with any confidence. Nor was this simply a German problem. All of the Western European territories which had fallen under German domination in1940 had substantial net grain deficits.Unless additional sources of feed grain could be secured, the only solution was a mass slaughter of Europe’s animal herds reminiscent of the famous ‘pig massacre’ of 1916. Given the isolation imposed on the European continent by the British blockade, only the Ukraine could provide Western Europe with the millions of tons of grain it needed to sustain its animal populations. Not surprisingly, therefore, when Hitler gave the definitive order in early December 1940 to begin preparing for an attack on the Soviet Union.

Ibid p.477

Posted by Desmond Jones on October 22, 2011, 10:46 PM | #

Even in the immediate prelude to operation Barbarossa, Germany could not afford to do without Soviet deliveries of oil, grain and alloy metals.

The willingness to engage in such bizarre compromises reflected the increasing concern in Berlin over the precarious situation of Germany’s raw material supplies.
111
As the military-economic office of the Wehrmacht concluded at the end of October 1940: ‘Current favourable raw material situation (improved by stocks captured in enemy territory) will,in case of prolonged war and after consumption of existing stocks,re-emerge as bottleneck. From summer 1941 this is to be expected in case of fuel oil as well as industrial fats and oils.’
112
And Germany’s dependence was made even more acute by the poor harvest of 1940.When Soviet Foreign Minister Molotov made a three-day visit to Berlin in November 1940, one of the first items on the German agenda was an urgent request to double the import of grain from the Soviet Union,from the current level of 1 million tons per annum.
113
By the end of 1940, the grain stocks were preoccupying even the military leadership.With regard to the food situation, General Haider noted anxiously in his diary: ‘We will swindle our way through 1941.’
114
Thereafter, the situation was unforeseeable. In the event, unexpected salvation arrived in early January 1941 when the Soviets more than doubled their deliveries, even agreeing to dip into their national grain reserve to meet the German demands.
115
Ironically, however, this Soviet effort to ‘buy off the Germans had the opposite effect. Their ability to make such substantial concessions at such short notice appears only to have encouraged Hitler in his belief that the conquest of the Ukraine was the obvious next step in his campaign of aggression.

Wages of Destruction, Tooze p.413

Posted by Dan Dare on October 22, 2011, 11:49 PM | #

Nobody stepping forward to grasp the nettle in #40?

So, then, why the Germans and why not the French or English?

Not even the Cap’n?

Posted by Dan Dare on October 22, 2011, 11:59 PM | #

So Desmond, after having read Tooze, are you now of a mind that Hitler’s rationale for invading Poland was not for the purpose of regaining Danzig but rather as a precursor to further expansionism to the East, in search of the material resources and Lebensraum that were considered necessary prerequisites in order that Germany might (re)claim its rightful ‘Place in the Sun’?

If not, why not? That is after all Tooze’s thesis, and you do seem to be citing him quite a lot at the moment.

Posted by anon / uh on October 23, 2011, 12:00 AM | #

Desmond,

I’ve noted that twice before, once in this thread. While that book looks interesting, one sentence leaps out at me from the excerpt:

Given the isolation imposed on the European continent by the British blockade,

... provoked by Germany’s aggression. There is really nothing more to it than that. One is asked to pardon Adolf Hitler & Co. for further exacerbating post-War conditions in Europe by deliberate, premeditated conquest of Germany’s neighbors and ultimately a preconceived, pathologically demonized foe (“the Bolshevik virus” — the Reds, for all the rhetoric, never thought quite so bizarrely of the Fascists or capitalism) which it was not equipped to take on, and from which it had already come to a number of agreements, including trade for massive quantities of foodstuffs. The Soviets were, as I have said, fueling the very force that from the first believed with blind fervor that Soviet Russia was “out to get them” and had to be destroyed. What if it was all wrong? what if they were just a gang of obsessive bourgeois Germans who didn’t know everything? was there any precedent of Russia invading the West? No, but there was precedent of the West invading Russia: Bonaparte.

You are right. It was a question of naktes Überleben, and as happens when animals are backed into a corner, especially paranoid animals like German fascists, they lash out before considering other strategies.

Of course I’m playing Captain Hindsight here, men are fallible, act irrationally. All I can do is remind people Hitler and his people ought to be included. Allegiance tends to obscure facts. Believers don’t see flaws or mistakes, like men in love with cheap soulless whores.

I’ve read of the Schweinemord once before, somewhere in my blog reading, and here it was:

To protect the supply of grain, Germany decided to eliminate all its pigs, thus ensuring that they would not be able to grow as much grain on their pigless farms. Again, Deutschland is its own worst enemy, too smart for its own good. The same tragic flaw that led them so deep into their own obtuse philosophy that they lost sight of the world beneath their feet, is what allowed those efficient and oh so organized Germans to conclude with astounding bureaucratic disassociation that pigs were unnecessary to the war economy. This here be the ironic part of their compulsive efficiency and bureaucracy.

Germany…so smart, it forgot that farmers need [dung] to grow crops.

The only excuse for Nazi war aims, which were preconceived and explicitly stated, is that they were a response to straitened ecological conditions arising from both the consequences of their first big mistake (for which I’m sure there are more excuses and justifications) and the nature of agro-industrial civilization itself. You ought to read about the role of Fritz Haber to German munitions and of course the development of the “Zyklon” series. More nitrogen = more grain = fiatmenschen = more need of grain = more nitrogen = more grain, etc. Militarily, more nitrogen = more fuel = more militarization = more need for fuel = more nitrogen, etc.

Then, in 1909, German chemist Fritz Haber successfully fixed atmospheric nitrogen in a laboratory.[6][7] This success had extremely attractive military, industrial and agricultural applications. In 1913, barely five years later, a research team from BASF, led by Carl Bosch, developed the first industrial-scale application of the Haber process, sometimes called the Haber-Bosch process.[8][9]
The industrial production of nitrogen prolonged World War I by providing Germany with the gunpowder and explosives necessary for the war effort even though it no longer had access to guano.[10] During the interwar period, the lower cost of ammonia extraction from the virtually inexhaustible atmospheric reservoir contributed to the development of intensive agriculture and provided support for worldwide population growth.[11][12][13] During World War II, the efforts to industrialize the Haber process benefited greatly from the Bergius process, allowing Nazi Germany access to the synthesized fuel produced by IG Farben, thereby decreasing oil imports.

Ironically, all that earnest haranguing about “winning bread for the German family” was entirely truthful. No one now can escape the agricultural nightmare, so it isn’t surprising, and it isn’t a lovely romantical passion play of Good Guys vs Jews, that Hitler jumped the gun for Ukraine and Russia; I’m sure the memory of all the dead piggies and turnip-bread was vivid in their minds, hell, I know Hitler used to dine on a radish or two in his old Munich flat. Unfortunately, even after securing quite generous trade from Russia, they went about it in their usual fashion, stuck in the Old World, and have now been stamped out forever.

Like it or not there was a host of very toxic and ignoble manias that made this happen — fear of “the Bolsheviks”, of “the untermenschen”, of starvation, losing territory, conquering territory, etc. — despite the sentimental coatings of Jimmy, Soren and their new guru, or our own appreciation of a nation that stood up to Big Jew and won for a few years. Then again, would I have been BORN if they had not driven the Ashkenazi intellectuals over here? Hey, I don’t know; there’s no Laplace demon to sort such things out. One has only what is the case by which to judge history, and that motherfucker drove them this way, ruining my country forever. Which is also ruining other countries forever. Hurray! Hitler was a gawd.

About survival! How about keep your head down and make friends, hope for the best? One doesn’t have to be a “rational actor” to arrive at such wisdom. Just not in the grip of psychotic political romanticism.

Posted by anon / uh on October 23, 2011, 12:17 AM | #

If not, why not? That is after all Tooze’s thesis, and you do seem to be citing him quite a lot at the moment.

Why would someone have to read another book to understand that the NSDAP was as duplicitous as any other political party in the pursuit of its aims? does no one else, when reading Hitler’s speeches for example, feel the lying winds of bombast blowing as though one were listening to any other demagogic douchebag?

World: You can’t simply invade like that.

Hitler: IT WASN’T MY FAULT! YOU MADE ME DO IT! IF YOU’D ALL F***** JUST ACQUIESCE TO EVERYTHING I WANT I WOULDN’T HAVE TO SET MY EINSATZGRUPPEN ON SLAVIC PEASANTS AND HANG PARTISANS FROM TREES!

World: You absolutely cannot respect anyone’s borders, then?

Hitler: BOLSHEVIKS! ... INTERNATIONAL JUDENTUM!!! ... STALIN GOING TO INVADE ... UNTERMENSCHEN F****** EVERYWHERE .... REICHSTAG FIRE .... GLEIWITZ ... KATYN ... WE WANT WHAT’S BEST FOR EUROPE!!!! JESUS WTF IS WRONG WITH YOU MORONS, I EXHAUSTED EVERY DIPLOMATIC CHANNEL TO CONVINCE YOU THAT POLAND, CZECHOSLOVAKIA, AUSTRIA, UKRAINE ALL BELONG TO THE ARYAN SUPERMEN, AND STILL YOU PUSH ME INTO THIS! FORCE MY HAND!! THIS’LL HURT ME MORE THAN IT HURTS YOU’S!!!

Stalin: ... oh ffs. We gonna execute all these bastards or what?

Churchill: Poor taste, chap.

Stalin: (sips sherry) Ha ha, I joke! Is Russian joke. (aside to Molotov) Holy shit bro we’re gonna own those krauts BIG TIME.

Posted by anon / uh on October 23, 2011, 12:33 AM | #

Let me make this very simple for yous guys, den you can go back to answering “Why Germany?”, whateva daf*ck dat means.

HITLER, in ‘Mein Kampf’: LOOK THE ONLY WAY WE CAN FEED EVERYONE IS BUY TAKING LAND IN THE EAST BY FORCE, ALL RIGHT, NOT LETTING BAVARIA DECLARE INDEPENDENCE, BITCHING ABOUT THE BRENNER PASS OR ANY OF THAT PETTY SHITE. JESUS WTF IS WRONG WITH YOU GUYS. YOU’RE ALWAYS ON ABOUT BROT, BROT, WELL TO MAKE BROT YOU NEED GRAINS AND THE BOLSHEVIKS HAVE ALL THAT CHERNOZEM AT THEIR DISPOSAL, WE GOTTA STEAL SOME!!! HOW EXPLICIT MUST I BE HERE, SERIOUSLY?

HITLER, in his speeches: OH WE POOR GERMANS! JESUS CHRIST WHAT HAVE WE NOT SUFFERED AT THE HANDS OF EVERYONE ELSE! CURSED TO LIVE IN THIS TINY NATION LIKE A BUNCH OF CABINET-DWELLING JAPANESE, WHAT HAS THE CRUEL HAND OF FATE NOT VOUCHSAFED TO THIS PEOPLE, WHICH NOW RISES UP BEFORE THE ENEMIES WHICH HAVE DENIED IT SUSTENANCE TO CLAIM FOR ITSELF THE RIGHT TO EXIST, AS ORDAINED BY THE ALMIGHTY IN WHOSE PATH I WALK! WE WILL NOT LIE, WE WANT WHAT IS BEST FOR EVERYONE, I’VE TRIED EVERYTHING, EVERYTHING I TELL YOU, AND THEY WANT NONE OF IT, SO REGRETFULLY, BITTERLY, OH EVER SO BITTERLY, I ASK THE GERMAN PEOPLE TO DO THEIR DUTY, THIS HARSH HOLY DUTY IMPOSED UPON US BY FATE BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH ....

Posted by Desmond Jones on October 23, 2011, 01:14 AM | #

That is after all Tooze’s thesis

No it’s not. Tooze is saying exactly the opposite.

His response to “Why the Jews?” appears to quite fully formed, but the obvious corollary to “Why the Germans?” is totally ignored.

It’s not though. On the face of it, it appears as a compact of self-serving lies. If in fact, it is not who you are, but what you do or did then the second question needs no further addressing. Travel back a few centuries to arenda Poland and ask why the Cossacks and not the Germans? Why the alleged pogroms in Poland/Russia and not in Germany? The answer is the same.

Posted by Desmond Jones on October 23, 2011, 01:33 AM | #

... provoked by Germany’s aggression.

uh, There was no aggression by Germany against Britain, France or the USA. The Soviet Union invaded Poland and Finland. Where was the Anglo-Judea blockade?

and from which it had already come to a number of agreements, including trade for massive quantities of foodstuffs.

It’s the entire point. The tail wags the dog. Being a satellite of the USSR (or Judeo-Bolshevism) most assuredly meant racial death as much as the UK being a satellite of the US means racial death for the English. Nationalistic tyranny is the death of race. They saved their nation but the race is dying.

It’s on display here:

what do you think of the worthiness of a National Socialist German victory in WWII? All things considered, would it have been better or worse for our race than what we have now?

We would be slaves. But we would exist as a people. Nationalists would be fighting to throw off the German yolk.

Nationalism triumphs at the cost of race.

Posted by Dan Dare on October 23, 2011, 01:49 AM | #

No it’s not. Tooze is saying exactly the opposite.

Did you skip over this?

... For Hitler, the decisive factors in world history were not labour and industry, but the struggle for the limited means of sustenance. Britain could sustain itself through free trade, but only because it had already conquered an empire by military force. What the the German peoiple needed to secure a decent standard of living was ‘living space’, Lebensraum, and this could only be achieved by warlike conquest. Colonies had been the great enthusiasm of Wilhelmine Germany, but that meant scattering Germany’s precious blood all over the world. Instead, Hitler favoured the conquest of contiguous Lebensraum in the East. ... [Hitler] wanted the land, but not the native inhabitants. The population of the conquered territories would have to be removed ... if Germany was to prevail, there was to be no alternative to a ruthless policy of conquest and depopulation.

... Concretely, Hitler seems to have envisioned a more or less systematic series of steps starting with the incorporation of Austria, then the subordination of the major Central European successor states, most notably Czechoslovakia, culminating in a settling of accounts with the French. The path would then be clear for a drive to the east.

Adam Tooze, The Wages of Destruction - The Making and Breaking of the Nazi Economy, 8-9

Posted by Dan Dare on October 23, 2011, 01:52 AM | #

Travel back a few centuries to arenda Poland and ask why the Cossacks and not the Germans? Why the alleged pogroms in Poland/Russia and not in Germany? The answer is the same.

Is the claim that pogroms were unknown in Germany prior to the period with which Aly is concerned (1800-1933)?

Posted by Silver on October 23, 2011, 02:59 AM | #

It’s the entire point. The tail wags the dog. Being a satellite of the USSR (or Judeo-Bolshevism) most assuredly meant racial death as much as the UK being a satellite of the US means racial death for the English. Nationalistic tyranny is the death of race. They saved their nation but the race is dying.

It’s highly questionable that racial death would necessarily result (or the process of it commence, so forcefully as to suggest it is irreversible) in the period in question (roughly 1930s to, say, the present) in the event of becoming a ‘satellite.’

To prognosticate centuries out with the certainty you do is daft. A thousand one things could have changed (and still could) that could have allowed the extinction/race-replacement process to be arrested.

Far dafter than any of this, however, is this idea that the Germans of the day were as aware as you of these long-term factors and thus, whether they liked it or not, gritted their teeth and with steely determination to mobilized to thwart the forces that threatened.

(As we all know, after the assumption of power by the NSDAP the denizens of Budapest, Bucharest, Sofia and other cities out east were heard to utter, “Curses! We have been foiled. The Germans, it appears, may yet live on, rather than be wiped from the map of Europe as is our most fervent desire; a desire that consumes us, that plays on our minds and sings in our hearts from the moment we wake to the moment we slumber; a desire, a longing, a yearning that burns so white-hot its flame shall never be extinguished while a single German walks this earth!” Lolzez.)

Posted by Guessedworker on October 23, 2011, 03:45 AM | #

Desmond

It’s on display here:

what do you think of the worthiness of a National Socialist German victory in WWII? All things considered, would it have been better or worse for our race than what we have now?

We would be slaves. But we would exist as a people. Nationalists would be fighting to throw off the German yolk.

Nationalism triumphs at the cost of race.

This is a North American “white” thinking. Tribalism or ethnic nationalism within a race simply orders priorities to the local. There is no law of destruction of race at work here, only of the claim to a racial priority, if such exists. That’s absolutely normal in ethnic Europe but, of course, not a possibility within the modern North American racial context.

Posted by Guessedworker on October 23, 2011, 04:25 AM | #

Dan

The answer to the question “why Germans” should lie, perfectly predictably, in the co-existence of two factors:

1. The degree of renting of the social and economic cloth in Germany following defeat in 1918, and

2. The visibility of Jews, and therefore of the true nature, uniformity and existential hostility of the Jewish struggle.

But there is a third possibility, one private to National Socialism. Let us accept that NS, which had its roots in the Volkish movement that itself had exhibited anti-Jewish sentiment sixty years earlier, was, as Hannah Arendt claimed, the mirror image of Judaism. Given this, it is clear that the ideological space towards which NS strove - the crown of Mankind, the supreme collective life - had been claimed for rather a lengthy period by those dratted Semites. Jewish supremacy, intellectually and financially unarguable, could not be swept aside by the undoubted German creative, moral and physical supremacy. The parasite had adapted to these aspects of its host’s immune system. The only recourse, the only way to lay hands on the crown, was to douse the German hund in the dog-powder of anti-Semitism.

Putting its economic and war considerations aside, the policy of concentrating Jews in slave labour camps always strikes me as containing a German joke.

Posted by Leon Haller on October 23, 2011, 08:34 AM | #

the policy of concentrating Jews in slave labour camps always strikes me as containing a German joke. (GW)\\

Arbeit macht frei? I always thought this had a German philosophical ring to it.

Posted by anon / uh on October 23, 2011, 09:02 AM | #

Being a satellite of the USSR (or Judeo-Bolshevism) most assuredly meant racial death

And yet we saw the GDR better preserve east German living space, albeit in reddish amber, than enfranchisement by the Western reaction which a clique of marginal Germans themselves provoked. There are all kinds of logical fallacies in relying, as Silver notes, on speculations of what would have been. That isn’t historiography, as I understand it.

And to this day, post-Communism is better at securing the EGI of white populations than National Socialism proved to be — Transnistria, Communist in name, has no Turks or Africans, while Belarus, a post-Comm “strongman” state like most of the CIS, is also pleasantly devoid of such dark spots. How can this be ignored but for the tenacious blinding grip of political romanticism and its cognitive biases?

It’s ever this rationalizing backward to excuse what Hitler brought upon Germany (and us) by his own flaws and mistakes. Forget the role of Jews in Soviet society — at least it was frank oppression and exploitation, and it’s clear from what followed the war that Stalin was unhappy with their presence anyhow. Mind you, without the grain requisitioned from the poor poor kulaks, Germany would not have been able to “swindle its way” into war against the hand that was feeding it. So justifying German expansionism means accepting the very “Judeo-Bolshevik” exploitation one asserts (and cannot prove) would have “conquered the West”, etc. Again, there was and is no precedent of Russian invasion of the West. Spartacist / Bolshevik uprisings were put down by the Freikorps regiments. That’s all it took. The real game was stealing the Pivot Area / breadbasket, as Hitler painstakingly outlined in his own book.

The Jews would have been something to deal with in any event. They were already rotting America from within and had control of England & France a century before. But absent certain actions in the East, they surely would have had a harder time of spinning a genocide myth thirty years later.

Far dafter than any of this, however, is this idea that the Germans of the day were as aware as you of these long-term factors and thus, whether they liked it or not, gritted their teeth and with steely determination to mobilized to thwart the forces that threatened.

Yea. All of this depends on assumptions of absolute goodness and rationality on the part of some very self-serving, bigoted men, who never made a secret of their determination to reduce other Europeans to vassals in their own self-glorification. All the vicious talk of Slavic undermen, yellow peril, Bolshevik virus, France the whore, England the lion, is just so much one-dimensional thinking. That they couldn’t even bring themselves to honor the Ukrainian partisans speaks volumes of their true character. German melodrama, simple as that. Boohooing for themselves on the soapbox as they sharpened their knives and discussed how worthless their neighbors were in private.

Let us accept that NS, which had its roots in the Volkish movement that itself had exhibited anti-Jewish sentiment sixty years earlier, was, as Hannah Arendt claimed, the mirror image of Judaism.

As I suggest above, the root origin of NS was the Volksdeutsch experience of being German in crown lands dominated by Slavs and Jews, shared by Hitler, the Austrian National Socialists and their German-Czech counterparts. Arising therefore from the minority experience and the resulting in extreme paranoia, there is thus no need for a Jew’s reification of a German political system as “the mirror image of Judaism”; one could as truthfully liken it to Roma or the Wends. The phenomenon is exactly the same. NS was not “Judaism for Germans”, though it very much was the colonization of German minds by the political resentment and paranoia of minority (mostly Catholic) Auslaendsdeutsche like Hitler, Jung, Stein, Riehl, Rosenberg, then the Bavarians Eckart, Himmler, Hess, the other Rhineland Catholic Goebbels, and so on.

So no, GW, I do not accept this nonsense from Arendt. She didn’t have all the facts and was working from the standpoint of her own Jewish vanity, which is after all what this post is about — casting Germans as resentful losers facing these dirty little Jews with their homosexuality institutes, feminism, law degrees, warped paintings and schmaltzy music.

Posted by anon / uh on October 23, 2011, 09:09 AM | #

Hooray for making the 88th comment!

Putting its economic and war considerations aside, the policy of concentrating Jews in slave labour camps always strikes me as containing a German joke.

lozozozoz

No doubt the irony was not lost on camp guards.

Posted by anon / uh on October 23, 2011, 10:10 AM | #

uh, There was no aggression by Germany against Britain, France or the USA. The Soviet Union invaded Poland and Finland. Where was the Anglo-Judea blockade?

Of course, England was friend to Germany’s enemies. The English and Germans could not understand each other over their ruling prejudices as embodied by these politicians, bigoted each after their own fashion. What could a gang of revolutionary Catholics who sought to unseat Christianity, institute racial breeding policy, stamp out smoking and meddle in continental politics, all in fever-pitch rhetoric, have to say to — Englishmen? Or their Jewish neighbors.

Above that I imagine the English rightly had no desire to provoke Russian wrath by sanctions or whatever against them for invading Finland, which anyhow was further from their sphere of interest, and to whom they had no contractual obligation.

And yet ultimately it was Germany that invaded both Britain and France. This is what I mean. Hitler’s manias exacerbating post-War conditions, provoking the states, dragging them into no-win scenarios that were rationalized by the gang to excuse their lust for conquest. Seventy years later, guys have taken up their rationalizations as pure truth — for they side with them for obvious reasons and naturally wish them to be fully justified in everything they did. If they were wrong somehow, then identifying with them is wrong somehow. This is how psychological loss aversion operates. It is also precisely what got the NSDAP into that ferocious mess in the first place. These German “lions” just couldn’t accept territorial losses. Today Germany does quite well without Danzig, yet neo-Nazis still bellow songs about it “belonging to Germany”.

It’s just monomania, bro. I don’t say the Anglo-Judean combine was a desirable state of affairs. And I am absolutely in favor of nearly every Nazi domestic social policy. Beyond that they were maniacs who misread everything in thrall to their own preconceived petty nationalist passions. Even if the “Stalin was planning to attack” crowd were right, and they aren’t, Hitler, Hess, Rosenberg, Eckart and the Strassers had no conception of that — for them it was pure presumption based on the worker’s councils that sprang up in Germany, a fiction straight out of the Communist Manifesto, the “specter haunting Europe”. This very same illusory “specter” went on to haunt American conservatives who decided to take on North Korea and North Vietnam, fighting both to a bloody standstill for absolutely no private good. The specter then took on slightly different garb as “Cultural Marxism” and is now vividly haunting the imaginations of white nationalists who require a myth of discrete agency to interpret the world about them.

And so it goes, myth upon myth upon myth. White nationalists have taken up the paranoid myth of “Soviet invasion”, “red scare”, “Bolshevik virus”, that went round the oaken tables in the German beer-halls. This myth of race-replacement and takeover was premature and led them into what they believed were preemptive actions against it; they were wrong, and the fury of their response to their own haunted imaginations set the tone for the long reaction which we inhabit. Do understand: nothing is proved by simply repeating “Soviets were out to get us”. Well, no, you don’t know that. This was a feverish myth bruited about by paranoid bourgeois Germans who lived through some Bolshevik urban warfare ... German and German-Jewish Bolsheviks. There was never any proof, it was always just rumor. “The Bolsheviks are coming, the Bolsheviks are coming — rising tide of color and the undermen!”

It’s curious because white nationalists are able to understand the absurdity of the old “the Jew cries in pain as he strikes you”, which means the Jew started it, basically, yet pretends otherwise, but can’t bring themselves to apply the same logic to German expansionism, which came before any “telling” diplomatic omissions or entanglements. One must begin with their first principle: desire for more land to the east. This was the plan from first to last. Jews, no more than carbuncles to be scraped off the great German oak straining to send shoots into the rest of Europe. If you don’t start from their own starting point, you fall prey to their rhetoric — their hands-in-the-air act when they weren’t having their way. This can be demonstrated in a much more logical fashion but it’s morning and I don’t care.

So the question isn’t where was the Anglo-Judean blockade, but, do you accept German expansionism and all that it wrought? do you agree that Slavs are undermen deserving of the German yoke? do you agree with slaughtered partisans, families, peasants? do you agree with the convoluted treachery of calling for the extermination of a people, yet relying on them for organic sustenance, but then invading their space and plunging one’s people into unwinnable “total war”? do you agree with all the cognitive biases that caused Hitler to misinterpret the British, underestimate the Soviets and Americans, ignore the Ukrainians, and throw his own soldiers under the Panzer?

At the end of it, it’s Germany that forced hands by pretending its hands were forced.

Posted by Graham_Lister on October 23, 2011, 01:40 PM | #

Honestly why is so hard to admit the regime we are talking about was a disastrous one. I have no psychological or emotional investment in defending it, why do others? It failed pretty badly as a socio-political experiment - that’s just an empirical observation about the world. Moreover, what precise role does an expansionist militarism have in reinventing a post-liberal, ethnocentric political paradigm fit for the 21st century?

Look if one wants to radically and foundationally re-imagine the possibilities for European life, yet remain on the right side of sanity and workability in the real world, might I suggest that a regime which lasted for less than 15 years (and has millions of European deaths on its watch) is not the best place to start that process.

Posted by Jimmy Marr on October 23, 2011, 01:55 PM | #

The vital questions, to my way of thinking, are none of the above.

The vital questions are:

Do you want Europeans, as a people, to survive or are you willing to accept their worldwide extermination?

Would a new, race specific religion be a help or a hindrance to that survival?

Are the alleged tendencies of WNs to counterfactual interpretations of history indications of a life or death search for existential salvation through a race specific God?

What God would these people predisposed to embrace?

If the search for such a God involved taking a distorted view of WWII, would you prefer objectivity or extinction?

Posted by Dan Dare on October 23, 2011, 02:23 PM | #

GW - I think you are correct in identifying German experience in WW I, the collapse of the Kaiserreich and its immediate aftermath as one of the formative influences that differentiate it from France and Britain. It’s hard for us to grasp the grip that the Dolchstoßlegende, as depicted in the cover of this best-selling book from the early 20s, exerted on the post-war collective German psyche.

Lamp

However visibility does not seem to be much of a differentiator, as Trollope demonstrates, and I have to say that Arendt’s thesis is particularly unpersuasive.

There still seems to be something missing though.

Posted by Guessedworker on October 23, 2011, 05:06 PM | #

Regardless of the viability of Arendt’s claim, the drive for supremacy of the Jew, requiring the moral degradation and material dispossession of the gentile host, and that of the Aryan, requiring a personal heroic demeanour and a collective aesthetic of beauty and order, could not proceed together. It was certain that one had to triumph and one had to be consigned to slavery.

That is my point. My apologies if this was not clear from my previous comment.

Posted by Desmond Jones on October 23, 2011, 05:25 PM | #

1. Is it it East or Danzig and further East, Dan. The Tooze excerpt you posted does not support the claim of Danzig and further East.

2. There were pogroms in Germany coincident with the Khmelnytsky Uprising, is that your point?

Posted by Desmond Jones on October 23, 2011, 05:35 PM | #

This is a North American “white” thinking.

No this is Anglo-Saxon thinking.

The belief on display here is that of freedom triumphing over race (as in Anglo-Saxon race). Churchill made virtually the same comment. It is better to die as free men than to live as slaves. The result of course, whether or not you were ignoble to your Jews, is the price you pay today; genocide. You are facing genocide aren’t you? And that is the remarkable thing, that a monomaniacal, psychopathic little man, with a funny mustache, so clearly foresaw this outcome.

Posted by Desmond Jones on October 23, 2011, 05:42 PM | #

And yet we saw the GDR better preserve east German living space,

Lemkin, who invented the word, defined it thusly:

Generally speaking, genocide does not necessarily mean the immediate destruction of a nation, except when accomplished by mass killings of all members of a nation. It is intended rather to signify a coordinated plan of different actions aiming at the destruction of essential foundations of the life of national groups, with the aim of annihilating the groups themselves. The objectives of such a plan would be the disintegration of the political and social institutions, of culture, language, national feelings, religion, and the economic existence of national groups, and the destruction of the personal security, liberty, health, dignity, and even the lives of the individuals belonging to such groups.

GDR qualifies.

Posted by Guessedworker on October 23, 2011, 06:17 PM | #

Jimmy,

Do you want Europeans, as a people, to survive or are you willing to accept their worldwide extermination?

Correct. This is the question.

Would a new, race specific religion be a help or a hindrance to that survival?

I don’t know, Jimmy. A hindrance maybe, given the heavy load of altruism we Europeans carry on our backs. In any case, I have made my position plain enough. I am in favour of faith - it is in our nature, in our minds, and those of us who can only guess what it is like to experience are least well placed to pontificate on the utility of saved wild geese and free virgins.

Hell, it’s hard to be fair about this stuff. OK, try harder. Formal exoterica does not arise directly from the source of the old, old message about finding the nameless where the named retires. Rather, something happens - perhaps in the life of the messenger - which fabulously incorporates it and at the same time preserves and isolates it as an inter-related whole, capable of rediscovery by not one person in a thousand. Then, a generation later, the externals come together in a narrative, and the power of the thing will perhaps become known and work upon the minds of men, or perhaps not.

But no man can say “Believe!” for the first time. That sort of work happens only in the past, always in the past, and always shies away from the light of the present day. No man can write a religion.

Are the alleged tendencies of WNs to counterfactual interpretations of history indications of a life or death search for existential salvation through a race specific God?

You must ask those with the need and desire to believe what it is they are seeking. Speaking for myself, I seek counter-mythical facts.

What God would these people predisposed to embrace?

Why only one god? That is not of our mind. Gods of love and truth, of the beyond, and of the moment, I would think. Leave the things of men - struggle and forbearance, dedication, devotion, brotherhood, and so on - in this world. We will need them ready to hand, in our culture.

If the search for such a God involved taking a distorted view of WWII, would you prefer objectivity or extinction?

This is like saying can a god of truth be worshipped with a deliberate lie. Or, is human being human personality.

The answer is no. You may need to adjust the question accordingly.

Posted by TabuLa Raza on October 23, 2011, 06:31 PM | #

that a monomaniacal, psychopathic little man, with a funny mustache, so clearly foresaw this outcome.

100

Posted by Jimmy Marr on October 23, 2011, 07:47 PM | #

A hindrance maybe, given the heavy load of altruism we Europeans carry on our backs.

By “race specific” I’m trying to imagine a faith/religion/myth that would increase our willingness to prioritize the distribution of that altruism.

Hell, it’s hard to be fair about this stuff.

I’ll try harder, but is fairness not a form of altruism?

Formal exoterica does not arise directly from the source of the old, old message about finding the nameless where the named retires. Rather, something happens - perhaps in the life of the messenger - which fabulously incorporates it and at the same time preserves and isolates it as an inter-related whole, capable of rediscovery by not one person in a thousand. Then, a generation later, the externals come together in a narrative, and the power of the thing will perhaps become known and work upon the minds of men, or perhaps not.

I speculate that it may be possible to interpret Hitler as a message, or the medium of a message. We are the later generation. Can we interpret the externals in an inspirational fashion?

Why only one god?

Of course there wouldn’t be only one god. If our God is race specific, the door is wide open for other racial gods. We could also have a mixed race god, but in fact, that is precisely what already have; An omnipotent Jew god who is hell-bent on blending us out of existence.

This is like saying can a god of truth be worshipped with a deliberate lie.

Yeah, that last question is the rub. I’ll work on it, but meanwhile remember I never said anything about truth as a god. You did. Inasmuch as I’m not English, I’m easily tempted to settle for a lesser god of survival.

101

Posted by anon / uh on October 23, 2011, 08:31 PM | #

http://original-nazis.wetpaint.com

Have a look, all.

National Socialism was entirely a byproduct of Auslandsdeutsch / Catholic minority experience. No, I am not identifying NS with Catholicism as such.

This experience was essentially foisted on Reich Germans. The Bolshevik uprisings were successfully met by the Freikorps.

There was no existential threat from Soviet Russia. The existential threat was felt by these outlanders. This is congruent with Jewish group strategy, but it absolutely fanciful to even imply they styled themselves after Jews.

102

Posted by anon / uh on October 23, 2011, 08:57 PM | #

Do you want Europeans, as a people, to survive or are you willing to accept their worldwide extermination?

Both: Wanting and the inevitable are discrete phenomena. Numerically, they don’t stand a chance against global exponentiation of non-white populations. Some serious business will have to occur if this dynamic is to be altered to the long-term benefit of Europeans. And knowing white people like we do, Jimmy, can you sincerely believe that will occur?

Would a new, race specific religion be a help or a hindrance to that survival?

White people hinder themselves in so many ways, it seems irrelevant to speak of new religions. Christianity is an eternal vampire. Even where it’s doctrines no longer have weight, the spirit is alive, bolstered by war-fatigue, universalism, and entrenched liberal mannerisms.

Are the alleged tendencies of WNs to counterfactual interpretations of history indications of a life or death search for existential salvation through a race specific God?

Nah. An indication of “emotional investment”, per Grahmmy, and rearrangement of facts to align therewith.

If the search for such a God involved taking a distorted view of WWII, would you prefer objectivity or extinction?

This presumes all sorts of things, but above all, that white people’s survival only ever hinged on their “belief in God”, which is projection. A people, to the extent that it is able, and in full possession of its natural tendencies, will defend itself against interlopers no matter what it believes; to suppose otherwise is to make believers of competing species of microorganisms, engaged in the same battle for dominion as everything else. Or witness the response of Han Chinese to Uighur mischief in Xinjiang. Not the best example, but as “belief in God” is the human norm, examples of groups defending their turf without belief in the supernatural, are hard to come by. The old WN standby that atheists don’t fight to the end because there’s nothing waiting for them, while containing a kernel of truth, doesn’t wash considering most people don’t waste too much pawing rosaries and the like. As Shaw wrote,

The first common mistake to get rid of is that mankind consists of a great mass of religious people and a few eccentric atheists. It consists of a huge mass of worldly people, and a small percentage of persons deeply interested in religion and concerned about their own souls and other peoples’; and this section consists mostly of those who are passionately affirming the established religion and those who are passionately attacking it, the genuine philosophers being very few.

I’m sure this question has been debated her many times. Is faith adaptive. Sometimes yes, sometimes no. “Adaptive” presumes a true game with real stakes. You yourself are not involved in any game, so what you think of it all amounts to nothing. No one beyond these digital confines will ever take up this weirdo Hitler religion. I was rolling my eyes at this stuff when I was 19, reading Serrano in Spanish at a library in southern Colombia.

103

Posted by Jimmy Marr on October 23, 2011, 09:00 PM | #

There was no existential threat from Soviet Russia.

In my opinion you’re overworking this issue. USSR need not have been planning an attack on Germany to be considered and existential threat. To my way of thinking, the mere fact, as you have described, that USSR had food resources and the Germans did not would be sufficient to classify them as an existential threat.

104

Posted by anon / uh on October 23, 2011, 09:40 PM | #

Jimmy,

Sorry, I’m coming off like a real dick. Nothing personal of course.

I’ll briefly respond to your other comment (72) then have to bow out. Bow-wow.

Since there are scholars of significant note (e.g. Hoggan) who offer unorthodox interpretations on this issue, it seems prudent on my part, to recognize the issue as fraught with ambiguity.

I hear you. But often enough, the wealth of scholars, which after all is a byproduct of the higher education industry, creates more ambiguity than those scholars dispel. Their job is to “offer unorthodox interpretations” whether needed or not. Now in exact empirical sciences, depending on money can be a good thing if there’s funding. In cultural sciences it tends to muddy the waters.

Reading history appeals to me about as much as reading economics appeals to you.

I’m with you. If there’s a subject that bores me more than economics, it’s political history — especially war books with all the names of generals, dates, troop movements, blah blah blah. I don’t know how these guys do it. How can a human being read 600 pages of troop movements? But I can speed through a 600-pager on, say, Indo-European prehistory, or psychoanalysis.

It seems to me that the best I can hope for is to realize that the ultimate truth of world history is probably something like a Rorschact inkblot, and take responsibility for my prejudices. I could work night and day rung down evidence to support my bias, but my efforts would only belie my assertions.

Well said. Although, it’s a matter of instinct. Once you become aware of that secret valence of your nature that selects for what you prefer, avoiding other considerations, you recognize your prejudices and presuppositions, and proceed from there. As media distortion favors Jewish interests, we favor our own in little private ways that do not serve accurate historiography. I’ve long been a partisan of the Gang (uh has two big swastika tattoos on his extremities, LOZOZOZO), but upon reading more about these men as men, allowing some perspective, I realized they weren’t perfectly virtuous or some silly archetype of virtue. Moreover, they were not my people, so idealizing them and feeling closer to them than, say, the negro down the road who speaks my language and understands my circumstances, is quite absurd. That isn’t an argument for cultural relativism; neither is my people; it’s rather an argument for the equanimity of my damned life, to not be caught between 1941 and 2011, between those in my vicinity and those reduced to ashes across the ocean. As alienating as modern society is, idealizing the Nazis only compounds the alienation, putting us further in debt psychologically to that which is not us. The Englishmen have it better for that reason.

Guessedworker and PF used to talk “authenticity”. It is a good word. Idealizing anything, even my pet Aryans of the steppe, brings us away from the immediate, is actually a betrayal of it — ever so easy to get lost in seductive memeplexes that have just no reality. For that matter, so easy to waste hours online talking about this shit!

As long as I had to stand up every Friday afternoon and call those bastards out on their lies, I was willing to do the research necessary pull it off, and as a side benefit I developed the convictions of my courage, but I no longer need to give public presentations, so I’m not going to become a WWII historian just to justify what I freely admit are my aesthetic biases.

Fair enough. There’s no doubting that you’re a brave man. I’ve always been a fatalist; when it all fell into place for me, I felt not the least desire to spread the message — anyhow I was living in a city that is majority negro. It is this mental bias that has always distinguished when I’ve tried to engage with white nationalists, whose bias can be summed up as optimism. My outburst of two years ago can be boiled down to that. Most people believe, some few doubt. And yet, curiously, even certain doubters allow religious inclinations to color their ideations, such as this promotion of Miguel Serrano by an atheist. It’s supposed to have symbolic value, whatever. All that matters are ownership of media and heavy weaponry.

A more worthwhile question is Why do I have these predispositions? How much is environmental vs. biological? I’ve been bombarded with lies my entire life. I have no control group by which to compare. I can only guess, so shall I trust the work of Jews and their castrated White minions, or put my faith in the words and actions of Adolf Hitler?

Mind, I wasn’t speaking of Hitler’s actions against the Jews. My true sentiments are well known; Hitler was a moderate. I only the body of alleged evidence that has grown up to excuse his political manias by those with ideational commitments to NS. We face a more rapid extinction owing precisely to that. Evidence can be arranged to accommodate any hypothesis. Best to give more weight to empirical evidence. What is the empirical evidence? Nazi Germany attacked damn near everyone and failed at it, dragging us into a reactionary nightmare with no end in sight. Don’t be one of the excuse-makers. I mean, look at Mussolini — he was clearly jealous of Hitler’s successes and invaded Greece like a bull in a china shop, with the result that Hitler had to divert still more resources to bail him out. Sheer geopolitical adventurism arising from a) German chauvinism that hadn’t been squashed by the the first debacle they caused (and for fucking Austria-Hungary!!) b) ecological pressure that no one in power fully understand.

To continue being a dick, you can safely ignore most of the books and the would-be scholars online. Not to minimize their erudition; but so, so often a scholar takes the long way round to arrive at the same truth intuited by a CaptainChaos.

Dan Dare, above, mentions the Dolchstoßlegende — they rode that one all the way to the Reichstag. And what was it? Frontsoldat resentment that their military leaders at last came to their bloody senses and called a halt to the bloodshed. Nothing more. Mere chauvinism and wounded pride.

There are many parallels between the German example and modern American myths of legitimacy. Everything is “justified” by some illusory “existential threat” promoted by a windbag politician. This is why you don’t find many English Hitler apologists — they see the lying politico miles off. They may, as an objective matter, defend Nazi actions, but that’s the extent. I point above to the biggest though: the fear of “Communism”, this hobgoblin inhabiting the minds of spooked home-owners and capitalists. Just another ghostly nothing haunting the minds of the self-deceived. That happened to drag two world-powers into utterly useless and wasteful wars that crippled them forever, and gave the world an excuse to despise white people, and white people to despise themselves.

Everything Goebbels and Hitler said about Jews was right. Nearly everything they said about going to war was false.

Anyhow, I enjoyed reading of your life, Jimmy. Also your prose is very robust. Enviable.

105

Posted by anon / uh on October 23, 2011, 10:01 PM | #

In my opinion you’re overworking this issue. USSR need not have been planning an attack on Germany to be considered and existential threat. To my way of thinking, the mere fact, as you have described, that USSR had food resources and the Germans did not would be sufficient to classify them as an existential threat.

Ah, now, that’s a realistic point. I have only a dim idea of how to answer it, too. It must be said that without this upheaval, this last bid of German chauvinism to dominate the Continent, the stage would not have been cleared for more sensible cooperative strategy, i.e. the Union. We can’t look back and say, Well the Nazis ought to have found other means to secure foodstuffs. In fact they did, trade with the arch-nemesis, but the logic of having a powerful military, a preconceived vision of conquest, and occupying forces to feed propelled this man to make matters worse. One would have to review how Germany solved its food problems after the War to complete the story. For it isn’t possible to say, “Well the Germans had shipments of grain, petrol and rubber from Russia, and should have rested easy with that,” because the German economic miracle was predicated on re-militarization, and indeed they traded for tools and heavy machinery that aided the Soviets in their defenses. So these factors can’t be untangled. If Germany had been ruled by truly rational men, they would have abode by military reduction guidelines and focused on importing foodstuffs and only those industrial materials needed for infrastructure development. But of course it wasn’t ruled by truly rational men, and went about rebuilding itself by compounding its error. Nietzsche wrote something like, “We are sometimes so galled by a mistake that we rush into another one, as it were to cover it up.”

106

Posted by Jimmy Marr on October 23, 2011, 10:06 PM | #

Anon/Uh,

Thanks for the thoughtful response. It makes good sense. I’ll give it some time to sink in. Meanwhile, I’ll continue reading Serrano’s book simply because I find it fascinating. Thanks again.

107

Posted by Leon Haller on October 24, 2011, 03:28 AM | #

Re Jimmy Marr and his race-specific God issues.

I posted the following on the “banking elites” thread as part of a lengthy response to Graham Lister’s denunciations of Christianity (to which of course he hasn’t replied). It is apposite here, as the answer to your question is that we need a racially renovated Christian faith, the same one our fathers (or at least their societies) adhered to when they were out conquering New Worlds :

But you ask me why I gently mock your Catholic faith and theism. Well there are a couple of reasons: (1) I intensely dislike American Christianity (it’s generally so vulgar in every conceivable way I find it ghastly);

(Lister)

I think by “American Christianity” you mean that which is either unique to (eg, Mormonism), or most closely identified with, the USA, this mainly being evangelicalism (though, of course, its modern origins are British). I am no fan of the evangelicals, either, especially due to the execrable views on race (and the ridiculous Israel-Zionism) of their leadership(s). The lay majority, however, is disproportionately white, even Nordic, and mostly conservative, including on immigration issues. These are our people, too, and there are a lot of them here. Thus your intense dislike of them is in the manner of an unhelpful personal hobbyhorse, and should be kept to appropriate (anti-fundamentalist) fora.

(2) as a man of science I dislike the Roman Catholic church even more (with its litany of fake saints and phony miracles);

(Lister)

An unusually ignorant statement. The Roman Catholic Church played an important role in the growth and development of science (read books by science historian David Lindberg), and the notion that the Church was ever reactionary in scientific matters is pure anti-clerical prejudice. The Vatican today sponsors serious scientific research, and it employs many priest-scientists to keep abreast of the latest developments in the secular world.

I, too, regard the Church as over-superstitious, though that may be due to my own mostly secular upbringing. I certainly maintain an open mind (unlike you) wrt claims of miracles, though I tend towards scepticism. I have no idea what you mean by “fake saints”. I do know that, again, there are vastly more white Catholics than white nationalists, and that allowing your personal dislikes to poison possible inter-white alliances is strategic folly.

(3) you have both implicitly and at times explicitly claimed that somehow Christian theology is of massive, and positive, importance to the issues we discuss here - no it is not in any substantive manner - it’s an irrelevant sideshow other than the context of presentational/PR issues specific to the USA;

(Lister)

This is the central and interesting issue. I do indeed believe as you contend, for many reasons, which I have discussed at greater length at other times:

A) A majority of my racial countrymen and I are theists (overwhelmingly Christian). Respecting any fundamental moral issue, we would naturally want to know the “Godly” position. A racially conservative Christian theology is certainly important to innately racially conservative Christians, of whom there are millions (or tens - who, precisely, do you think comprise those white American majorities who routinely inform pollsters of their opposition to immigration ... atheists?).

B) Racialism does indeed (superficially) seem to cut against the grain of Christian universalism. If falsely forced to choose between God and race, the vast bulk of whites in America will abjure racial survival (not sure what the excuse for racial abnegation is amongst your mostly unchurched fellow citizens). So it is vitally important that the incorrect but implicit and now guiding claim that white preservationism is morally wrong be theoretically refuted, because, I assure you, there will always be more white Christians than anti-Christian WNs. I happen to be of the sociological belief that modern secularism is not a permanent feature of the European future, but more of a present, passing phase. Of course, we shall see.

But even if I am wrong on the matter of future theistic intellectual change, it is an undeniable fact, as I and Desmond Jones have variously asserted, that, among whites, committed Christians are seriously outbreeding secularists, at least proportionally. This is true in Europe as well as America. If one assumes a genetic component to the psychological propensity towards religious faith, then I expect that, over time, the West will return to religiosity (and, again, do not forget the well-established positive correlations between theism and conservatism, secularism and racial leftism, and general conservatism and moderate - ie, anti-immigration, anti-affirmative action, anti-crime - racial nationalism).

C) If the West is to survive, even merely racially (let alone as a civilization), I believe that a return to traditional (which need not mean American Protestant fundamentalist) Christianity will be an aspect of its “survival strategy”. Secularism breeds anomie, far more today than a century ago at the dawn of the current secularist age. Why this should be so is immaterial to the observation, though I suspect the answer is very old-fashioned: the religious see life as meaningful striving, if only a striving after Heaven, and that attitude shapes the whole of one’s being, which in turn affects the non-spiritual elements of existence, too (Charles Murray made something like this case in his excellent Human Accomplishment). Those ‘dead to Heaven’, on the other hand, will incline towards selfishness, and meaningless hedonism (and, again, very low birthrates). I do not think that secularists as a dominant social group will prove willing to make the sacrifices in short term thinking and pleasures to reconquer and rebuild the West.

Thus, I hold that a return to a ‘politically incorrected’ (de-liberalized) traditionalist Christianity is a necessary (though of course probably not sufficient) element in any Western/white renaissance. Faith impels some men to greatness; lack of it compels most men to focus on la dolce vita and preserving their pensions uber alles.

D) Finally, I think the sheer coming awfulness of life in ever more multicultural societies, and especially in Europe’s increasingly, aggressively Islamicized ones, will also impel many whites to return to their historic churches in part as an implicitly white/European national community building tool, and as places of refuge from culturally alien forces. These functional elements of religion will play an important role in the return of many whites to their ancestral faith - and as more return, so still more after them will, too, the majority being lemmings, for good or ill.

(4) you do not acknowledge the radically universalist kernel of Christianity. If Christianity has been less universalistic in previous times this is because other cultural/ideological factors constrained that impulse from being fully expressed (it is not a particularist doctrine);

(Lister)

This statement is utter nonsense. I have never denied, nor would anyone else with a smidgin of learning, that Christianity is not in some sense universal. Of course the aspirational Christian community includes all mankind, indeed, all sentient, morally willful beings. But you elide the distinction between Christian moral universalism - that all persons are potentially brothers in Christ - and liberal sociological or political universalism - that persons are sociobiologically and culturally interchangeable, and that ‘diverse’, integrated societies are somehow superior to, or more ethical than, traditional homogenous or ethnoculturally delimited ones.

Nothing could be further from traditional Christian doctrine, whether Scriptural or theological. There is nothing in the logic of the faith which leads one to conclude that radically culturally alien foreigners have a ‘right’ to enter into settled homelands; that whites must economically oppress themselves in order to promote nonwhites to undeserved stations; that whites must ignore the policy implications derived from established data demonstrating statistically significant behavioral or genetic differences between population groups; or that whites must subordinate their historic cultures and traditions in order to accommodate persons of alien backgrounds. That is liberalism, pure and simple. Your assertion that today’s uber-liberal Christianity somehow represents the real (universalist) inner logic of the faith finally allowed to effloresce due to the collapse of white/Western cultural particularist confidence illustrates an abysmally shallow, let’s-believe-the-liberal-Zeitgeist understanding of the real Christian faith.

Face it: you know very, very little about Christian thought, and are merely applying your own ‘commonsense’ interpretation of these matters as a complete outsider. You are fitting the modernist moral pollution (on race) of the Church within a narrative which you, as someone hostile to Christianity for your own scientific physicalist/atheist reasons, find personally satisfying, regardless of its intrinsic accuracy.

When I have gotten much further in my studies, I will demonstrate formally exactly what is wrong with the liberal view on race as it has been imposed upon the faithful. [NB - of course, I do not mean to deny that racial imperialism, fomenting unjustified hatreds, or engaging in common criminality against persons of other races are condemned as sinful by the true Church. They are, and should be.]

108

Posted by Graham_Lister on October 24, 2011, 07:32 AM | #

Oh please Leon, good luck in your studies of pressing topics in Mariology et al., but this universalism goes deep – really deep.

Take one Karl Rahner – a substantial and influential figure in modern Catholic theology (and indeed a friend of Heidegger).

Rahner’s idea of ‘.(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address)’ presumes that atheists, agnostics, other religious believers, pagans etc., are all ‘secretly’ and unknowingly Christians as grace is present and mysteriously acting in every life. Obviously this is consistent with Christian universalism which must be the only possible position if one is taking Christianity seriously as an objective and true description of the ultimate nature of reality.

Rahner uses the example of native Americans etc. Would they be condemned to oblivion because of a quirk of both history and culture they had never encountered the Gospels? Would that mean that God, the Christian God, had no part to play in their lives? Would it not be monstrously unfair for those people that never had any possibility to ‘hear’ the Gospels to be placed in Hell and permanently excluded from God’s love, as they didn’t know the name Jesus?

Equally, this can be applied to African witch doctors and so on. Well they practice magical thinking just like the Pope does (transubstantiation anyone?). And the idea can be applied contemporaneously. I recall on Radio 4 the journalist John Humphreys interviewed leading religious thinkers about the idea of God. One of them was Rowan Williams, the Archbishop of Canterbury. There are transcripts of the interviews on the Radio 4 website I think.

Now Humphreys basically mused that he had thought about God a lot, but couldn’t buy into the concept despite trying very hard to make sense of it and hoped to live a good life and to be a good person in any case. Humphreys asked Williams if he would go to Hell as a non-believer. Williams response was along these lines. Only God knows what factors prevented you from directly hearing the truth of the Gospels, but that God doesn’t give up on anyone. Such is his infinite resources of patience and love that he keeps ‘asking the question’ such that no-one in the final analysis ever says ‘no’ to God’s invitation to be in his company. Humphreys asks if Hell actually exists and Williams responds by quoting Dostoevsky that Hell is the inability to love.

Now make of that what you will but what any of that has to do with wanting to secure a healthy future for Europeans and preserve the best of our local cultures and our collective high culture I do not know. But the commitment to universalism does not make Rahner or Williams some oddball fringe type figures. I could find many more examples of such ideas from Christian theologians. Leon are you really saying that the blacks in their churches across America are not your brothers and sisters in Christ?

109

Posted by Leon Haller on October 24, 2011, 11:03 AM | #

I’m familiar with Rahner, of course; indeed, as a liberal Catholic I intend to take at least one course on his thought over the course of my program. From what I’ve read by him, I do find him far more plausible as well as attractive than the more fundamental types.

[BTW, I’m unfamiliar with - and not too interested in, I admit - the ‘deep’ theory of the Eucharist. I do know, however, that the doctrine of transubstantiation in its theological justification is more than a bit more sophisticated than ‘magical’ thinking, which the Judeo-Christian tradition helped to eliminate as much as any other historical force, including science (Habermas recently concurred in this interpretation). Recall, however, I’ve always said my specifically Catholic commitment, as opposed to general Christian one, is relatively weak, and I may end up a Protestant, like my conventional, not too religious father].

Your rendition of Williams et al was interesting, but I fail to see its relevance to the issue of Christian universalism, esp as it influences political universalism.

You state:

Now make of that what you will but what any of that has to do with wanting to secure a healthy future for Europeans and preserve the best of our local cultures and our collective high culture I do not know. But the commitment to universalism does not make Rahner or Williams some oddball fringe type figures. I could find many more examples of such ideas from Christian theologians. Leon are you really saying that the blacks in their churches across America are not your brothers and sisters in Christ?

(Lister)

But didn’t I address that very question in my above comment?

I have never denied, nor would anyone else with a smidgin of learning, that Christianity is not in some sense universal. Of course the aspirational Christian community includes all mankind, indeed, all sentient, morally willful beings. But
you elide the distinction between Christian moral universalism
- that all persons are potentially brothers in Christ -
and liberal sociological or political universalism
- that persons are sociobiologically and culturally interchangeable, and that ‘diverse’, integrated societies are somehow superior to, or more ethical than, traditional homogenous or ethnoculturally delimited ones.

Nothing could be further from traditional Christian doctrine, whether Scriptural or theological. There is nothing in the logic of the faith which leads one to conclude that radically culturally alien foreigners have a ‘right’ to enter into settled homelands; that whites must economically oppress themselves in order to promote nonwhites to undeserved stations; that whites must ignore the policy implications derived from established data demonstrating statistically significant behavioral or genetic differences between population groups; or that whites must subordinate their historic cultures and traditions in order to accommodate persons of alien backgrounds. That is liberalism, pure and simple. Your assertion that today’s uber-liberal Christianity somehow represents the real (universalist) inner logic of the faith finally allowed to effloresce due to the collapse of white/Western cultural particularist confidence illustrates an abysmally shallow, let’s-believe-the-liberal-Zeitgeist understanding of the real Christian faith.

(Haller)

All men are finally brothers in Christ. But that does not make them brothers in blood. You are buying into today’s hegemonic left-liberal ‘read’ on the faith in terms of race (and other political questions). Why assume that that particular, ‘presentist’ interpretation of the faith’s implications for social and political questions is necessarily the correct one? I’ve known a number of much older Protestant as well as Catholic intellectuals (including priests in teaching orders) who think that current church doctrines are seriously perverted (and that quite apart from the “kiddie fiddler” issue).

Let me make this simple (and a kind of apologia for my present course of study). The Christian churches are in need of racialist reform in their social theorizing, at least wrt intergroup relations. They have all too often been intellectually lazy, and morally cowardly, pretty much just adopting liberal race nonsense wholesale. The serious ecclesial elders with whom I have in years past discussed this matter have never disagreed with me, although, I must acknowledge, race relations was none of their theological specialties (but these were very elite figures, one even having spent nearly a decade in the Vatican working not too far from the Pope John Paul II- whom my acquaintance admitted was a very spiritual man, but not too conservative).

My task is to tease out the authentic Christian ‘line’ on race, which will prove, I suspect, to be as I now intuit it, and have implied above. People have a right to preserve the social ecology of their own homes (I’m under no obligation to allow a stranger to move in with me and my girlfriend). Likewise, peoples are not forbidden from preserving the social ecology of their own nations and civilizations (we’re under no obligation to admit into our homelands unassimilable aliens). Of course, this must all be intellectually demonstrated ...

As to what this has to do with saving European cultures, I tried to deal with that, too, above. Of course, these issues require a large book to explore fully and or even adequately.

110

Posted by TabuLa Raza on October 24, 2011, 02:40 PM | #

Wealth disparity- Catholic Social Teachings says G-d placed all wealth on earth, for use of all. So if the White nations have more, it implies the Whites are hogging wealth, leading to poverty for the rest. Whites have stolen from the poor, which is equivalent of stealing from G-d. The poor are coming here to get their rightful share of G-d’s bounty. They cannot be denied entrance.

111

Posted by Jimmy Marr on October 24, 2011, 03:13 PM | #

Tabula Raza,

I didn’t fully understand your screen-name at first, but I’ve begun to appreciate it more lately. Starting back in the ‘60’s I began to exert myself toward the discovery of my Original Face. Like all would-be Zenjis, I believed that I had eschewed all doctrinal understandings, but I unconsciously harbored the expectation that Original Face would reveal itself as Tabula Rasa. It most emphatically did not.

I congratulate you on the finding of your Original Name.

112

Posted by Leon Haller on October 24, 2011, 05:03 PM | #

TabulaRaza,

In a word, no. Please do not substitute socialism for Christianity. It’s a very common mistake.

113

Posted by danielj on October 24, 2011, 06:56 PM | #

All men are finally brothers in Christ. But that does not make them brothers in blood.

Indeed. Prepositions are really, really important in Greek.

114

Posted by GenoType on October 24, 2011, 09:15 PM | #

I didn’t fully understand your screen-name at first, but I’ve begun to appreciate it more lately.

Tabula Raza is a play on tabula rasa. The latter is Latin for “blank slate” or “without content” and is a very appropriate choice of nom de guerre for one who mindlessly equates Catholic social teaching with socialism and uses the word socialism for its pejorative effect in a manner not unlike the founder of Objectivism, Ms. Ayn “Alice Rosenbaum” Rand.

115

Posted by Bonnie on October 25, 2011, 08:14 PM | #

Uhm…“why did Germans kill 6 million jews?”

Why did jews in Russia SLAUGHTER 50+ MILLION non-jews - BEFORE Hitler?
Check out the REAL Holocaust, “Holomodor,” on line.

Why did the Allies after WWII, give the ENTIRE E. Eur. to the Stalinist jews, so that at the end MILLIONS and MILLIONS MORE were tortured, imprisoned, sent to the Gulags, slaughered than the ALLEGED 6 million jews.

116

Posted by Jimmy Marr on October 25, 2011, 09:36 PM | #

Miguel Serrano’s spin on Tabula Rasa:

“The Hyperborean Archetype is an extra-cosmic poem writing itself on this earth through the heroes of both sexes, those who deliver their lives like a blank page so that He may write his redemptive immortal poems on them.”

117

Posted by Graham_Lister on October 26, 2011, 03:29 PM | #

BTW that Christian universalism looks quite radical - we are all tied together for ever! In any case there is surely some family resemblance with the liberal variety, yes? Or are they hermetically sealed at an intellectual and cultural level? If so how and why?

118

Posted by Jimmy Marr on October 26, 2011, 04:28 PM | #

we are all tied together for ever!

The opponents in a tug-o-war are tied together, but are not on the same team. We should, in fact, love our enemies, but only because they alone can provide the catalyst for the realization of our mutually exclusive identities.

119

Posted by danielj on October 26, 2011, 05:00 PM | #

Christianity restored ultimacy to history’s linearity. Marx, quasi-Westerner that he was, borrowed ultimacy and linearity and concatenated it with his materialism. I see the digital quest of Guessedworker and Co. to forever tether the English to being-in-the-present as an attempt to undermine Christianity’s project of final destination.

Sure liberalism and Christianity are cousins in that regard but I don’t think they are kissing cousins.

120

Posted by danielj on October 26, 2011, 05:08 PM | #

And of course, loving your enemies, in the Biblical sense, is to be strictly understood as offering them the Gospel. Not showering them with grain and obsequiously begging for collective forgiveness for perceived racial sins.

Sin is the great equalizer. We should have no qualms about demanding that racial others beg our Lord for forgiveness. We can stand perfectly tall in front of all men knowing that they are no better than us.

121

Posted by anon / uh on October 26, 2011, 06:45 PM | #

Some serious casuistry and plain blahblahblah in here.

Check out the REAL Holocaust, “Holomodor,” on line.

It’s like a TV show. Check it out — x million y’s murdered!! My genocide trumps your genocide.

GAYYYYYY. Roissy:

Culture does not spring up out of the ground unseeded, like a summoned monolith. Human genetic disposition seeds the ground and creates culture, unleashing a macro feedback loop where culture and genes interact in perpetuity. Those “cultural judgments” you so recoil from are actually subconscious reinforcements of ancient biological truths.

I can’t even think anymore. Too many scratch tickets and cognac cigars. I speak like four languages a day just sorting these commoners out. No wonder the Jews are so adept at numbers & talking people under. Three-thousand years of this shit!! LOZOZOZOZZZZZOZLZLZLZZLLZ

122

Posted by Captainchaos on October 26, 2011, 11:47 PM | #

I mean, look at Mussolini

Hilter felt a deep personal admiration for and sense of comradery with Mussolini. This is why Hitler took the trouble to rescue Mussolini and restore him to power instead of merely appointing a German Reichskommissar to rule Italy.

Mere chauvinism and wounded pride.

Not everything can be reduced to the basest of motives - contrary to what Jewish Freudians would have (I’m not accusing you of being Jewish nor a Freudian). Berlin was to be the pinnacle of European civilization toward which all eyes would be cast at the beginning of Europe’s New Dawn. Hence Berlin’s towering neo-classical architecture personally commissioned by Hitler. But what of the human cost? This is a question that “great” men rarely ask themselves.

123

Posted by danielj on October 26, 2011, 11:54 PM | #

If you ever get in trouble ruling over your Midwest Nordish homeland, I’ll repay Mussolini’s debt.

124

Posted by Jimmy Marr on October 27, 2011, 01:43 AM | #

Professor C.G. Jung, made the following comparison of Adolph Hitler and Benito Mussolini in an interview with H. R. Knickerbocker, published by the Hearst International magazine “Cosmopolitan,” in New York, in January 1939.

Jung said the following:

“Hitler is a spiritual vessel, a semi-deity or even better, a Myth. Mussolini is a man and therefore everything in Fascist Italy has a more human character than in Nazi Germany, where things happen by revelation. As a man Hitler scarcely exists. In any event he disappears behind the role… I have seen the Duce and the Fuhrer together when on an official visit. I had the good fortune to find myself only a short distance from them and thus I could study them well. I saw Mussolini looking like a child at the passing of a parade of German soldiers (goose step) and with the passage of the cavalry military band, where the cavalry drummers directed the horses with pressure from their legs alone; Mussolini would use his hands to strike the big drums of his thighs. Mussolini did not hide his aesthetic emotion with the spectacle and, on returning to Italy, introduced the goose step into the Italian Army. In truth this marching is the most impressive that can be seen… In comparison with Mussolini, Hitler gave me the impression of a frame, a wooden structure covered with clothes, an automaton with a mask, like a “robot,” or with the mask of a “robot.” During the entire ceremony of the military parade he never smiled and remained aloof. He did not show any mark of the human. His expression was inhuman, that of a being with a continuous purpose, with no sense of humour. Hitler seemed the double of a real person as if Hitler the man were within, like an appendage, deliberately hidden so as not to interfere with the mechanism.

What an extraordinary difference between Hitler and Mussolini! With Mussolini one feels that one meets with a human being. With Hitler one is astonished. We know we can never talk with this man, because there is no one there. He is not a man, but a collective. He is not an individual but a whole nation. I accept as literally true that he has no personal friends. Hitler can not be explained by means of personal contact, as a work of art can not be explained by the personality of the artist. The great work of art is the result of the entire world in which the artist lives and of the millions of people who surround him and of thousands of currents of thought… Mussolini can find a successor, but I see no one who could replace Hitler.

Hitler can not marry. If he marries he will cease to be Hitler. I do not wonder if he has sacrificed sex-life for the cause. The true passion of Hitler is Germany. This also means he finds himself ruled by an Idea. The Idea is always feminine. The mind is a woman because the head, the brain, is the creator; mind is like the mother’s womb. The Unconscious of the man is feminine (anima), that of the woman is masculine (animus).

Hitler has no personal ambitions. His ambitions go much further beyond those of ordinary people… Hitler’s power is not political: It is magical. To understand this term it is necessary to know what the Unconscious is. It is the part of our mental constitution over which we have no control, that contains thoughts and even conclusions over which we have no awareness… The secret of Hitler is not that he has a more powerful unconscious, more filled with thoughts and memories than other men. Rather his secret is that his unconscious has an extraordinary access to his consciousness and that it permits him to dominate and move it. It is like a man who is actively listening to a whispering voice from a mysterious springhead. And he acts in accord with her. We have too much rationality to obey her. But Hitler hears her and obeys. The true leader is always guided. Hitler himself has referred to his Voice. Therefore he always knows better than his advisors and than the opinions of foreign observers. This is because the information accumulated by his unconscious reaches his consciousness by means of an extraordinary ability that makes it more correct than that of all those who reach different conclusions from his. Hitler can not cease to obey his Voice. When he announced the invasion of Czechoslovakia in the “Sports Palace” the voice of the human Hitler trembles. What man would not feel fear in that instant, on making the decision that could compromise the destiny of millions? Nevertheless the Voice commands him to go forward. And he must obey her… Hitler is like Mohammed: He is the Messiah of Germany who teaches virtue with the sword. The spirit of Aryan Germany must be upheld by the sword… The religious character of Hitlerism is put into relief by the fact that the German communities throughout the world have adopted Hitlerism in spite of being so far removed from the power of Berlin. Look at South America, especially the German communities in Chile… When Hitler speaks by shouting it happens because he must do so, because through him the Collective Unconscious of his race speaks itself. His voice is, at a minimum, that of seventy or eighty million Germans. He must shout even in private conversation… The Voice he hears is the Collective Unconscious, especially that of the Collective Unconscious of his race, but also of many Englishmen, Frenchmen and even Czechs who feel admiration for him, as well as fear.”

125

Posted by Desmond Jones on October 27, 2011, 01:55 AM | #

Hitler, a bi-cameral mind.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bicameralism_(psychology)

126

Posted by Captainchaos on October 27, 2011, 02:45 AM | #

When bicamerality as a method of social control was no longer adaptive in complex civilizations, this mental model was replaced by the conscious mode of thought which, Jaynes argued, is grounded in the acquisition of metaphorical language learned by exposure to narrative practice.

Hitler was a throwback who just had to march to the beat of his own drummer instead of thinking in terms of English Moralism? Aww, shucks.

127

Posted by anon / uh on October 27, 2011, 06:32 AM | #

This is why Hitler took the trouble to rescue Mussolini and restore him to power instead of merely appointing a German Reichskommissar to rule Italy.

And, if the “Table Talk” is trustworthy, acknowledged the stupidity of all that when it failed — as may be inferred if that volume is untrustworthy. Forget the good motives. Was it a mistake?

Not everything can be reduced to the basest of motives - contrary to what Jewish Freudians would have (I’m not accusing you of being Jewish nor a Freudian).

But you ought to know by now that everything has “base” motive. One doesn’t need Freud for that; David Buss and his associates say much the same things, well within the same discipline as Salter, MacDonald and van der Berghe. The problem isn’t the motives, it’s the value of those motives have to the race or society in which they are enacted in the guise of whatever cultural fetishes. In the case of Adolf Hitler and his Germans, the value was entirely negative. But how much real concern could an Austrian from a broken home, without close kin or offspring, be expected to exhibit for millions of racial others among whom he was a stranger acting out his own therapeutic Wagnerian melodrama, in consequence of growing up in a modern multicultural society with no ordinary advantages?

“Man against time” translates to: loser.

128

Posted by TabuLa Raza on October 27, 2011, 02:02 PM | #

Goring was an ardent supporter of Hitler epistemology- “If Father says two and two make five then two and two make five.”

During the war there were great shortages of necessities. One lady had to travel hundreds of miles to get a sack of potatoes, as the store shelves were empty. The shelves were empty due to the price controls enacted in 1936.

More recently, similar shortages appeared in Zimbabwe, for the same reason- price controls. We all know price controls go against Econ IA, just we we are supposed to know that two and two do not make five.

Was Hitler listening to the voice of faggot Keynes? After visiting the Soviet Union, Mr. Keynes paid a visit to Hjalmar Schacht, and gave tutelage. . .

Mr. Hitler’s understanding of economics was on the same level as a nigger’s, or on the same level as the white niggers who post here.

129

Posted by bmo on October 27, 2011, 03:54 PM | #

What’s interesting is how ordinary people can become these zealous, fanatical, economic ideologues after reading Marx or the Austrians. They become aggressive, vituperative, rigid automatons who fervently repeat their doctrines and rail at anyone who deviates. They seem possessed by a total confidence and assurance in their doctrines, like religious fanatics. They seem almost zombie-like, as if their minds have been hijacked and they’ve been turned into mere memetic repeators.

You don’t see the same effect after someone has read, say, Adam Smith for example.

130

Posted by Graham_Lister on October 27, 2011, 04:56 PM | #

Well that’s because Adam Smith was a subtle and nuanced thinker who was concerned primarily with moral philosophy rather than an idée fixe such as the ‘free-market’ as the ultimate good.

131

Posted by danielj on October 27, 2011, 05:29 PM | #

Well that’s because Adam Smith was a subtle and nuanced thinker who was concerned primarily with moral philosophy rather than an idée fixe such as the ‘free-market’ as the ultimate good.

That’s actually an understatement. I was amazed reading him. I would say he was profound and blistering insightful. He was prescient in his understanding of what unrestrained capitalism would do to the general populace. He knew that commercial virtue meant martial vice and that commerce is feminine.

Cincinnatus was called to be Dictator from his plow.

132

Posted by Graham_Lister on October 27, 2011, 07:31 PM | #

@danielj

Adam Smith, in reality, is about a million miles from the figure ‘free-market’ ideologues project him to be. I would always suggest going back to the original works of great thinkers rather than take at face-value the inevitable distortions and misrepresentations of some of their more mediocre ‘followers’.

133

Posted by danielj on October 27, 2011, 08:50 PM | #

bmo,

Add a few drops of malice to a half truth and you have an absolute truth.

134

Posted by Leon Haller on October 28, 2011, 06:02 AM | #

The Theory of Moral Sentiments was more important to Smith than The Wealth of Nations (it was also an even more penetrating work), which, as Murray Rothbard demonstrated, actually in some ways represented a step backwards in economic development from the Catholic Spanish Scholastics; eg, Smith promulgated a kind of labor theory of value which was something of a precursor to Marx.

135

Posted by Leon Haller on October 28, 2011, 06:04 AM | #

It’s interesting how Lister never responds to my longer responses to him. It’s always rather clear who gains the upper hand, isn’t it?

136

Posted by MOB on October 28, 2011, 08:07 AM | #

Instead of using Majority Rights for his own private platform, Leon Haller should be obliged to create his own website.

I doubt that he would have many visitors.

And Majority Rights might have more.

Leon Haller is a colossal bore. So much so, that if he were an enemy plant, he couldn’t be more effective.

He reduces Majority Rights to lukewarm dishwater.

137

Posted by Leon Haller on October 28, 2011, 09:59 AM | #

MOB,

I probably should not respond to a nonentity like you (as with so many others here, can you point to any comment of real intellectual substance you have left here at MR? just one?).

But there is a fascinating unintended sociological experiment going on here at MR. If one reviews just my comments over the last half-dozen threads, which hardly constitute the most extensive or detailed I have left overall in the past few years, it would be immediately apparent to any remotely discerning and dispassionate intellect that my thought processes far outshine those of my critics. It is not simply a matter of knowledge or ignorance on particular subjects, vocabulary choices, syntax, what have you. It is like reptiles and mammals, Africans and Europeans; the difference is categorical.

And yet, I get routinely ‘dumped’ on, not just by the cranky Richardses or the needling and prejudicial Listers, but now by the lesser lights, like dc and MOB, who demonstrate not the slightest evidence of even being able to distinguish the points at issue.

MOB is a good moniker here, because what we are witnessing is the formation of a mob mentality. Mobs dislike people who don’t ‘fit in’, who are capable of higher-order individuality, and are willing to maintain that stance even in the face of pressures to conform to whatever group-think is operative at the moment. (An excellent literary study is the classic novel by Walter van Tilburg Clark, The Ox-bow Incident.) There is of course an evolutionary underpinning to mob psychology, and perhaps it even sometimes serves EGI.

But the glory of the white race was never to be found among the jealous collective masses, with their inferiority neuroses, and concomitant egalitarian proclivities (I suspect some of this lurks in the Lister psyche, evidenced across an array of issues). It was located among those whom figures as diverse as Wyndham Lewis and E. M. Forster identified as “aristocrats of the spirit”. It might be worthwhile to declaim on the qualities of such, but I doubt my efforts would be rewarded here.

I rarely use the N-word, but I have not the slightest doubt that petty jealousies and resentments of others’ (especially the Jews’) superior achievements played a more than minor role in advancing Nazi power. This is why Christianity is so important to White preservation. Without that moral structure deriving from Christ, all that is left is the shifting fortunes of mob rule. Perhaps that would be enough to ensure white preservation, but of what character type would those whites be? Noble, ethical, rational, humane, inquisitive - the qualities which make the race worth saving? Or petty, envious, vindictive, closed-minded and conformative - like the majority (with some decent exceptions) here?

138

Posted by Hallertosis on October 28, 2011, 10:50 AM | #

For those who have grown weary of Haller’s verbal flatulence, I hereby announce the long awaited production of his philo-Semitic stool:

I have not the slightest doubt that petty jealousies and resentments of others’ (especially the Jews’) superior achievements played a more than minor role in advancing Nazi power.

139

Posted by Jimmy Marr on October 28, 2011, 02:30 PM | #

Anon/Uh: Jimmy… You’re enough of a man to not be a dupe of Serrano’s Hitler-worship.

In reading further into Avatara, I can see that Serrano is no more of a Hitler worshiper than others who consider Hitler to be “the man who consigned us to the ghetto”.

Both are in agreement in their assessment of Hitler as bearing superhuman responsibility for our current situation. The only difference in opinion is as to whether he is a benevolent or wrathful deity, and even here I am finding that Serrano’s opinion about the war in general and Barbarosa in particular are surprisingly in alignment with those expressed by Anon/Uh in this thread.

His sentiments on this issue are difficult to fathom, but seem to relate to what he perceives as Hitler’s effort to break out a demiurgic cycle of Eternal Return. Perhaps the overall sentiment is best captured by this quote:

“The Second World War was the Great War of the Worlds. Whoever sees
this war as just one more, or compares it with the First, has understood nothing.
All the wars that have taken place until now were a preparation for this war. And
the wars that can follow on this planet are no more than its continuation.

If Hitler had materially won the war it would have been just another war.
With time what would have remained of the sublime ideals? What would we have
done for the Resurrection of the Myth? In truth, by losing the war Hitler won it,
since with his sacrifice, with his example, the Ideal has remained intact. Hitler did
not need to do more than what he did: To unmask the mythic cosmic Enemy, the
incarnation of evil on earth, for the first time in the history of the world: the
International Jew.”

I find the theme of Avatara to be relevant to MR not because it bears on the morality of Hitler’s life, but because it portrays his existence as that of a racial Avatar, which, while presented metaphorically, is a quintessentially ontological perspective of being/Being. I therefore encourage interested readers to investigate an online translation of the book, which is no longer in print.

140

Posted by maunder on October 28, 2011, 04:46 PM | #

“The Catholic Spanish Scholastics” referred to above by Haller were the School of Salamanca, which is based on the work of a Jewish converso.

The School of Salamanca attacked the Just Price theory which was one of the first theories of economic rent and promoted a “subjective value” theory which tends to obscure economic rent and rent-seeking behavior.

Rothbard promoted this view of the School of Salamanca and naturally attacked Smith who did elaborate a theory of economic rent. Rothbard can just as easily be viewed as a regression.

141

Posted by Graham_Lister on October 28, 2011, 05:07 PM | #

Dear Leon

Really you can think whatever you like, however I could offer chapter and verse on the difficulties of say methodological individualism, or even post on Darwinian social evolution, hierarchical selection and the Price co-variance theorem, but there are a number of reasons not to do so.

1) I do have professional and other time commitments; sometimes I’m very busy and don’t have the time to write extensive quasi-academic comments.

2) Re your comments about ‘real economics’ being theory driven and empirical evidence essentially being bunk. Well to be perfectly honest that strikes me a mindset I cannot seriously engage with. I have produced high-end, peer-reviewed scientific work of both a mathematical/theoretical nature and experimental/empirical studies. Real-world empirical evidence trumps theory even time in science. You have theory A that predicts phenomenon B yet counter to your theory phenomenon C is observed. Sorry if that is the consistent pattern then theory A is in error, and in need of modification at the very least. It’s called falsification and is pretty central to the scientific method (and the scientific method grows out of entirely normal everyday reasoning). Of course much more can be said about the precise relationship between theory, hypothesis and empirical evidence (Roy Bhaskar gives an excellent and very sophisticated account of the ontology of science in his “.(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address)”). However, no scientist could every say theory trumps empirical evidence. Data is always primary.

3) Obviously points one and two come together in my third observation. You seem a profoundly ideological persona (it’s not a compliment). Given that theory (or your prejudices no matter how allegedly sophisticated and erudite they may be) will beat any conceivable observation from the real world you (and the type of mindset you display) will always find some ad hoc pseudo-rationalisation to maintain that their favoured ‘theory’ is still true despite strong counter-evidence. It strikes me as no surprise you feel theology is a worthwhile subject for study. Just how many angels can one get on the head of a pin? And that transubstantiation tripe might have a veneer of sophistication for the dull witted but try that sophistry in an organic chemistry class and see how far it gets you. Magical thinking plus Jesuit sophistry equals Catholic dogma, yes? How can any self-respecting, intelligent person possibility sign up for such nonsense as Papal infallibility etc?

Anyway returning to my main point this “No true Scotsman” form of discourse is an informal logical fallacy, and as I suggested an ad hoc attempt to retain an unreasoned/unsustainable/questionable assertion. When faced with a counter-example to a universal claim, rather than denying the counter-example or rejecting the original universal claim, this fallacy modifies the subject of the assertion to exclude the specific case or others like it by rhetoric, without reference to any specific objective rule. Let me give you an example. You might say “free-markets always produce effect X1” someone then counters what about when X1 wasn’t produced or X2 occurred instead etc., and the counter is “that was NOT an true free-market”. Rather rapidly it becomes obvious that a rational, open and evidence driven dialogue is not possible. In this sense the ideologue is a profoundly dishonest character.

So this brings us to the next issue – there inevitably are always trade-offs and opportunity costs in everything we do. I could endlessly debate Karl Rahner and the ‘wonders’ of Catholicism and Christian universalism, or the misconceptions and absurdly half-baked understanding of human beings at the base of libertarian thought, or even the phoney, defeatist and inorganic idea of ‘White Zion’ but what precisely is the point? You have your views and you’re welcome to them. I did have a couple of spare hours today and enjoyed reading something on the relationship between Kierkegaard and Socrates and then dipped into Heidegger’s “.(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address)”.

Instead we could have yet another spat about how Ronald Reagan is a true Conservative that was unfortunately duped into the largest amnesty for illegal aliens in American history (Haller) versus that is what I would expect from a Hayekian right-liberal (Lister) or whatever but I think I spent my time and efforts more wisely and substantively. Now Leon you might need to think that my silence is from being overwhelmed by your self-described intellectual power etc., but please don’t be fooled. Silence can arise from many sources. Complicity and agreement is one possibility, but then so is boredom and contempt.

142

Posted by Graham_Lister on October 28, 2011, 05:22 PM | #

@Silver

Just read your last comment - well said! Thankfully some people here are sane and sensible. You are one of those guys and I hope I am too.

Haller is the ideologue par excellence, tiresome and not nearly half as clever as he thinks he is.

Leon when someone constantly shouts the same thing over and over again normal people just leave him or her to get on with whatever they are doing. The person shouting, if very delusional, then thinks they have just ‘won’ the argument. Maybe but perhaps not. But as an example not many sane people spend much effort on countering David Icke’s ideas about space lizard as they are self-evidently absurd.

143

Posted by Jimmy Marr on October 28, 2011, 05:37 PM | #

But as an example not many sane people spend much effort on countering David Icke’s ideas about space lizard as they are self-evidently absurd.

Bad analogy Grammy. I agree with MOB; Leon’s perspective isn’t absurd. It’s ambient, which is far more mind numbing.

Like your buddy, J. Richards, you give Leon too much credit.

When you’re ready to take on a real nutcase, I’ll give you a square go.

144

Posted by Graham_Lister on October 28, 2011, 06:37 PM | #

Jimmy M

As ever you’re on the money - now what’s this Nazi mysticism stuff your into again? Seriously everyone has their cultural and intellectual blind-spots but some folks are bigger and more extensive than others.

145

Posted by Graham_Lister on October 28, 2011, 06:47 PM | #

Sorry a couple of typos did creep into my longer comment tonight but it is quite late here and I’m tired (so there you go) but the main thrust of what I was saying remains. Real-world evidence trumps theory every time, for anyone not involved in a ‘theological’ discourse.

146

Posted by Jimmy Marr on October 28, 2011, 07:11 PM | #

it is quite late here and I’m tired… everyone has their cultural and intellectual blind-spots

Bullshit. You’re starting to sound like Haller. It’s early yet here, and I demand another round or a square go.

147

Posted by Jimmy Marr on October 28, 2011, 07:17 PM | #

I demand another round or a square go.

Or, in keeping with my Original Face, both.

148

Posted by Hallerian Dissonance on October 28, 2011, 07:30 PM | #

Uncle Ronnie spills the beans.

149

Posted by Graham_Lister on October 28, 2011, 07:36 PM | #

Jimmy I need to sleep sometime…lol

Anyways found this:

.(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address)

Oh dear how shameful. Anti-Semitism the just the worst type of racism, yes?

150

Posted by J Richards on November 05, 2011, 01:58 AM | #

@MOB [#136]

I agree that Haller’s often used MR as his own platform and should be obliged to post at his own website. Look at his arrogant reply to you.

Lately I’ve been turning on the heat on Haller and forcing some commenting etiquette on him. This approach ought to cut down on his commenting here, and probably has though Haller will claim mid-terms or other excuses. Once there’s a Money FAQ at MR Haller will be effectively looking at alternative work.

Haller’s been a prolific commenter, certainly one who could run a blog by himself, but I don’t think that’s his intention as his time’s better served spreading disinformation at MR than blogging at a place frequented by his own ilk.

151

Posted by BB on November 11, 2011, 07:54 PM | #

Why did Germans murder six million Jews?

I thought Holocaust revision was illegal in Germany.

152

Posted by danielj on November 11, 2011, 08:06 PM | #

Newt Gingrich: We should be supportive of the state of Israel. If the Israelis, having endured the Holocaust and the loss of seven million Jews in World War II, conclude that an Iranian nuclear weapon poses the threat of a second holocaust, because two nuclear weapons on Tel Aviv and Jerusalem would be the equivalent of a second holocaust. If they conclude that is a risk they cannot live with, we should respect their concern for survival. And I think that we should clearly indicate to the world that we would support whatever they think they have to do to survive.

Seven million now!

Jerusalem plus East Jerusalem - 763,800
Tel Aviv - 404,400

Second Holocaust my ass.

Next entry: Study reveals the global banking elites

Previous entry: Do the Taino still exist?

Existential Issues

White Genocide Project

Of note

General News

Science News

Science Categories

All Categories

The Writers

Each author's name links to a list of all articles posted by the writer; the hashes link to authors' homepages.

Links

Endorsement not implied.

Controlled Opposition

Crime

General

Immigration

Islam

Jews

Nationalist Political Parties

Science

Whites in Africa

Why the Germans? Why the Jews?

On the Basis of Envy

Comments:

Post a Comment:

Existential Issues

White Genocide Project

Of note

Recent Comments

Recent Posts

General News

Science News

Science Categories

All Categories

The Writers

Links