|
|
|
A monument in Green Park Something rather wonderful happened last week in London’s Green Park. The long-awaited monument to the aircrew of Bomber Command was unveiled by the Queen in front of some 800 surviving aircrew. It had been funded by private subscriptions and funds from the National Lottery. It is sixty-seven years late, but it is there at last. For those who are unaware, the post-war Labour government of Clement Atlee chose to deny the boys who had flown in Bomber Command - the boys in their Hampdens, Whitleys and Wellingtons, Stirling, Halifaxes and Lancasters - the customary campaign medal marking their service to the nation at war. The policy of denial was continued in the thirteen years of Conservative government that followed. The bomber aircrew were alone among all those who fought under British arms to be so denied. The problem, of course, was that the sudden unfolding at the end of the war of the devastation caused to Germany’s cities and towns by the Area Bombing campaign and the USAAF 8th Air Force’s daylight offensive was a huge shock for the political Establishment, and a gift for many ambitious men. The wartime service values of duty, discipline and self-sacrifice were falling away as the nation struggled to find its feet and move forward. In the battle for the new moral centre there could only be one victor - moral universalism - and the treatment accorded at this time to Arthur Harris was a highly visible function of that. The political exodus from support for Bomber Command fractured national feeling more or less along the lines that pee-cee and anti-racism fracture it today. During the war, aircrew were treated with great affection and generosity by the public. They understood that in the long years from the Battle of Britain to D-Day the strategic bomber was the only means of carrying the war to Germany. The service performed for them by Bomber Command constituted an act of endurance at arms matched in British military history only by the BEF in 1914-18. They, the public, did not shift their opinion as their rulers and “moral betters” shifted theirs. They did not condemn the aircrew because of the excesses of the campaign, or because of the questions over its strategic value. If its results were very terrible then that, too, represented a victory of sorts over the enemy, for the Germans, who sunk their development efforts into jets and rockets, never produced a bomber with the lifting capacity of the Lancaster, or any bomber at all with four engines. Had they done so, they would have used it on Britain’s cities and towns to the same effect. For nationalists the subject of the Allies’ destruction of urban Germany comes with two large and extremely sore points attached. First, there is the feeling among many, which I do not share, that “the wrong side” won ... the Jewish side, the side of anti-nationalism, of European national destruction. The people who make this wholly utilitarian argument are very often American WNs of German descent. But if pressed on their politics they turn out equally often to be right-liberals (in the English sense of that word). Second, there is the belief among older British nationalists - the generation who fought (and lost) on the streets to the anti-racist left in the final decades of the 20th century - that National Socialism and like forms of Judaic fantasia are viable and true philosophies in their own right ... indeed, that they are nationalism. If I thought that I’d give up thinking entirely. I often wonder what kind of national feeling the boys in those bombers, in all their war-will, would have expressed. That, too, is there somewhere in the new monument to them in Green Park, in the folds of the battle-dress, in the set of the jaw and the line of the eye’s gaze. One day before too long, I hope, I shall go there and ponder that. Comments:2
Posted by daniel on Mon, 02 Jul 2012 05:03 | # Germany had been antagonistic enough to neighboring countries in World Wars One and Two such that it is disingenuous to lay the greater blame on those who opposed them as doing so unnecessarily, and the ramifications of Germany’s didactic effort, a liberal reactionary straight jacket for White Nationalists, their just desert. 3
Posted by Guessedworker on Mon, 02 Jul 2012 05:57 | # Prussiancoat, Let me put this as plainly as possible. National Socialism was a mistake, a despicable and demeaning Judaic ideology which offended against the European trait of individualism to the tips of its fingers. In other words, it was not born out of the European Mind and did not express European nature. Even the snazzy uniforms proclaimed “I too am a Jew (I just can’t display my full chosenness without this shirt and these boots)”. If the German reaction to the well-known excesses following WW1 had been a nationalism of given identity (the German being) rather than the lie of the superman, then war would not have been necessary at all, and the implications of defeat for Germany for peoples of European descent everywhere would not have been what they are, either. Among other things, it would not be so damned difficult to remake a nationalist reaction to our dissolution today. 4
Posted by Desmond Jones on Mon, 02 Jul 2012 07:26 | #
It wouldn’t have anything to do with Evian, Palestine or Bomber Command’s refusal to bomb Auschwitz…it was those damn snazzy uniforms. LOL 5
Posted by Leon Haller on Mon, 02 Jul 2012 08:32 | #
You have described me perfectly, and I speak as a Christian. One can denounce the Nazis on moral grounds while still thinking it would have been better for the white race - and thus all humanity, and the very cause of human moral and civilizational improvement - for them to have won, or at least destroyed the Soviets, and fought to a stalemate with the Anglo powers. Indeed, I cannot imagine any European racial nationalist disagreeing. Second, while we can acknowledge the war virtues of the common British soldier, in Bomber Command or elsewhere, we simply cannot forgive the criminality of the Dresden (et al) firebombings in winter/spring of ‘45, totally unnecessary to the final outcome of the war, and without doubt a collective war crime on par with anything perpetrated by the Nazis themselves. The German cities were filled overwhelmingly with white women and children (mostly refugees from the Soviet Rape Army), countless of whom died unimaginably horrific deaths. “Butcher” Harris is one of the great demons in Aryan history, totally without possibility of exoneration. He was a race criminal, pure and simple. If your PC govt has built this monument now it is only to further vilify and dehumanize and guiltmonger our German brothers (perhaps to get them to shell out for eurobonds…? where are our resident conspiracists when we actually need them?). This is an example of trying to appear tough and heroic, suckering people into thinking the govt is not totally PC, but in a bad cause. It has the stench of some American neoconservative DA “cracking down on crime” by harassing a bunch of white trash meth labs. Why doesn’t he go clean up the ghettoes, where the real criminals are? A monument in America to the bombing of Hiroshima - praising that bombing - would be appropriate and un-PC. I’m not holding my breath. Note: one cannot simply call the Nazis “Judaic” without an elaborate explanation. Prussiancroat @1 A brilliant and beautiful comment. Unimprovable! Please comment here more often.
6
Posted by Foundation on Mon, 02 Jul 2012 10:16 | # An unusual and reflective piece from GW - which shows his nationalism is not one-dimensional and, like the tide of life, flows backwards and forwards over rocks and not just the smooth sand. I enjoyed the ‘Hispanic Panic’ you created over at the Telegraph GW. You had them chewing their own legs off to escape the trap. Those of us who do not have your ability will nevertheless carry away with us the materials you provide so that we may fashion simpler weapons. Prussiancroat I lost an uncle to two torpedos fired from U413. He was 19. 7
Posted by rowntree on Mon, 02 Jul 2012 10:38 | # Wearing uniforms is Jewish? I don’t see how National Socialism was “Jewish”. James Bowery emphasizes the individualism thing the most and I don’t think he says that National Socialism was “Jewish”. 8
Posted by Graham_Lister on Mon, 02 Jul 2012 10:58 | # If the regime in question had been an ‘internally’ focused one alone the lines of Franco’s in Spain I doubt anyone in the British establishment would have cared one jot about its politics. It disingenuous in the extreme for people to pretend Germany was the innocent party. That regime and its self-destructive policies, which reflected the underlying insanity of its background assumptions (read my piece here for more http://majorityrights.com/weblog/comments/the_ghosts_of_the_past), brought collective catastrophe and societal devastation upon their fellow Germans – some patriots, some nationalism eh! If that is what’s ‘on offer’ rather like GW count me out. Yo Leon babes, I note apart from the typical Haller bluster (you’re always ‘correct’ and that’s the end of the matter) you have not answered my question about a ‘free-market’ in examinations and it’s baleful effects on education in England – along with a number of other questions. Is that what you do? Scuttle away and remain silent if your cherished ‘correct theory’ gets shown up? Just asking the supercilious cunt if that’s how he rolls people – please don’t take offence. After all if it is how he rolls – and it seems it is – the grown-ups know not to bother with him, yes? No wonder Haller practices both Voodoo theology and Voodoo economics with the Juju men. He probably also waves his check-book around and demands A grades too. Is it not time to see Mr. Haller in full intellectual action - where one wonders is his long promised book review and essays? How long can it take to knock up a couple of thousand words? A weekend, a couple of weeks? A month or two? P.S. I get GW’s point about the ‘Jewishness’ of the ideology - it’s a subtle point, well never-mind if one does not understand it. But as a clue think about certain tropes and themes within Jewish and Jewish-derived theology. 9
Posted by daniel on Mon, 02 Jul 2012 11:35 | # Indeed, I cannot imagine any European racial nationalist disagreeing. According to Himmler, “All Poles will disappear from the world. [...] It is essential that the great German people should consider it as its major task to destroy all Poles.”[ etc. etc. etc. etc. etc. we simply cannot forgive the criminality of the Dresden (et al) firebombings in winter/spring of ‘45, totally unnecessary to the final outcome of the war, and without doubt a collective war crime on par with anything perpetrated by the Nazis themselves
Going back to WWI for example: “In some places, particularly Liège, Andenne and Leuven, but firstly Dinant, there is evidence that the violence against civilians was premeditated. But in Dinant the German army believed sincerely that the inhabitants were as dangerous as the French soldiers themselves”.. On August 25, 1914 the German army ravaged the city of Leuven, deliberately burning the University’s library of 300,000 medieval books and manuscripts with gasoline, killing 248 residents and expelling the entire population of 10,000. Civilian homes were set on fire and citizens often shot in the place they stood. Over 2,000 buildings were destroyed and large amounts of strategic materials, foodstuffs and modern industrial equipment were looted and transferred to Germany. These actions brought worldwide condemnation”
etc. Then you move onto World War II, and people seriously believe that the Poles should have negotiated with Hitler. I started listening to Mein Kemf for the first time last night. The guy was into war. A normal person is not thinking first about prosecuting wars but about how to establish a reasoned cooperation between nations. The highly propagandised Bromberg incident happened a few days after the shocking surprise attack on Gdansk, where Polish resistors were lined up against a wall and shot. A few days later, the retreating Polish army was sniped from houses in Bromberg. In the shock and horror of that context, they rounded up any German civilian who had guns and shot them. This was used as “evidence” of the insuperable evil of Poles, and occasion not only for “justification” of deeper penetration into Poland, but also the killing of ten times the number of Polish civilians as retaliation there in Bromberg.. Look again at the Himmler quote, add that Hitler gave permission to kill civilians, women and children in the bombing of Warsaw.. Zamosc, never at any time in history a German city, was renamed Himmlerstadt and to be the Eastern capital of the Third Reich. I do not want to go the route that Germans are inherently flawed in being uniquely warlike. I do not believe that. I believe that they were fighting for their nation, doing the best they could, as others were fighting for their nation the best they could. I do think that battle worn after WWI and the Treaty of Versailles, The Germans overcompensated. Having been kicked when they were down, it became doubly if not triply difficult for them to trust and they went over the top. The provocation that led to their over compensation - an unfortunately narrow definition of friends and enemies, as it were (and with it, an inability to drop the dispute over Gdansk), has given nationalism, White nationalism a bad image. But as Matt Johnson has called attention, it is not nationalism that creates wars, it is imperialism and what the Nazis were doing in the end was not nationalism, not even National Socialism, it was capitalist imperialism. There were reasons, valid reasons for their over compensation. I do not want to go the Jewish route of saying this was wholly irrational. But I do believe the Nazi regime over-compensated, you can say reacted to the provocation of bad treatment in surrender of WWI, in an ultimately counterproductive way. The Belarusians, the Ukrainians and more, along with the Poles were all significantly anti-Jewish and anti Soviet. In fact, Pilsudski had already defeated the Soviets at Warsaw, their army had aimed to take on Berlin next. Therefore, the idea that the Germans were completely exposed to The Soviets on the East is theoretically disputable. Nevertheless, the Nazi regime basically looked upon these and other anti-Jewish and anti-Soviet peoples as enemies as well. I don’t like getting into World War II. I do not want to vilify the Germans or anybody else. Germans are good people. We all have our ten percent or so of rats. I would love to be done with WWII and my concern, when forced to take the side opposed to the Nazis, as the Nazis are all too often looked upon as heroes of the White race (as if their regime contributing to the death of 55 million Europeans wasn’t a big enough help; but what it has done to the capacity for cooperative White Nationalism), is that it will lead to a reciprocally escalating diatribe, and heightened conflict between Europeans when we desperately need to be friends and to cooperate. I Like all European men and I love all European women. I wish for their maintained distinctions, national sovereignty, and cooperation in so doing. 10
Posted by Desmond Jones on Mon, 02 Jul 2012 19:47 | # KMac writes that NS arose as a reflection of the discourse of Jewish racial supremacy prominent in the late 19th century. http://www.kevinmacdonald.net/SAID-Chap5.pdf Suddenly, Master Lister is not so keen on the collective…LOL 11
Posted by Guessedworker on Mon, 02 Jul 2012 19:59 | # The question, Desmond, is whether human belonging, love and identity can be inculcated, as National Socialism presumed, or whether it can only be uncovered, facilitated. If it is real in the European heart, then it requires release from the estrangements of the present and nothing more. For it must express that which is of itself. It cannot both be itself - that is, real - and be a designed behaviour and, moreover something purposive, something destined by men and not by Nature. 12
Posted by Graham_Lister on Mon, 02 Jul 2012 22:08 | # @Desmond Jones I’m not a fool hence I’m not a Nazi. The correct relationship between the parts and the whole of a polis is about the precise and sustainable balancing of those phenomena. Giving each aspect its due respect. Yes there can be too much focus on the collective identity/agency and yes there can be rather toxic forms of collective action - you know the type resulting in around 55 million or so bona fide Europeans losing their lives - so yes I’m against that! LOL indeed. So of course any human value or concept can be used in perverse ways and for quite dreadful ends. There can be quite healthy forms of individuality and totally unhealthy forms - the same is true of the collective aspects of human life too. As always there is an Aristotelian middle-way in which a flourishing and sustainable polis understands that it depends precisely upon the particular nature of interactions, interdependencies and overall type and quality of the relationship between the whole and the parts - one in which both ontological levels are respected. This requires that we take care both of the well-being of the collective and the good of individuals. But without thinking that utopia is just around the corner (or that it is easy to work out precisely where that balance is). Nor indeed for thinking the two levels can be fused in an upwards direction or that the whole can be deflated and dismissed by a radical reduction downwards - such as only the parts are thought to be real (i.e. hyper-collectivism and hyper-individualism respectively). Humans have always lived in some form of wider grouping or community beyond that of immediate family members and the modern form of collective/group living is known as a society. Therefore it is in vain to look for a special good or form of life that would or could be sought in radical isolation from other people and the gentle background of communal life - which itself provides the platform from which individuals can authentically flourish. The quality of our personal relationships and the well-being of our ‘background’ collective social environment (our social-capital) determines, to a very large extent, our quality of lives. Sorry to give the impression I’m a Chairman Mao in waiting but when some people constantly go on and on and on about individualism (grounded in a particularly liberal model of the individual) as an answer to all conceivable human problems it gets very frustrating as I think they are barking up the wrong tree - to say the least. Anyway I’m rambling - it’s been a long and quite stressful day. 14
Posted by Hesper on Tue, 03 Jul 2012 00:16 | # The Anglo-Saxons in their attempt to destroy Germany ended up destroying themselves. Instead of being Germany’s right hand man in a National Socialist Europe, Great Britain became a triple colony, first a military colony of the United States, second an economic colony of the European Union and finally a sexual and biological colony of Jamaica and Pakistan. How many of the brave lads who burned thousand year old cities to the ground and roasted white christian women and children alive lived long enough to see their grand-daughters pushing their mongrel bastards around in baby carriages and how many came to the realization that Uncle Adolf maybe wasn’t such a bad guy after all. Harshly worded but fair. 15
Posted by Desmond Jones on Tue, 03 Jul 2012 02:30 | #
Not true.
Darwin, The Descent of Man http://www.infidels.org/library/historical/charles_darwin/descent_of_man/chapter_05.html 16
Posted by Leon Haller on Tue, 03 Jul 2012 04:36 | # Lister@8
I don’t know what you’re referring to. I may go back to check as time permits. I don’t read everything here. I tend to comment directly from the OP. Sometimes I obviously read the comments, but sometimes not. Note also I have responded to you specifically on many occasions where you did not do any sort of follow-up (one eg, I’ve asked many times what your ideal level of govt intervention in the economy is, whether there is ever some peacetime absolute ‘cap’, and so forth, and still have no idea of your answer, as none is ever forthcoming - just endless general bloviation on ‘neoliberalism’ and its alleged ontological failings). What’s good for the goose ...
Yes, I certainly do owe a review of the Pierre Krebs book. In truth, I was too busy with schoolwork until nearly the end of May. I had wanted to read or re-read a number of other books preparatory to doing the review, as the book, though small (really a monograph), does raise more fundamental issues than, say, Jared Taylor’s recent White Identity, which I had started previously, and did read in free time during the semester. But I got much more burdened as the semester progressed, esp than I had anticipated. In the five weeks that I’ve been home, I’ve just had a lot to do for my parents, who are quite old now, and need my help, esp my dad. Also, house matters, catching up with the GF, etc. Knocking out a review of this book would not be hard at all, esp if I abandon the prep reading, and were to write a short review (unlikely, however; I usually have to edit down my essays), as some others here have done. Obviously, I need to do it before school resumes. I can do it sooner if that is the consensus. But it won’t be this week, as we’re going away for the 4th through the weekend. Anyway, I wrote a few rather fundamental paragraphs on individualism on one of the recent threads. I don’t recall your taking any notice of it (I believe the Polish Daniel did). So please calm yourself. 17
Posted by Leon Haller on Tue, 03 Jul 2012 05:06 | # Daniel@9 I agree with most of your comment’s particulars, except I’m confused about the relevance of this, at least to my comment:
My comment was referring to the vast streams of German refugees, mostly women/children, from the advancing Soviets, who had settled in Dresden when the firebombings began. Butcher Harris was both a genuine war criminal, as well as a race one. There was no reason to have bombed Germany then, and a measure of humanity (or at least dimly remembered race-brotherhood), should have come to the fore to prevent such outrages. But for all their alleged colonial ‘racism’, in reality the Brits have been among the most liberal, race-less peoples in history (who ended the slave trade again?). You must be thinking of Nazi or Nazi-apologist claims for territorial aggression in the East. I had not been thinking along those lines. Let me emphasize that I am a WN who, however, has never sought to deny or exculpate Nazi crimes. I do not think Hitler was a great man (except insofar as “great” refers to influential), and it seems obvious that the Nazis played an outsized role in not only physically, but worse, morally weakening the West. In a sense, they played right into Jewish hands (though of course that is only obvious in retrospect; note, however, that many Americans - eg, Charles Lindbergh - did NOT want US involvement in WW2, and for the right reason: not because they were Nazi sympathizers, but because they recognized that another war would destroy Western Civ, and possibly hand Europe to the Bolsheviks). WN should completely eschew Hitler and Nazism. That is a path to continued irrelevance. I support Pan-European racial and cultural nationalism, and likewise do not like to take part in intra-European squabbles (eg, Croats v Serbs in the 90s). On the other hand, I stand by my statement that, bad as the Nazis were, it would have been better for the West had they defeated the Soviets, and been the other side in the US Cold War. WW2 is definitely an area WNs should avoid, except when refuting Soviet lies, guiltmongering of Germans, or Holocaust exaggerations (also the idiot Keynesian notion that “WW2 got us out of the Depression”, perhaps the biggest lie of the whole period). 19
Posted by Leon Haller on Tue, 03 Jul 2012 12:54 | # Lister, I glanced at your comments on Daniel’s white Left post. You unthinkingly regurgitate nearly every piece of leftwing nonsense from more than a century. What’s unusual is that you combine anti-capitalist bromides from the conservative Right, as well as socialist Left, which makes you slippery and difficult to refute, as I agree with many Conservative strictures against neoliberalism. If I don;t critique you at length, it’s because such efforts as I have made in the past in that regard were never properly acknowledged, even if only to consider deeply, and then disagree with. The analytical problem is combined with constant misrepresentations of my own views, a fundamental unfamiliarity with praxeology, which means that you don’t understand what I mean by ‘theory’, and serious empirical disagreements, such as about the economic status of the Nordic nations. Moreover, you conflate private criminality with capitalism as such; you confuse free markets with regulated ones, blaming the former for failures in the latter (eg, whatever monetary failures have been at the root of our current and unending Time of Troubles cannot be blamed on capitalism, which requires a free market in money, not the global fiat currencies of the present); and, like a good leftist, you mis-assign social ills to economic systems (eg, that the US has, say, higher infant mortality than Sweden says nothing about the relative merits of capitalist v. socialist healthcare provision: first, the US most certainly does not have a capitalist health system, but one shot through with endless market distorting govt regs, and second, other variables must be taken into account, such as differential demographics). I could go on at great length, but I think your mind is very firmly shut against capitalist arguments. 20
Posted by Captainchaos on Wed, 04 Jul 2012 04:55 | # GW,
Yet how much of a lie is it to say that by dint of their racial superiority, with this superiority relative to other peoples being heritable and therefore intrinsic to the German being, Germans are a Master Race? Your claim that National Socialists regarded the German people as being literally demi-gods, or that with enough will power they could become this, has as far as I am aware no basis in fact. It is mere rhetoric that an astute person will take as hyperbolie at best and sarcasm for worse. This can only serve to diminish your credibility for commenting on the subject. If it were modern Greeks, say, who claimed to be a “Master Race” as against Germans the claim would be regarded as instantly risible with no such rhetorical flourish required. There would be no need to shame with moralistic language, no need to belittle with sarcasm for these are the (verbal) weapons of the weak against the strong. That you need use them at all, feel compelled to use them at all, is a tacit acknowledgement by you of superior German strength. And it is superior German strength which undergirded the belief in the minds of National Socialists that Germans were/are a Master Race.
21
Posted by Captainchaos on Wed, 04 Jul 2012 05:25 | #
If this were true then there could be no possibility of philosophy leading people to authenticity for what is “philosophy” but the attempt to design by reason a justification for behaviors which lead men to live better lives within the confines of the possible. In other words, and contrary to the false dichotomy you trot out, philosophy is merely the real self (if the “self” were not “real”, if it did not exist, it could not actually do this) applied to the purpose of strengthening and/or increasing in frequency some behaviors the self is capable of and weakening and/or decreasing in frequency other behaviors the self is capable of as reason deems appropriate, with those behaviors reason deems appropriate being “better” for the self. 22
Posted by Captainchaos on Wed, 04 Jul 2012 05:54 | #
How do you propose Himmler intended to accomplish this, with gas chambers? Care to provide a source for that alleged quotation? 23
Posted by Captainchaos on Wed, 04 Jul 2012 05:58 | #
Your uncle would have lived had England not gone to war with Germany. 24
Posted by daniel on Wed, 04 Jul 2012 06:26 | # Posted by Captainchaos on July 04, 2012, 12:54 AM | # According to Himmler, “All Poles will disappear from the world. [...] It is essential that the great German people should consider it as its major task to destroy all Poles.”[ etc. etc. etc. etc. etc. “How do you propose Himmler intended to accomplish this, with gas chambers? Care to provide a source for that alleged quotation?”
In his 1926 book Mein Kampf. The aim of this plan was to turn Eastern Europe into part of greater Germany, the so-called German Lebensraum (“living space”). Nazi ideology had viewed Slavs as a racially inferior group.[5] On August 22, 1939, on the invasion of Poland, Hitler gave explicit permission to his commanders to kill “without pity or mercy, men, women, and children of Polish descent or language”.[6] Genocide was conducted systematically against Polish people: on September 7, 1939 Reinhard Heydrich stated that all Polish nobles, clergy and Jews are to be killed, on September 12 Wilhelm Keitel added intelligentsia to the list, at the end of 1940 Hitler demanded liquidation of “all leading elements in Poland” and on March 15, 1940, Himmler stated All Polish specialists will be exploited in our military-industrial complex. Later, all Poles will disappear from this world. It is imperative that the great German nation considers the elimination of all Polish people as its chief task 25
Posted by daniel on Wed, 04 Jul 2012 07:26 | # Captainchaos, Undoubtedly, one of the first things that you are going to say is that Wikipedia has a heavily Jewish bias. And, I am going to agree with you about that. However, I must say that I do not wish to make yet the zillionth World War II historian of myself, setting about to research matters which are abundant already, because some may wish to take the position that the Nazi regime was beyond reproach and that it was unconscionable for any Europeans to have opposed them - when in most cases, they had little choice; even where they were strongly anti-Jewish and anti-Soviet; because that’s where Hitler and Himmler had drawn the lines. That the Germans are among our most talented people, normally ranking at the top, or close to it, particularly regarding technology, but not only, is sure. However, when considering them to be the master race, the issue of quality or kind of intelligence does arise. For preeminent example, if their sort of thinking had all the bases covered, would they have conceived and executed upon a war that led to such a result? Perhaps not. In line with that, it seems to me the far better way of arguing would not be to focus so much on denying matters (though some matters may turn out to be untrue or providing more understanding of the German POV along the way), but rather to concentrate on the underlying causes which led to some over-compensations that did not work out well. I believe that part of the reason why a view overly sympathetic to the Nazi regime gets so much circulation is because The United States has been, far and away, a German/ic population (too bad that had not been taken more into consideration with the notion of German Lebensraum), which has been insulated from a variety of European perspectives, normally having umphh enough only to try to overcome the Jewish perspective. But there are other European points of view (outside of the German-Jewish continuum of The U.S. discourse) from which it is clear that negotiating with Hitler was not a reasonable option. If all one wants is a view that faithfully and invariably takes the line that the Nazi regime was impeccably conceived from the ground up, then one might be happy to listen to one of the German chauvinist shows out there, of which there are a few.
26
Posted by daniel on Wed, 04 Jul 2012 12:30 | # fallen war hero ungrateful for Ukrainian President’s tribute: 27
Posted by Helvena on Wed, 04 Jul 2012 15:09 | # GW can’t seem to shake Allied war propaganda. The jews and duped Brits need to keep the war alive so what better way then to place a monument to civilian terrorism 67 years later. Those young men who died were lied to (a very handsome great uncle of mine included). Nazi judaic indeed!! By their joo control the Brits have lost more of their finest and wasted more Aryan blood than can be measured but we see the results in the parks of England today, pick-a-ninnies and monuments. Carolyn Yeager is on top of it: New Film from Lady Michele Renouf Posted on 27. Jun, 2012 by carolyn in World War II New DVD RELEASE 28th June 2012 - As Queen Elizabeth II opens a memorial to the 55,000 members of the Royal Air Force Bomber Command who died during the Second World War, increasing numbers of Britons are questioning the history and legacy of that conflict. The political leaders (principally Prime Minister Winston Churchill) who sent those men of Bomber Command to their deaths – as well as condemning 500,000 German civilians to be burned alive across sixty towns and cities that were devastated in a deliberate bombing strategy – are now seen by some as war criminals. Telling Films has produced a new DVD which calls the criminal politicians to account and sets the record straight. In the process the film celebrates the small but significant group of influential Britons who even during the Second World War condemned the terror bombing policy. This heroic band of true beacons of justice included George Bell, Bishop of Chichester; Lord Hankey, founding father of the 20th century British government machinery; Sir Charles Snow, government scientist and author; and the Rt. Hon. Richard Stokes MP, England’s leading Roman Catholic politician of the 1940s, a socialist patriot who combined his condemnation of terror bombing with insights into the insidious threat of international usury, communist expansion and Zionist subversion. Entitled Dresden Holocaust 1945: An Apology to Germany is due, the new Telling Films DVD combines archive material and footage from the 1940s; new film of a Dresden anniversary commemoration outside the Houses of Parliament and Westminster Abbey; and commentary from veteran political activist Richard Edmonds, peace campaigner Dr James Thring and documentary producer and free debate defender Lady Michèle Renouf. Chapter Two of the DVD is Richard Stokes: Socialist Patriot, Opponent of Terror Bombing and Defender of Palestine: an address given in London by political analyst and broadcaster Peter Rushton, assistant editor of Heritage and Destiny. Mr Rushton sets Stokes’s courageous statements opposing the Churchill government’s bombing campaign in the context of his religious and political views, including attempts at a negotiated peace in 1939-40 and Stokes’s involvement in the notorious Tyler Kent affair, when an American cypher clerk was imprisoned for threatening to disclose Winston Churchill’s secret communications with President Roosevelt. The DVD Dresden Holocaust 1945 is dedicated to the publisher Tony Hancock (1947-2012). For order and distribution details please contact TELLING FILMS at .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) 28
Posted by daniel on Wed, 04 Jul 2012 15:52 | # Helvena, I love ya man and it is true that Britain has a harder case for entering that war (not being familiar enough with British history, I would not care to contribute more than that), but…. Yeah, Carolyn Yeager presents a fair and balanced perspective. LOL 29
Posted by Helvena on Wed, 04 Jul 2012 17:20 | # Brilliant Danny. You acknowledge a lack of historical knowledge yet you judge Carolyn’s perspective as unfair and unbalanced. On what bases do you make your judgement given your admitted ignorance? “it doesn’t feel right” maybe. Sweet. 30
Posted by daniel on Wed, 04 Jul 2012 18:12 | #
Posted by Helvena on July 04, 2012, 12:20 PM | # Brilliant Danny. You acknowledge a lack of historical knowledge I lack of sufficient knowledge of the British perspective, Helvena. I’d rather let the Brits contribute that part. Yes, I do, but based on other discussions. Still, it would have been better for me not to chime in here. Let her and lady Renouf discuss Dresden as they see fit. ...again, based on other discussions. It irritates me when I hear those who bemoan Only the German dead and only their losses; and will assume no negative responsibility on the part of Germany, whatsoever. Rather show me evidence coming from her kind to the contrary? Still, I’d rather like to stay out of this one. It’s a bore. Does Christian Lindtner hate Germans? Is he trying to harm their prospects? I don’t think so. I don’t think providing better, more balanced arguments hurts. given your admitted ignorance? I didn’t say I was ignorant of other aspects, Helvena. “it doesn’t feel right” maybe. Sweet. Those are not my words. I am sorry for all European dead via WWII and WWI, including those Germans killed in Dresden and anywhere; and yes, also the non-German, native Europeans killed anywhere as a result.
31
Posted by ffss on Wed, 04 Jul 2012 19:15 | # Guessedworker, Your fantasies aside, “European” individualism is of liberalism, whose origin is the hyperrationalism of Socrates—denounced as Levantine—and his fellow Sophists. He radically put forth the ascendancy of mind and reason over soul and senses and intellectualised morality. It is fundamentally un-European and turned out to be anti-European, as alien influences are wont to. Maybe you’re the right-liberal. Re your ignorant fulminations against Nazism (alongside daniel’s), riddle us this. Suppose you are wrong on nearly every article of your moral crusade, from supremacism to the especially ridiculous notion that Nazis held that fellow-feeling had to come from without rather than within. If you “can’t” use the anti-Nazi distancing as a rhetorical wedge because for some strange reason you mustn’t lie (unless you already lied to yourself), are you going to let the enemy loose and never engage it?
Perhaps a Nazi would oppose phrasing it like this, which is merely liberal daydreaming. If anti-Nazism is in any measure real in the European heart, did it really take the dismantling of the erstwhile Nazi-controlled security services to win in Germany? Kindly introduce yourself to the real world. Have you ever heard of Serbia and Kosovo? 32
Posted by ffss on Wed, 04 Jul 2012 19:27 | #
The idea that the Nazi regime, with all its real and imagined faults considered, was worse (for any European nation) than the virulently anti-nationalist victors is risible in the extreme given the plan the latter have for every European. You laughably claim that the wrong—i.e., anti-nationalist—side didn’t win; Churchill, on the other hand, began bleating with glee about some imagined multiracial coalition against Hitler-the-madman as early as 1939. 33
Posted by dc on Wed, 04 Jul 2012 22:07 | # MR carries a great deal of weight amongst active supporters of the Aryan nation, because a significant percentage, say 20 or 30%, of the commentators bring some learning to the discussion. It is a great pity that the site is devalued by the sentimental make-believe of its creator, and the lunatic falsehoods of the idiot who goes by the stage-name of Daniel. We can only progress by establishing truth and then extending it. To write of the Second World War in ignorance, honest or willful, of Taylor, Veale, Ponsonby, Joyce and contemporary documentation is therefore criminal sabotage. Yes, the wrong side won. Whatever the faults of National Socialist Germany, it had a far healthier form of government than any in the jewish Anglo-Franco-American alliance. In the circumstances it was possibly the only form of government which could remove the jew boot from our neck. Those boys in their planes were no heroes, only simple dupes. Yes, a revival of some form of national socialism is needed. “National” = we have and cherish our nations and their integrity. “Socialism” = we insist on the existence of our nations as whole communities, with distinctions of power and rank reduced to relative insignificance. No, there is nothing “judaic” in National Socialism. What is presented as dictatorial or militaristic is the result of the necessities of battle, the closing of the board-wall. 34
Posted by Helvena on Wed, 04 Jul 2012 22:09 | # Whether Lindtner hates Germans or not isn’t relevant to the facts. Jurgen Graf meets and defeats Lindtner’s points. http://globalfire.tv/nj/12en/history/lindtner.htm A balanced argument, what is that? Do lawyers present a balanced argument in a court of law? Hell NO. They present their side and let the jury decide. I suggest we do that however, if you would like to *balance* your argument with my strong points, feel free. 35
Posted by Zizek101 on Wed, 04 Jul 2012 22:48 | # Olam ha-zeh and Olam Haba are deeply Jewish concepts. Sadly many fans of the quite disastrous ‘heavy Germanic model’ are unaware of the wellspring of their moribund ideology. And precisely when did actions that precipitated the death of 50 million plus Europeans become that of European patriots? Can I ask “Helvena” if he/she thinks truth is determined by someone using clever rhetorical manoeuvres to impress an audience? A strange theory of truth I would suggest. Rather Jewish in fact. 36
Posted by Helvena on Wed, 04 Jul 2012 23:28 | # Aren’t you the clever one Zizek setting up a strawman, rather jooishesque of you. I said present my side, I didn’t say anything thing about employing verbal slights of hands to deceive. Interesting how you thought of that when it didn’t even cross my mind. A difference between us? Perhaps you could stick to the facts. And when I say facts I don’t mean jew-true, I mean reality based, verifiable facts, not the *truth* the Rabbis tell you or Elie the Weasle’s truth - for example doctored photos aren’t truth. 37
Posted by Zizek101 on Thu, 05 Jul 2012 01:31 | # It was Helvena that brought up the analogy of the Anglo-American system of competitive legal advocacy as the ‘best’ way to determine truth with the jury of public opinion deciding between two clever but extremely partisan accounts of the issue. Lawyers and the truth are only ever on partially speaking terms. Sophistry is the lawyers stock and trade. As well as a tendency observed in some other groups. Now its not hard to guess where Helvena’s gets his or her ‘reasoning’ from. Very ‘gonif’ like or have I got that wrong as I’m no expert in the terminology? Do you seriously dispute that 50+ million genuine Europeans did not dies as a result of the policies and predictable consequences of your German favorites? The real truth hurts doesn’t it you pathetic little fascist. 38
Posted by daniel on Thu, 05 Jul 2012 01:59 | # It is a great pity that the site is devalued by the sentimental make-believe of its creator, and the lunatic falsehoods of the idiot who goes by the stage-name of Daniel. Hey, Screw you and your ad hominem dc. A right side in that war? It should not have been fought and the significant part of why it was fought was Hitler’s fault. Helvena, Do lawyers present a balanced argument in a court of law? Hell NO. They present their side and let the jury decide That is not the right form of communication for cooperation among Europeans. And that is exactly the point. Are we trying to fight each other as Europeans or are we trying to cooperate? Obviously some are not trying to cooperate. Presenting only one side is not the appropriate rhetorical style to achieve symbiosis. It is what perpetuates reciprocally escalating diatribe and war - it is incompetent. I do try to take both sides into consideration, not ONLY the German one. 39
Posted by Helvena on Thu, 05 Jul 2012 02:30 | # Do you seriously dispute that 50+ million genuine Europeans did not dies as a result of the policies and predictable consequences of your German favorites? - Yes. 40
Posted by Helvena on Thu, 05 Jul 2012 02:41 | # I have long ago taken both sides into consideration and found the Allied side wanting. The National Socialist weren’t perfect but Europe would have fared far better in their hands then she has in the jew’s and their off spring the social democrats. 41
Posted by dc on Thu, 05 Jul 2012 03:15 | # It is apodeictic that Hitler was forced to an unwanted war. Those who do not know this have simply not done their reading. It is also demonstrable that England, France and America were directed by stooges of jews genuinely bent on world domination. And for these jews any crack in the dike of jew finance was, and remains today, intolerable. That is the real issue; it is intolerably idiotic to talk of parade uniforms. Friend Daniel, allow me to return to my silence. Slav squatters on German land do best to keep their voices and heads down. They should also practice the virtue of not using big words which they do not understand. “Ad hominem” means “suited to the man”, it does not mean insult or denigration. With each effort you demonstrate yourself ignorant, gullible and slow-witted. I do nothing but register my annoyance. 42
Posted by daniel on Thu, 05 Jul 2012 03:40 | # Posted by dc on July 04, 2012, 10:15 PM | # It is apodeictic that Hitler was forced to an unwanted war. Those who do not know this have simply not done their reading. They have not done the narrowly circumscribed reading hat you want them to do.
Good. So the issue if economics. Then Hitler might have focused on that instead of changing Zamosc into Himmlerstadt. Friend Daniel, allow me to return to my silence. Sure Slav squatters on German land do best to keep their voices and heads down.
That will not be granted by your particular readings, frames of reference, but it is the case.
it is generally understood as attacking the person and not the argument…e.g., calling one an ‘idiot’ With each effort you demonstrate yourself ignorant, gullible and slow-witted. I do nothing but register my annoyance.
44
Posted by J Richards on Thu, 05 Jul 2012 06:03 | #
Focus on economics is exactly what he did, and that’s what prompted the Jew bankers to attack. Let’s look at the context. <h3>Jew bankers funded the Bolshevik Revolution</h3> Detailed evidence: Anthony Sutton on Wall Street and the Bolshevik Revolution. <h3>The Stalin Problem</h3> The Jew bankers wanted Leon Trotsky (Jew Brohnstein) to lead Russia. Stalin (not Jew) turned against Trotsky and purged a bunch of Jews, and Trotsky has to scoot. So how to deal with the Stalin problem? Nothing like funding the anti-communist German brownshirts into power. <h3>Jew bankers funded the NSDAP into power</h3> Detailed evidence: Anthony Sutton on Wall Street and the Rise of Hitler. <h3>But whoops!</h3> The big problem with the NSDAP was its 25-point program, focused on economic reform. The Jew bankers couldn’t have this reform while they were busy starving and freezing people around the world with the Great Depression. This would set a bad example. <h3>Solution</h3> 1) Initiate an international economic boycott against Germany to prevent financial prosperity. 2) Place your men in the right position. The Jew bankers had their man, Hjalmar Schacht, and the NSDAP and Hitler liked him. Why was Schacht the man? Germany had suspended the gold standard in 1914. After WWI, Germany was forced to pay a lot in reparations. The bankers had no use for Germany printing money on paper, not backed by anything, and using it to pay reparations to other nations that would go into servicing the debt these nations owed to the bankers. So they endeavored to destroy the Mark. The president of the Reichsbank (central bank), Rudolf Havenstein, Jew, and other Jews caused hyperinflation. At its worst, the Mark in 1923 was worth a trillionth of its value in 1919. The hyperinflation ended only when a new, temporary currency was introduced, the Rentenmark, tied to mortgaged land and industrial goods. This was the work of Schacht, working on behalf of the Jew bankers. Schacht was also the front man for bankers trying to bring Hitler to power. <h3>Implementation of the solution</h3> The NSDAP came to power; Schacht was the President of the Reichsbank and Gottfried Feder, the architect of the economic reform aspects of the 25-point NSDAP program, was Secretary of State for Economic Affairs. Schacht immediately went to work and got Feder removed from office in 1934. Schacht became the head of the Ministry of Economic Affairs. Because of the efforts of Schacht and others, only a weak form of the NSDAP economic reforms was implemented, amounting to making money more plentiful, but this was enough for Germany to prosper and things started heating up. Getting frustrated with Schacht, Hermann Göring had him resign from the Ministry of Economic Affairs in 1937. <h3>1939: Things came to a boil</h3> This is when it approached the boiling point. Jew bankers asked Schacht to put his foot down, insisting on less government interference, price and wage controls. Schacht refused to create needed money equivalent to billions of Reichsmarks, ostensibly to prevent “inflation.” This is always the excuse of these filthy usurers. Hitler removed Schacht as President of the Reichsbank on January 19, 1939. Schacht would eventually work with the resistance in an attempt to assassinate Hitler. <h3>The boiling point</h3> On June 15, 1939, a new Reichsbank law was passed, making it “unconditionally subordinated to the sovereignty of the state,” making the management of German money completely independent of control by international Money Changers. According to Article 3 of this law, the Reichsbank should be “directed and managed according to the instructions and under the supervision of the Fuehrer and Reich Chancellor.” This was a declaration of independence from the Jewish/international swindlers and usurers. WWII started within months. Jews ramped up slaughters of ethnic Germans in former German territories taken by Poland following WWI. It’s to stop these slaughters, that the League of Nations turned a blind eye to, that Germany invaded Poland, and WWII was on. <h3>What was the NSDAP program about?</h3> Not about race! This is clear in a plain reading of the 25-point NSDAP program. There was no single German racial type. The master race was an ideal to aspire to, nothing that existed, and the admired physical form was of the Nordic type, which the majority of German’s weren’t. Jewish liars, including phony revisionists, try to make it about a racial issue, which it wasn’t. WWII was about money. It’s completely unsurprising to see someone like Daniel utter sayings and nonsense about the Germans, Hitler, or NSDAP, taken from the massive disinformation website wikipedia, which the Jews set up as a repository of their lies. <h3>The Japan problem</h3> That WWII was about money is also evident in why Japan was nuked. Again, while the globe was suffering under the Great Depression, Japan implemented economic reforms based on the ideas of Clifford Hugh Douglas, in 1932. As in Germany, this amounted to money becoming more plentiful and Japan prospered, again setting a bad example for the rest of the world. The Jew bankers started restricting Japan’s ability to import essential raw materials, superficially because of its war in China. In 1940, Japan was hit with an aviation fuel embargo and it couldn’t import iron and steel from the U.S. In July 1941, Japanese assets in England, Holland and America were frozen after Japan had peacefully occupied Indochina, with the permission of Vichy France, in order to block off China’s southern supply routes. An oil embargo was also placed on Japan, without which it couldn’t survive. In addition, naval forces were built up in Philippines, Singapore and Malaysia, the noose tightening on Japan. The Jew bankers had a special interest in getting the U.S. involved in a war with Japan, which was the Tripartite Pact of September 27, 1940, where Japan, Germany and Italy would protect each other. A U.S.-Japanese war would mean a declaration of war on the U.S. by Germany, and then American forces could aid in the destruction of Germany. The noose around Japan tightened so hard that Japan had no choice but to attack Pearl Harbor. The U.S. had advanced knowledge of the attack, but did nothing and feigned surprise for greater casualties/impact. In 1942, the Bank of Japan was reformed after the 1939 German reform of central banking. This was it. They had to be stopped at all costs, and it took nukes. Japan was nuked in August 1945. In September 1945, American forces in Japan, acting at the behest of their Jewish masters, remodeled Japanese banking. All the bloodshed was over control of money. Jews won; others, including the English, lost. 45
Posted by daniel on Thu, 05 Jul 2012 07:03 | # J. Richards, Your post 45 is not bad. Actually, I thank you for the effort you put into this analysis. More, I would say that it is a reasoned effort at being fair and balanced. Regarding this, however, WWII was about money. I can believe that it largely was. It’s completely unsurprising to see someone like Daniel utter sayings and nonsense about the Germans, Hitler, or NSDAP, taken from the massive disinformation website wikipedia, I know from first hand experience, trying to get an article published on wikipedia and of those who opposed it, that it is a massive Jewish disinformation site. So, no disagreement there. But that dubious racial classifications (and attributions thereof) played no part in WWII, that the regime had a kindly view toward Poles and other Slavs, that their territorial ambitions were beyond dispute, is a Non-sequitur. I will continue to do what I can to foster symbiosis with Germans and other native Europeans in the re-establishment and maintenance of our lands as sovereign; sufficiently independent of non-European interests and impositions. 46
Posted by J Richards on Thu, 05 Jul 2012 07:38 | #
It’s easy for you to call this a non-sequitur when you’re responding to a statement of your own creation, nothing I implied. It’s clear that some in the NSDAP had a low racial opinion of Slavs and surely had few reasons for a “kindly view toward Poles and other Slavs,” especially given WW1, but this wouldn’t start a war. Regarding territorial ambitions, the Versailles treaty forced Germany to give up 25,000 square miles of land, inhabited by nearly 7 million Germans. No people would be fine with such an arrangement. But, most importantly, the combination of low racial opinion, remnants of animus following WWI and the territory loss couldn’t possibly have led to the war. As late as August 30, 1939, two days before Germany invaded Poland, Hitler, after previous unsuccessful attempts, offered Poland the Marienwerder proposals, namely retention of the 1919 borders, the return of Danzig, the construction of a 60-mile autobahn and rail-link connecting West and East Prussia (from Schoenlanke to Marienwerder), and an exchange of German and Polish populations. On the orders of the Jew bankers, the British Foreign Secretary, Lord Halifax, strongly advised the Poles to avoid negotiation. And I’ve already stated why Hitler made the proposal. Jews had been slaughtering Germans in the Danzig corridor to provoke the Germans. And why the Jews had been doing this was because of the money issue; they needed an excuse to attack Germany. WWII was about control of money and a bonus factor. All other factors are relatively irrelevant. The bonus factor was the establishment of the “six million dead Jews” figure. Jews had tried but failed to establish this figure during WWI, and they weren’t going to give WWII a pass. 47
Posted by ffss on Thu, 05 Jul 2012 08:58 | # The “control of money” theory is barmy as there simply is no documentary record of such. 48
Posted by daniel on Thu, 05 Jul 2012 09:47 | # Ok, I don’t need to argue with that. It seems that you have a motivate for inter-European cooperation. I respect that. As for the territory that Germany lost, Poland had been fighting for more than a hundred years to regain its nation. I can understand why the Poles would want a nation. Unfortunately, I can also understand why they would not trust Hitler and co.; and not look upon it as safe to negotiate with him toward the end of retaining a nation for themselves. ... Through the course of time, Poland lost Vilnius, Grodno and L’viv - After the war, Poles were moved from there and lost property. Nobody I know goes on lamenting these places, saying they should still be Polish. Poznan is one of the founding cities of Poland - so I have little sympathy for foreign claims there. On the other hand, there is quite a bit of German admixture in the folks, and that, coupled with many a good conversations with Germans in my travels, has significantly ameliorated whatever reservations that I may have had in German-Polish relations. Wroclaw, which was Breslau for Germans, was a big loss for the Germans - they’d put a lot into it, built it and lived there for hundreds of years, almost a thousand. It was originally a Czech city, switched hands back and forth through fights with the Poles a few times before a Mongol invasion killed the Poles there; the Germans subsequently moved into the vacant city. However, the Poles who were moved there after the war, are from Vilnius, Grodno and mostly from L’viv - a city the Poles had built and occupied for a long time. L’viv was a big loss for the Poles. I actually like it better than Wroclaw. But, I do not think that the Poles should have L’viv back. Gdansk is another matter. It was originally German or Germanic. The Pomeranians (Poles) began moving in as well starting in the 600’s. Inheritance disputes followed intermarriage with the Bramberg’s. The Poles had some legitimate complaints about some of the conduct of the Teutonic Knights, The Prussians and some of the treatment under Germans during partitian in other places throughout Poland. Add to that events such as Kalisz, mentioned above. Hence, their wish to establish a sovereign nation, their distrust of The Nazi regime (for any sort of negotiation) is understandable. I wish a more cooperative arrangement between the two nations could have been worked out then. But under the stresses of historical enmity, the strains of the circumstances, overcompensation may have been near impossible to avoid. On the positive side, I do see good relations now. Speaking for myself, I like Germans just fine and hope that we can cooperate toward making out territories as native European as possible. More, and critically, toward the matter of living space, that we might establish new sovereign territories for native Europeans on other continents as well. At any rate, it’s done. It’s history. I had nothing to do with it. I’m glad that Germany still has a nation, that Poland and other European nations have theirs; that there is a chance to make things right for our people. Regards, Daniel 49
Posted by ffss on Thu, 05 Jul 2012 10:30 | # What are you on about, daniel? Do all Americans receive their historical wisdom from comic strips and Wikipedia? You appear to have no clue of what happened throughout Europe before and during the Second World War, and zero insight into the German Government’s foreign policy. Your appraisal of the current situation is not much better. Germany is under foreign rule and roughly half its births are German. Germany doesn’t “still” have a nation. It’s more or less over for them save external factors. Poland is undergoing the same process. 50
Posted by daniel on Thu, 05 Jul 2012 11:07 | # Posted by ffss on July 05, 2012, 05:30 AM | # What are you on about, daniel? I’m about sovereignty for peoples of native European extraction - including their sacrosanct territories.
I confess to not being a historian. But I’ve never been one for comics and I’ve already said what I think of wikipedia. You appear to have no clue of what happened throughout Europe before and during the Second World War, and zero insight into the German Government’s foreign policy. So you say. Zero insight might be a bit low of a score. Nevertheless, details of the German Govenmnt’s foreign policy are not my concentration. If I am wrong about something, I can stand corrected. Your appraisal of the current situation is not much better. Germany is under foreign rule No, I do understand that. We all are occupied in the sense you mean. And that is why I work for White sovereignty, as I said straight away. and roughly half its births are German. Germany doesn’t “still” have a nation. I have hope. But I am not neither a dreamer nor a pacifist. It’s more or less over for them save external factors. Poland is undergoing the same process. There are strategies for handling this, from forms of tactical retreat to other means of flexible reorganization. But that is an elaborate discussion… Ready and waiting.
51
Posted by Leon Haller on Thu, 05 Jul 2012 11:54 | # Good little article on Graham Lister’s ideological pals ...
I’m sure Verso will be overjoyed to receive a manuscript copy of the Lister magnum opus, Nationalism Against Capitalism. http://www.worldaffairsjournal.org/article/new-communism-resurrecting-utopian-delusion
52
Posted by Hesper on Thu, 05 Jul 2012 13:04 | # The puling cavils from the “Slavic” (Polish) old-womanish and sentimental jingoists is wearisome. As a nation Germany and Germans are immeasurably superior to Poles, and Greeks, and Anglo-Saxons, and Swedes, and Norwegians (i.e. Nordic matriarchy which is utterly loathsome, I read comments from blonde sheep fetishists extolling the egalitarianism and ‘sharing and caring’ ethos of the Scandinavians - Deutschland save us from such barbarism as equality!), and unclean and chaotic Italians, etc. Englishtenment-spawned nineteenth-century nationalism was fatally pernicious to Europe (she’s dead now) and should have been opposed strenuously by a Nietzschean “good European” programme for united, Nazified, continental empire-building and aristocratic cultivation and regimentation of the masses (under German direction given their physical and spiritual merits: non-German Germanics, my Anglos, the Dutch, Swedes, etc were and remain too liberal, too Protestant, too modernist, too degenerate for such an undertaking, oddly the Italian intellectual and artistic classes would have proven themselves quite serviceable and some, a select few, of the French). German nationalism was indispensable as a tool to this end, cf. without French nationalism, as horrid as it was, no glorious Napoleonic empire, and similarly with the Romans in achieving their stupendous political creation at the close of the Classical culture’s springtime. I approve of and don’t falter in upholding race-patriotism but ‘nationalism’ of the Enlightenment variety strikes me as prolish (prole + ish) and poisonously decadent. For example, was it really necessary for an ethnic Croat to govern Croatia instead of the Hapsburg and hereditary Germano-Magyar aristocracy? Was Hapsburg Croatia better than Soviet or Americo-Jewish Croatia (no offence designed against the Croats who were superbly pro-German and fascistic)? I’m not German, but I submit to their superiority as a collective entity. I’m cosmopolitan in that traditional, rural and genteel European way of being fascinated by all the nations and their ways to varying degrees (not least the Poles). Yet the Germans are better - not the Anglo-Saxons (particularly the detestable slave rabble of Ammurca, that bubbling swamp of low-life republican commercialism and two-legged cow grazing) nor ‘Teutons’ in general notwithstanding our obvious intellectual advantages and the singularly beautiful and irreplaceable aspects to our appearance, but as a Catholic-raised (therefore quasi-pagan and mediaeval) Anglo-Aussie I find upper and upper-middle class Italians, especially those of a rightist bent, the most enlivening and desirable dinner companions and fellow debaters even neighbours (if I lived in Italy and knew the language), Frenchmen are delightful (once disinfected of their Rousseauan ethnic chauvinism) and Austrians and Hungarians the best frontier soldiers you could hope to muster for a comradely drink in the mess hall prior to the night’s vigil. Just some light-hearted reflections, but in all gravity the Polonomania among the Varsovien ruffians here is nauseating. 53
Posted by Hesper on Thu, 05 Jul 2012 13:20 | # and Austrians and Hungarians the best frontier soldiers you could hope to muster for a comradely drink in I’m well aware that Austrians are Germans. One of the foulest sins of the Ammurcan subhumans was destroying the Austro-Hungarian empire, a paragon of refinement, tradition, and hierarchy (I know of that which I speak), which the Ammurcans did by the ‘treaty’ of St Germain imposed in cooperation with their Franco-English fellow Jew-slaves. Also note that when I write ‘race-patriotism’ I mean it in the flexible sense of the original signification of race. Therefore I intended my term ‘race-patriotism’ to encompass nation-specific definitions of race and patriotic exertions. England for the English is fine, but saying that a Napoleon or Hitler as overlord of the English would be dreadful because ‘foreign’ or ‘undemocratic’ is prolish. Napoleon and Hitler offered a marvellous new sunrise for Europe, and England, which Anglo-Saxon bourgeois parliamentary democracy and capitalism bulls**t doesn’t come even within a hundred miles of equalling. 54
Posted by Helvnea on Thu, 05 Jul 2012 13:23 | # “The “control of money” theory is barmy as there simply is no documentary record of such.” Really, what did Richards site that can’t be documented? Ezra Pound said follow the money which is pretty damn good advice. Take Libya for instance. http://www.cnbc.com/id/42245997/Military_Monetary_Policy_Rebels_Set_Up_Central_Bank JR, I’m posting your 1:03 AM on my site. Thanks 55
Posted by uh on Thu, 05 Jul 2012 13:25 | # Hesper again gives me a raging mental hard-on. He has daniel’s type marked well.
National Socialism was not a “mistake”. The Halt Order at Dunkirk was a mistake. Fanatical irredentism beyond German-speaking lands was a mistake. Invading Russia in winter was a mistake. Betraying partisans was a mistake. Not ____ing the ___s was a mistake. Believing blindly in English goodwill was a mistake. 56
Posted by uh on Thu, 05 Jul 2012 13:34 | #
Without the fall of the empire, no National Socialism — a “prolish” movement started in Volksdeutsch territories. AH was no fan of the monarchy which by then had taken a permissive attitude toward what ethnic Germans would call “slavicization”. It was from this anxiety at growing Slavic racial assertion, and the real dispossession it occasioned (also in the Baltic), that National Socialism sprang. Nothing I’ve read indicated to me that the empire would have survived much longer anyhow. “Empire” is usually synonymous with a racial congeries resented by those whose stock founded the empire and find themselves edged out by enfranchised aliens. 57
Posted by uh on Thu, 05 Jul 2012 13:41 | #
Lister and Daniel are both too convinced of their own relevance, and have steeped themselves in far too much postmodern gibberish literature. I read their tripe in vain for something to do with the real world. Everything profound and thinkable, filtered through such wannabe academic pomo-sprach generators, becomes remade in their image: dense, incoherent, inside-out, overwrought, backward. One is no longer watching a cheetah chase its prey; one is coming up with a formula for fitness values over time, etc. Every phenomenon must be denatured, rendered mathematical, else it isn’t
understood. Or they obsess over Heidegger — the opium of the white nationalists. 58
Posted by Graham_Lister on Thu, 05 Jul 2012 15:49 | # I don’t have anything against markets as such but with the proviso that I do consider them as very much secondary phenomena within any social order. What I object to is the notion that individual market-exchange is foundational to the social order or fundamentally embodies it (thus is sacrosanct under all conditions) or that the cultural effects of such an ethos as ‘market Hobbesianism’ are trivial with regard to key concerns and issues. Someone may take the opposite view but as such is to embrace a radical and, over the longer-term, a very societally damaging form of liberalism (in my view). It’s always been my view that liberalism (in all its manifestations) needs to be put back in its place – as a secondary cluster of phenomena not as the primary ideological framework of European society. A rebalancing of just how much normative weight is placed upon liberalism ontological commitments. I think if we are being honest MR seems to be going nowhere in that the level of discourse is very poor often going down the same old dead-ends etc., a gruesome ‘eternal return’ if ever there was one. No-one should be quite so arrogant as to think they have all the answers but perhaps some are less wrong than others? Perhaps certain ideas do not have to be revisited with such grim regularity? I don’t know GW’s views on where precisely he would like to see MR ‘going’ in the long term. It’s his somewhat anarchic show – at its best one would like it to be intellectually lively, thought-provoking, original (or at least not the home of tired cliché and easy answers – the dreadful ‘echo-chamber’ effect) and at its very best some form of collaborative attempt to enrich and deepen both the collective understanding and analysis of the epoch we live in. It all seems quite a long way from any of that. If I have contributed negatively to MR apologies to one and all. Perhaps others might want to step up to the plate – please not the usual suspect (no person with an IQ above room temperature could possibly read an ‘R-news’ piece every single day ad infinitum - a week of it is far too much). As Dan Dare (another evil Brit no-doubt) has stated the uneasy ecumenicism of MR does divert whatever energy it might have into too many directions. It is deflationary and extremely tiresome to constantly be going over the same old tropes and themes but then I suppose it sadly goes with the territory. For the record I’m certainly no POMO lover – that’s a really bizarrely silly reading of any of my more considered front-page pieces. It’s somewhat difficult to develop any serious train of thought in a blog comment thus important clarifications, nuances etc., are not fully formulated – so mischaracterisations and misunderstanding are par for the course. But really POMO uh? That’s really poor on your part. Might you perhaps point out specifics of where and how I committed the sins of POMO thought perhaps? I’d rather very occasionally write a semi-decent front-page item I think – petty squabbling in short throwaway comments and everyone endlessly pressing our own ‘intuition pumps’ is hardly the same exercise as seriously thinking about a topic to produce a medium length essay or series of essays. For my own efforts, however disappointingly inadequate those efforts might be, I try as best as I can despite inherently being both dense and incoherent. Personally if I could suggest that we have more serious analysis from the USA on all matters cultural, social and political (perhaps even theological). The USA is in many superficial ways but also some quite profound ways a very different social order than most of Western Europe. Inter-societal diversity isn’t a bad thing. Book reviews can often be a very good way of exploring a wider theme or set of issues. Whatever it would be nice to see some more original contributions from those that have not thus far done so - ideally efforts from the higher end of the quality scale. 59
Posted by Graham_Lister on Thu, 05 Jul 2012 16:01 | # As for obsessing over Heidegger, well I’d rather obsess over Glenn Beck and his fascinating reading of “The Coming Insurrection” - just kidding. In my spare time I think I might being going all Merleau-Ponty instead. 60
Posted by Jimmy Marr on Thu, 05 Jul 2012 18:11 | #
What is the URL of this site? 61
Posted by daniel on Thu, 05 Jul 2012 22:15 | # Haller, yes, we are all standing on line for the next Marxist convention. Sure. Uh You would get a hard-on, Uh, from the diarrhea coming out of that gay ass. The puling cavils from the “Slavic” (Polish) old-womanish and sentimental jingoists is wearisome What the fuck kind of bullshit is that? You know you’re scraping the bottom of the barrel when you’re looking for approval from the Jew approved likes of Uh. ... “Should have killed em at Dunkirk.” Yeah, we know. Could we be any more didactic? ... Uh…keep trying to sound profound.. that’s what you try to do…(we’re so obsessing over Heidegger and post modernism) ..even a broken clock is right twice a day.. Keep talking Uh. The more you do, the more easy it is to dismiss YOU as irrelevant. 62
Posted by Guessedworker on Thu, 05 Jul 2012 23:18 | # Graham, You have not contributed negatively. You have been at enormous pains to inform people about the nature of the individualism they mechanically espouse. They will not listen. They do not have a critical approach to their own internalised ideology. Perhaps it has to come from an American. Perhaps that’s the only way to penetrate. The attempts to make us all love National Socialism are still less accessible to light. It is so patently obvious that the enslavement of Europeans, state gangsterism, the militarisation of society, and genocide of Jews, among other things, are shameful and intolerable affronts to the European nature, I don’t know know what one can do to convince all the devoted gainsayers. (And, yes, it is a genocide when an ethnic group is imprisoned with husbands and wives, men and women segregated, regardless of whether the claimed respiratory means of destruction existed.) Nonetheless, and on the anarchy thing, there is, in my view, no way to run an enquiring nationalist blog without extending trust and freedom - as complete in both cases as can be. The alternative is dictat to one degree or another, and that is wholly unacceptable to me. I, personally, rely on a vigorous and passionate but informed and intelligent debate. I don’t like or agree with 50% of what I read here, sometimes more. But, then, there is the fraction I do agree with, learn from, or at least find myself forced to think through, and perhaps past. That’s what I value, and that’s what I want from MR. 63
Posted by Lurker on Fri, 06 Jul 2012 00:03 | # Jimmy - Helvena’s site: Its also in the MR list of links on the left. 64
Posted by Graham_Lister on Fri, 06 Jul 2012 00:52 | # GW - thank you so much for those kind words. I consider you a very honourable man and a friend. I understand the maximalist free-speech policy and of course it does have advantages. I really do hope that our dialogue can continue either in private or via the medium of MR (or both) as I feel we are both deeply committed to the genuine well-being of Europe and her autochthonous peoples. People do have very different backgrounds, knowledge levels, analytical skills, moral characters and so on. Hence almost endless scope for near irreconcilable differences and general frustration. No doubt contributions can dip in quality and so forth. Let’s go onwards and upwards! Less is definitely sometime more! And I’ve been somewhat cranky and irritable in general. In part due about events surrounding a certain football team and the malfeasance of at least one ‘vulture capitalist’. Yes in a way total trivia, but as such the club is one emotionally important expression of a deep part of my personal identity and my community. The heart has its reasons of which reason knows nothing. Inevitably as exchanges online between persons on the are not face to face, rudeness and other forms of bad behaviour etc., do tend to get amplified - often for no good purpose and a great deal of negativity is engendered. 65
Posted by Captainchaos on Fri, 06 Jul 2012 01:02 | #
Jesus, you Limey bastards are as thick as two short planks. There is no mystery to ponder. Heidegger was a National Socialist and so obviously he considered his philosophical oeuvre compatible with NS otherwise he would not have enthusiastically participated in the movement.
Sounds like a French fag. Hesper has provided us with the only wisdom in this entire thread: “I’m not German, but I submit to their superiority as a collective entity.” 66
Posted by Captainchaos on Fri, 06 Jul 2012 01:41 | #
Richards has a near prurient fascination with tabloid-style sensationalism. One easily pictures him in his younger days staring with unwholesome fascination at issues of the National Enquirer as his mother bought the week’s groceries with the last of that month’s food stamps. Richards is definitely a creature of Amurrica. LOL 67
Posted by Desmond Jones on Fri, 06 Jul 2012 03:07 | # If it was so patently obvious why did the ‘shameful and intolerable affronts to the European nature’ continue after WWII? http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2010/09/19/mi6-attacked-jewish-refugee-ships-after-wwii.html It seems clear that they did not give a shit about the dispossesion and genocide of Poles and Jews, the gangsterism or the fancy dress uniforms. Westminster, the Foreign Office, Bomber Command and MI6 cared nothing for ‘affronts to a European nature’ (assuming it even exists) but only for the furtherance of it’s own self-interest. Did Bomber Command refuse to bomb Auschwitz and other camps because it served their interest to allow the genocide to continue? Why the refusal if the genocide was so ‘shameful and intolerable’? And then there are those who proclaim the English were not ignoble to their Jews and now wonder why their nationalism is held in such contempt, quick to blame NS and fancy dress uniforms for lts failure, while hiding intolerable affronts from the light of day. 68
Posted by Jimmy Marr on Fri, 06 Jul 2012 03:31 | #
If this question is intended as a joke, I don’t get it?
69
Posted by Sal on Fri, 06 Jul 2012 03:54 | #
As a dago, I can only agree. 70
Posted by Ed on Fri, 06 Jul 2012 04:53 | #
What about the Roman Empire? It did all this. Weren’t the British imperialists inspired by the Roman Empire? 71
Posted by daniel on Fri, 06 Jul 2012 05:01 | # Posted by Sal on July 05, 2012, 10:54 PM | # Hesper has provided us with the only wisdom in this entire thread: “I’m not German, but I submit to their superiority as a collective entity. As a dago, I can only agree.
72
Posted by J Richards on Fri, 06 Jul 2012 05:28 | # @Helvena You should’ve dropped Jew from “Jew banker.” Sanitize before posting such things. You’re posting at a wordpress blog. —————— @Captainchaos My family never used food stamps. I was never interested in the National Enquirer or related tabloids when accompanying family at grocery stores. What I liked to do while the others shopped was to read comics and look at the women in Cosmopolitan magazine. ——————
That Poland didn’t take Hitler’s offer had nothing to do with distrust. The Poles were ordered to decline the offer because the Jew bankers wanted war. On March 31, 1939, Britain and France had guaranteed Poland’s defense (Anglo-French Assurance Pact) if either Germany invaded Poland or Poland invaded Germany. In the previous year, Roosevelt had given Churchill an assurance that the USA would be brought into war against Germany, if necessary. The Poles made the wrong decision, thinking Britain and France would come to their aid, learning the consequence of acting on Jewish advice: “sorry, our offer to help doesn’t apply to the Russian invasion you’ve just experienced,” the Katyn massacre, etc. ——————
Unsurprising comment from this filth. As if killing Aryans would do the Germans any good in the long run. As the Russian royalty learned, in the process of being murdered, short-term defeats mean nothing to the international usurers and swindlers. They keep trying, and will aim to strike with a vengeance. Given what we are led to believe about national socialists you would think their failure to attempt the extermination of Jewry in Germany and Poland the moment Jewry had the U.S. join WWII was one big mistake, and very costly at that for Germans and the rest of the world. At this point it was very clear that Germany, if victorious, would be so after paying a very heavy toll. If millions of Germans were going to die, then they could’ve at least rid the world of a few million “Jewish vermin” in the process. Exterminating the Jews in the camps concentration would’ve been a simple process. They could leave them without food and water and let nature take its course, just as the Jews left German POWs out in the open, killing close to two million. Others could be bludgeoned or shot. But the NSDAP tried to keep them clean and fed them within the limitations of having their food supply routes bombed. Now we have the lie about six million dead. 74
Posted by Ed on Fri, 06 Jul 2012 06:03 | #
Most people can’t go more than a week without water. If you have a secure prison camp you don’t have to do anything special. Just deprive the prisoners of water and wait a week or so. 75
Posted by J Richards on Fri, 06 Jul 2012 06:20 | #
Very true. And Jews tell us that before killing millions of Jews, the NSDAP assigned them prison uniforms, gave them hair cuts, spent precious resources transporting them around, used diesel exhaust to kill people by the room, etc.! Jews who killed almost two million German POWs simply put them out in the open, with little to eat or drink. Nature took its course. 76
Posted by daniel on Fri, 06 Jul 2012 07:04 | # Posted by Sal on July 06, 2012, 12:47 AM | # Sock puppetry Tell Benito. 77
Posted by Vinnie Kowalski on Fri, 06 Jul 2012 09:33 | #
As a dago polack hybrid, I can only agree.
78
Posted by daniel on Fri, 06 Jul 2012 10:01 | # Posted by Vinnie Kowalski on July 06, 2012, 04:33 AM | # Hesper has provided us with the only wisdom in this entire thread: “I’m not German, but I submit to their superiority as a collective entity. As a dago polack hybrid, I can only agree.
79
Posted by daniel on Fri, 06 Jul 2012 10:10 | # Graham, it seems we need to have a conversation about what post-modernism is and isn’t. 80
Posted by Leon Haller on Fri, 06 Jul 2012 10:13 | #
I reiterate my oft-stated strong disagreement with this sentiment as applied to websites (for society, of course, free speech is more important, though even there “maximalist” speech should only be supported tactically, to preserve rhetorical ‘space’ for nationalism; post-nationalist restoration, I would, eg, support censorship of pornography, though I would not bother involving myself in that particular struggle). If MR wishes to build itself up as a major arena for metapolitical discussion (and conflict - it’s much easier to agree on what we’re against - the multikult and the immigrant invasion feeding it - than what we’re for, which is usually the case with radical movements), a much stronger editorial hand is required. If only serious, non-ad hominem comments were allowed to remain posted, idiots and provocateurs would soon tire and leave. I trust GW’s wisdom to be able to differentiate between genuine contributions with which he may intellectually disagree (eg, comments of mine defending Christianity and/or capitalism), and those which, intentionally or not, serve to deflect discussion away from the site’s core nationalist concerns. [PS- what IS this new “preview” comment bullshiite? If it ain’t broke, don’t fix it]
81
Posted by Leon Haller on Fri, 06 Jul 2012 11:03 | #
For a brief and REALLY brilliant deflating of the whole POMO balloon, see Butler, Postmodernism: A Very Short Introduction<em></em>. (note: I’ve read around a dozen of these Oxford Very Short Introductions (which are duplicated in hardback in the “A Brief Insight” series from Sterling), and have found them to be very well done; I think I own about 40 of the series, which numbers close to 300 titles in total). 82
Posted by Leon Haller on Fri, 06 Jul 2012 11:06 | # Oh, I get it. This new preview requirement serves to ward off spam. Well, OK. 83
Posted by Thorn on Fri, 06 Jul 2012 11:39 | # Speaking of POMO “logic”:
It would be easy to criticize all this for its sheer unselfconscious lack of seriousness: These people are actually saying that any outcome except the one they want must be driven by an outcome-oriented political crusade. Only their view could result from an actual engagement with the question before the Court, and any other view could only be a function of corruption or of cynicism. It must be nice to be so enlightened.[lINKS AT THE ORIGINAL PIECE] Don’t you think it’s interesting that they don’t seem to notice this about themselves? Or, if you are cynical, then maybe you think that these leftist ideologues do this deliberately and consciously, knowing full well that they are being led by the balls of their postmodern socialist ideology? It is certainly true that some of them are not at all concerned about the lack of serious intellectual rigor; nor do they have any interest whatsoever of engaging you in any debate about the issues. THE SCIENCE IS SETTLED, don’t you know. GLORY TO SOVIET POSTMODERN LEFTIST THOUGHT! Facts are not important. Neither is reality. For today’s left, the name of the game is Rhetoric and controlling the narrative. Read more>>
85
Posted by Leon Haller on Fri, 06 Jul 2012 11:41 | # Ahh, is something starting to rot in the State of Graham Lister’s beloved Denmark?
86
Posted by Guessedworker on Fri, 06 Jul 2012 11:46 | # Leon, I have a piece in preparation now, which I will probably post before part 2 of the leftism essay, which raises the issue of “nationalism as reaction” in its various prescriptive historical manifestations, and the function of freedom as the determinant of nationalist political form. As far as I am aware this latter is a new idea, and it certainly won’t be “finished” in the course of my writing this piece. I hope the piece will serve incidentally to answer both Desmond in his customary appeal to Darwinian authority above and you in the comments you make at 81. 87
Posted by Of Interest on Fri, 06 Jul 2012 12:33 | # http://blogs.timesofisrael.com/jews-do-control-the-media/
88
Posted by Jimmy Marr on Fri, 06 Jul 2012 12:35 | #
Maybe, but you must remember that we’re not talking about normal people here. We’re talking about Yaweh’s darlings, who resorted to drinking each others urine on a train ride from Warsaw to Treblinka, which I believe is a journey of about 50 miles. Their appetites either extend beyond blood-thirst, or they can’t resist taking the piss. 89
Posted by daniel on Fri, 06 Jul 2012 13:22 | # Posted by Leon Haller on July 06, 2012, 06:03 AM | # Graham, it seems we need to have a conversation about what post-modernism is and isn’t. (Daniel) For a brief and REALLY brilliant deflating of the whole POMO balloon, see Butler, Postmodernism: A Very Short Introduction. Leon, if you look upon post modernism as a balloon, it is not understood accurately. Just because something, someone is called post modernist doesn’t mean that it is (e.g., deconstructionism). With that, of course, it does not mean that the correct solution to mis-identified post modernism is a return to the modernist project.
90
Posted by daniel on Fri, 06 Jul 2012 13:44 | # ..any more than the show “Politically Incorrect” with Bill Maher, was politically incorrect.
91
Posted by Silver on Fri, 06 Jul 2012 17:54 | # The best criticism of the nazis is “they rushed it.” The 20th century was the age of ideology but because the nutzis alienated so many they were left without a seat at the table, so the only people left duking it out were marketeers vs commies. Had they instead been patient and extended the hand of friendship to neighboring races who were prepared to similarly politicize their group existence it could have all played out very, very differently. It doesn’t matter that they were “pushed into war.” You don’t start a war you can’t win. The morality of it aside, the whole thing was an exercise in futility. But just because you don’t stat a war you can’t win, it doesn’t mean you don’t fight one. Had they been patient, forged alliances and waited to be attacked their position would have been massively strengthened. Same thing with respect to Jews. The focus should have been on consolidating power, not on going to work on the Jews. With power Jews could easily have been made to say the right things and act in accordance with those statements, just as some white politicians today who surely know all about niggers know to say the right things and pretend to believe them. Why didn’t that happen? My guess is the nutters won out, nutters like Hesper and Crapandchaos, so coked up on racial identity that they confuse expressions of personal racial tastes with statements of timeless universal truth. Not that those expressions bother me personally. But if I’m Big Hebrew I’m pissing myself laughing at the determination to remain irrelevant some of you seem to have. 92
Posted by Jimmy Marr on Fri, 06 Jul 2012 18:20 | #
I rest my case. 93
Posted by CD on Fri, 06 Jul 2012 22:06 | # German superiority: A German Newspaper Says ‘Animal Brothels’ Are On The Rise As Bestiality Becomes ‘Lifestyle’ Choice 94
Posted by Leon Haller on Fri, 06 Jul 2012 22:13 | # The Nazis were bad at PR. What they should have done (as many have pointed out) was consolidated their power at home, which included ‘encouraging’ Jewish emigration; drafted their unemployed into the military, to be used for action primarily in the Middle East or North Africa, to secure oil supplies, if they couldn’t reach prior agreements with Britain, France and the US); covertly supported electoral nationalist/fascist movements across Europe, and, indeed, the world, from America to Argentina to South Africa; and sought to build a diplomatic alliance to isolate the Soviet Union, as well as to encourage support for the earliest ‘captive nations’, like Ukraine (they also should have covertly cultivated anti-communist guerilla movements within those nations, and Russia itself, if possible). If Hitler would have put aside his hatred of France and Poland, he would have found many Europeans (including the British, at least among Conservatives) grateful for a strong anti-communist (and even anti-Judaic) power at the heart of Europe. Above all, he should not have allied with the USSR and invaded Poland with them. Indeed, had the USSR unilaterally invaded Poland (obviously not a given, and, without German ‘understanding’, I suspect something which would not have happened), he could have ‘liberated’ the Poles from the West, and created a great anti-Soviet military alliance, which would have crushed the Soviets, and left Germany in control of its needed living space in the East. Many people today, having lived through decades of PC propaganda, forget that, at the time, most Europeans (with the exception of domestic Lefts - and who cares about them?) feared the Bolsheviks far more than the Nazis. If the Nazis had indeed been patient, they could have gotten their war with the USSR, probably won it, and still be in power today (with immeasurably positive effects on the political and racial development of the West). The Nazis did not pursue these paths, and the end results cannot be denied or excused, but only grimly acknowledged and ‘moved past’.
95
Posted by Leon Haller on Fri, 06 Jul 2012 22:15 | # GW@87 Very good. I’m sure it will be of interest. 96
Posted by Hesper on Sat, 07 Jul 2012 02:38 | # My guess is the nutters won out, nutters like Hesper and Crapandchaos, so coked up on racial identity that they confuse expressions of personal racial tastes with statements of timeless universal truth. Have you calmed down now? You seem a tad hysterical. Not that those expressions bother me personally. No clearly not. My elitist philosophy holds race as the necessary biological base for cultural and martial enterprises - the particles of the offal themselves are insignificant. That said, the ‘individuals’ of some races are conspicuously more unique and capable than those of others, that means they’re more useful offal-particles in the hands of an elite to mould and lead. Personal racial taste? The loss of a sense of internal (‘in-group’) cohesion and attraction is symptomatic of a declining collective organism whereas ascending collective organisms exhibit spontaneity and incorruptibility in their adhesion, and assertion, of the body’s interests; a body of which they are graded and separate members but not ‘individuals’ (with some members vastly more powerful and more important than the others). The National Socialists were energetic and bellicose comparatively, because they were an ascending collective organism overflowing with animal vitality. Violence, wholesome or the rarer heroic mode, is the characteristic of a strong and expanding life-form.* Decadent or purposeless violence, e.g. calamitous Zionist fiascoes in Iraq or migrant Sudanese stabbings in inner Sydney, indicate dying life-forms. Your kind, if we are to trust your declarations of origin and such, are inured to servitude to foreign masters, disordered and unstratified (according to class and individual talent), and simply habitually unsuccessful at war, therefore acknowledgments of the primacy and healthfulness of war, of the active life, stokes the craven apprehensions of the weak. Existence is War. Nonexistence is Peace. Again: War is the World of Reality. Peace is the World of Thought. * British and French jealousy prompted those two decrepit powers to oppose the restitution to Germany of the Danzig Corridor, notwithstanding numerous Polish government ministers and the like who perceived the wisdom of submitting. I’m actually not a racist fanatic and ‘miscegenation’ in the outlying provinces between Germans and Poles, Teutons and Slavs, or Latins, is of no concern to me as that inevitably occurs during the imperial epoch of a world-culture’s last age. 97
Posted by Hesper on Sat, 07 Jul 2012 03:11 | # ...and genocide of Jews… If the Jews were subjected to ‘genocide’, that is if the word has meaning at all, then we must inquire why it is there are so many of them still around. Were the Jews victims in the war? What is a victim? Victim = loser of a struggle who therefore claims moral ‘superiority’ by virtue of their weakness and defeat. Are the Jews losers then? As they rule the world through the American empire and have even greater wealth and power than the immensity of those two properties they held in the 1930’s, I would say no. We’re ‘victims’, we’re the losers. 98
Posted by Another Hesper Fan on Sat, 07 Jul 2012 04:12 | # Amurrican checking in. Hesper’s comments of the last few weeks are the new gold standard for MR. Hopefully he has a blog. Also, keep fighting the good fight JRichards! 99
Posted by Silver on Sat, 07 Jul 2012 06:22 | # Hesper,
Yes, I have. I can’t believe how hysterical I was. That was really something, wasn’t it? A performance for the ages, to be sure.
Hey, when it comes to me personally, knock yourself out, unload your very worst. If you’re struggling for material I’ll even chip in and help out. My only problem with it is how it looks for the blog and the ideas about how you “do” racism that readers take away. There really can’t be any serious dispute that I sound vastly more sane and reasonable than you on this point. If we could somehow poll a thousand “undecideds” on the street about it I’d eat my hat if the vote wasn’t near-unanimous my way. Or use the tone you post here in at the next dinner part you attend and see what happens, lol.
That’s all very well, but it’s not what you were talking about earlier on when you were describing your admiration for all things German and commenting on the qualities of other groups. What you said amounts to an expression of personal racial taste. It’s hardly some universally valid truth that all who objectively consider race must eventually conclude. (Again, you’re free to feel that way. I don’t think expressing it in the terms you did does very much to persuade anyone else to agree—quite the contrary—but you do what you want.)
Well, that’s one way to look at it, sure.
Yeah, yeah.
And that’s all there is to it, obviously. Funny how the vast majority of mankind—oh, excuse me, of “featherless bipeds” (haw haw)—somehow missed that and were thrilled to be living during periods of peace, in which a thousand more enjoyable activities became possible than dodging crossbow bolts, extinguishing Greek Fire, going down with the trireme, or being blown away by cannon fire in vain pursuit of The Heroic.
100
Posted by Silver on Sat, 07 Jul 2012 06:37 | # Off Topic Some of you may recall a poster on the old race boards “diabloblanco”. (Sometimes derided as “diablonegro.”) It seems he made his way into a volume called “Cyberracism: White racism online and the new attack on civil rights.” http://www.scribd.com/doc/56059653/Cyber-Rasism
How cool’s that? I wonder if any of my offerings will make their way into the next edition. Fingers crossed! 101
Posted by Guessedworker on Sat, 07 Jul 2012 06:54 | # Hesper,
Why race? Why not ethnicity? Why not family? Also, are you claiming that “cultural and martial enterprises” are the purpose of race or are emergent from it? If they are the purpose who made them such? If they are emergent why do you shake hands with strangers?
So the condition of the race you think should be mounting all these “enterprises” is self-disdain and disvalue. Why would people wish to do this if they consider themselves mere offal? If they don’t consider themselves such ... if, in fact, they consider themselves men ... why would they accept the leadership of an elite that considered them such? Are you aware of the basics of man-management? Do you know why, psychologically, they are a good idea? Have you perhaps been reading too much Tolkien ... watching too many Hollywood movies in which characters are mere cyphers, incomplete, disposable? Are you such, or are you “an elite leader”? If the latter, why?
War is dysgenic, you prat. Grow up. Find a nice girl. Have babies. Understand more about what life is, and remove the burden of this present little-boy thinking from the WN ‘sphere. 102
Posted by Leon Haller on Sat, 07 Jul 2012 08:27 | # Silver@101 The author of that book is a major asshole (ditto the general editor of the series of which it is a part)- queer, antiracist, whole 9 yards. How do you find all these free online books? Do you ever pay for them? I should know, but I’m old-fashioned. I get my stuff hard copy either from Amazon or my new university library, which is predictably excellent. But as I usually need my own hard copies for annotation purposes, I’d love to be able to just download stuff, esp if free or cheap. I still sometimes xerox entire books if out of print and needed. BTW, I’m still slightly sceptical as to whether you’re actually white. I know you’re an alleged Balkansite, but something tells me you might be one of those nonwhites or pseudo-whites attempting to pass for white. Arab, perhaps, or Turk? 103
Posted by Captainchaos on Sat, 07 Jul 2012 09:00 | # Hesper, I think you are smart enough to see that GW’s essential point, that an emotionally whole man could not merely or decisively be what you seem to think is the pinnacle of manhood, is well founded. Of course GW has his own self-interested reasons for denouncing your advocacy of it. Imagine GW placed mono-a-mono with, say, Dolph Lundgren - only Dolph in this scenario is a ruthless sociopath. Whether the contest were physical combat or one of intellectual athleticism Lundgren would make swift work of his opponent. It is the same between the English and Germans. The price to be paid personally by the strongest man - or the strongest nation as the case my be - if he will not allow others to walk beside him with their heads held up as men, is at the very least a lack of fellowship (a sociopath doesn’t care about such things) and at the worst to find himself swinging from the end of a rope when the lynching commences. Of course the real situation regarding NS Germany is rather more subtle than the simplistic parable we all (and especially GW) like to cram it into to suit our various purposes - but since your own pronouncements here so often lack in subtlty a non-subtle rejoinder is if not merited, at least symetrical. P.S. As a Kraut I feel obliged to say the following: fuck you, Limey cocksucker! LOL 104
Posted by Guessedworker on Sat, 07 Jul 2012 09:39 | # CC, I’m disappointed. I’ve shot down hundreds more argumentationally than ole Dolph has shot with his plastic assault rifle in all the takes he ever posed in.
Obviously so. Even the Fuhrer wanted to shake hands with the British Empire. But “the real situation”, filled as it inevitably was with nuances and complexities, is as irrelevant to the palingenes as “the whole Man” is. Hesper, Don’t take my put-down hard. Seek a sustainable nationalism, not just a flash-in-the-pan racial ideology. 105
Posted by Captainchaos on Sat, 07 Jul 2012 09:42 | #
So are you, Leon. I don’t think there is anyone here with half a brain (not all are so blessed - I’m here thinking of that Polack mediocrity daniel) who hasn’t figured out you’re at least partially Jewish. Stop being such a dick. Just come clean. You’ll feel better once you do. I for one believe you really do care about, or at least see the extreme prudential value in, preserving a White majority in Western nations; so…you’re not fully being disingenuous when you say your main goal is to halt immigration, strengthen implicitly White conservatism and protect free-market capitalism. This would be good both for Whites and Jews (including your kike relatives) who gave up the potentially self-destructive insanity of destoying the White race, as you see it. As I said, just show some balls and admit it. It isn’t as if it’s not bleedingly obvious anyway. 106
Posted by Captainchaos on Sat, 07 Jul 2012 10:44 | #
Hitler saw the writing on the wall even then written in crimson blood: the death of the West. The German mentality is to find a tool fitted to the job and apply all effort his vigor will allow. If men must knowingly walk through the gates of Hell in order to see Heaven their hearts will surely quaver unless a Messiah leads them. The odds pitted against salvation then were more formitable than they are now, which is fortunate, for we sqaundered one messiah and shan’t see another this time ‘round. 107
Posted by Master on Sat, 07 Jul 2012 11:27 | # Lundgren has a master’s in chemical engineering. He’s also a 3rd dan black belt in Kyokushin Karate and was European champion in 1980 and 1981. 108
Posted by daniel on Sat, 07 Jul 2012 11:53 | # Posted by Captainchaos on July 07, 2012, 04:42 AM | # “not all are so blessed (to see Haller’s partial Jewishness) - I’m here thinking of that Polack mediocrity daniel” At least you consider me mediocre - I’m not the worst, OK. But what you are seeing is not mediocrity ex nihilo. What you are seeing the Aristotlean golden mean applied of necessity, in radical measure and attendance, to the matter of White racial survival. As such, I look at what one is saying or doing here, weighing its utility or not, and then if suspicion is necessarily aroused, I wonder if it is a partial Jew or (can be even worse) a Jew thinker who speaks. Everything that Leon says demonstrates a traditional American patriotism; hence immigration to America, for example, is more a focus than White survival in other places besides America. Does that mean he could be partly Jewish? I don’t know. More important to me at this point is how his outlook effects debates here. I appreciate the fact that he retains American patriotism enough to be critical of the Nazi regime’s modus operandi. Though he has also expressed more sympathy than I would for German ambitions of the time. That speaks German American to me - that is what he says he is and there is no real reason for me to doubt him. In addition, anti-semitism and too much Nazi sympathy is very dangerous for American businessmen. Moreover, being somewhat critical of the Nazi modus operandi is simply reasonable. Might the fact that he goes so soft, mute even, (of his comments that I have read), on the J.Q. indicate that he is partly Jewish? Maybe. It’s possible. But more important to me is what is in effect, his liberalism: individualism, capitalism, scientific-race realism, Christianity (liberal by definition by my estimation) - these things are inherently destructive to Whites and White solidarity in the main, in my estimation. Thus, while he is clearly an intelligent and decent man, who has read a lot of books, so far I see more good for Whites in what he does not do - perpetuate European infighting (no small concern), than what he does advocate. I am curious about Silver. I thought his post 92 was rather good. More, there seems to be a lot of good will toward Whites in him, even if he is not quintessentially White. However, it has been my experience that people who are partly Jewish, even say, one quarter, have to be looked upon as probably having too much allegiance to Jewish interests. That is why I too wonder how much he can be trusted, despite his clear intelligence and display of good will. I believe he does not like blacks and does not want to see them mixing with Whites. That counts for a lot. After all, one of the worst things that Jews can do is impose miscegenation upon us. So, he breaks ranks with normal Jewish promotion or indifference to Black - White miscegenation. Though I still don’t trust him, I am prepared to believe that it is possible that he is something like a quarter Jew who is an exception to my experiential rule that even they are bad news for Whites. I may wonder more, even if he is good, if he is not carrying Jewish stuff which may not be so friendly in subsequent generations. I wonder about that more as an elemental and habitual structure of my racial outlook, not so much a worry as to be paranoid - even if he is not pure, and wants to protect against the over-compensations of the ultra-purists (a good thing to guard against), his position in turn, is perhaps something that can be safeguarded against in the numerical, quantity controlled sense of national bounds. He seems to be arguing that there are gray areas which might be considered. While that type of argument can sometimes provide the rats way in, I would, on the other hand, agree that WN’s can sometimes draw the line too narrowly around what is White/native European. Modestly gray areas (say those who have some middle eastern admixture, as southern Europeans and Hitler did) can potentially be categorized and managed in a cooperative way such as to not alter the structures of Norwegians or Scots, etc. It seems that he is sympathetic to Whites. That he continually argues well against rash and poorly considered arguments and thereby provides feedback useful to the cultivation of strategic rigor. Nevertheless, I do want to guard against hasty, liberal openness (e.g., some people who might be called “White Hispanic” by some would be infuriatingly non-White to me). Given what we know, a measure of suspicion is understandable, but on balance, he could even be more White than anything else; and I find his comments worthwhile. 109
Posted by daniel on Sat, 07 Jul 2012 13:01 | # liberalism: individualism, capitalism, scientific-race realism, Christianity (liberal by definition by my estimation) - these things are inherently destructive to Whites and White solidarity in the main, in my estimation.
Also, when I criticize scientific race realism, I am also talking about over emphasis; not that science has no important place - of course it does. same kind of thing with free enterprise and private property…(of course they have an important place).. Some will not get that I was being tongue in cheek when saying I was applying Aristotlean optima to race, but screw them 110
Posted by Leon Haller on Sat, 07 Jul 2012 20:59 | #
It should be totally obvious from all I’ve said over many years that I’m anything but Jewish. I do not have a Jewish gene in my ancestry (as far as I know it). Many Jews defend the free market. Some even oppose immigration. No Jew ever really gives a shiite about Christianity, ESPECIALLY the Catholic Church (they’ll say nice things about pro-Israel evangelicals, while snickering to themselves). There are no Jews in my current grad program, which I’ve found, perhaps to my surprise, to be rather refreshing. I do admit to having many Jewish friends and (past, and maybe future) colleagues. A few of these are among the ideologically best people I know: strongly conservative, anti-immigration, pro-capitalist, gloriously level-headed and normal. But I am not Jewish. I am as purely Aryan as you can get. Pure Nordic: German mostly, with some Dutch, French and English. No Med, as far as I know; no Slav or even Celt, either. One side secular/Protestant, the other Catholic. My mother and sisters are fair-skinned blondes; I was blondeish when a kid, but light brunette now (like my dad, when he was young). Sorry, but not everyone who is not a Nazi is “chosen”. Indeed, it is possible to be strong in love of race and heritage, and be agnostic on the JQ. And anyway, there are plenty of Aryan liberals. The Clintons? The Bushes? What is strange about being a non-Nazi, Aryan conservative (as opposed to WN)?
111
Posted by Lee John Barnes on Sat, 07 Jul 2012 21:03 | # The reason why Individualism is so important is that the National Community benefits from the efflorescence of the full potential, talents and skills of the individual. Individualism without the context of the National Community is merely Anarchy. 112
Posted by Leon Haller on Sat, 07 Jul 2012 21:11 | #
Obviously, we part company here. In refutation I would merely point to the history of the US. In our period of greatest expansion and cultural self-confidence, which laid the foundation for later American national power, we were all those things: individualist, capitalist, race-realist, and Christian. Our racial crisis began when we transitioned from conservatism to modern liberalism, that is, away from traditional Christianity, as well as the private property based social order. What you and others of your view need to demonstrate is that Christianity and capitalism are incompatible with racial survival. That certainly has not been true historically (the decline of Christianity in Europe neatly overlaps with the decline in white power; ditto the parallel replacement of capitalism by ‘social democracy’ - coincidences?). 113
Posted by Lee John Barnes on Sat, 07 Jul 2012 21:18 | # The Anglo-Saxons in their attempt to destroy Germany ended up destroying themselves. Instead of being Germany’s right hand man in a National Socialist Europe, Great Britain became a triple colony, first a military colony of the United States, second an economic colony of the European Union and finally a sexual and biological colony of Jamaica and Pakistan. —————————————————— Five Colonies - you forgot to mention that Britain also became a cultural colony of the United States, a mewling bastardised “McBritain"in thrall to the cultural contamination that pumps out of the media and Hollywood sewage plants. 114
Posted by Lee John Barnes on Sat, 07 Jul 2012 21:26 | # In refutation I would merely point to the history of the US. In our period of greatest expansion and cultural self-confidence, which laid the foundation for later American national power, we were all those things: individualist, capitalist, race-realist, and Christian. Our racial crisis began when we transitioned from conservatism to modern liberalism, that is, away from traditional Christianity, as well as the private property based social order. ———————————- What the fuck is ‘traditional christianity’ ? Is is Protestantism, Catholicism, Quakerism, Gnosticism ? One mans ‘traditional christianity’ is another mans load of theological shite. As for the private property based social order - we had that first in Britain after the Norman Conquest when the land and people became the property of the King and Crown. The Domesday Book was a slave masters record of the property he owned = the lands, all the goods and the people. The laws on private property were designed to protect and consolidate the power and wealth of the ruling minority as opposed to the interests and rights of the oppressed majority. 115
Posted by Silver on Sat, 07 Jul 2012 22:02 | # Haller,
No kidding. I didn’t post it because I thought she (I originally suspected it was a ‘he’ and a negro) had anything interesting to say. I posted it because I thought some here would remember the infamous diabloblanco.
Email me and I’ll show you how. You don’t have to pretend to be friendly, a blank email will suffice. silviosilver at auswww.com
You can be quite thick, can’t you? Show me one post where I’ve ever claimed to be white or even expressed any real interest in it. All I’ve ever written is “white,” always with the quotation marks to signify that I’ve never thought of myself as such (although my father, to my consternation—is he blind ?—tends to). It was a combination of WN political advocacy (which tries to draw people from my background into its sphere of concern) and concern about demographic issues that led me to taking a functionally/effectively pro-white position (out of self-interest as much as altruism, though the latter is not entirely absent). And FYI—ffs, it’s like to talking to a child—if you’re going to claim all of Europe (from the Hebrides to the Cyclades—stupid, I know, but you people came up with it) how the fuck can you possibly not be aware of the racial overlap that exists between Europe’s farthest stretches and Anatolia and the Levant? So even if I were what you say, it’d hardly be surprising that I might wish to express an opinion. Lol. Oh and a couple more things
“Needed,” was it? Germany would not have been able to survive without it? Lol. Incredibly, I’m supposedly the one who can’t be trusted.
You underestimate them at your peril, just as your forebears did, and look where you are today. What incredible hubris you have for someone who is on the verge of losing everything, permanently.
116
Posted by daniel on Sat, 07 Jul 2012 23:32 | # Leon: I do admit to having many Jewish friends and (past, and maybe future) colleagues. A few of these are among the ideologically best people I know: strongly conservative, anti-immigration, pro-capitalist, gloriously level-headed and normal. Indeed, it is possible to be strong in love of race and heritage, and be agnostic on the JQ. Leon, this is so far behind in my rear view mirror that I would have to look back to high school before I could find a time when what you say was not obviously well off the mark in full, experiential terms. Your are somewhat lucky but inured to reality. In response to your comment number 113, see my 110. 117
Posted by Desmond Jones on Sat, 07 Jul 2012 23:40 | # Modern warfare may be dysgenic (nuclear exchange) however, war, in the evoluton of mankind, appears to be eugenic because, by and large, it was about sexual selection.
http://www.infidels.org/library/historical/charles_darwin/descent_of_man/chapter_19.html It’s more revealing to place war on a continuum between the eugenic and dysgenic. Of course civilized man does not practice the sexual selection methods of the savage (male dominant/female passive) but evolved a selection process based more upon intelligence and character (male dominant/female active). But then Lynn and JB suggest civilzation is enormously dysgenic. 118
Posted by J Richards on Sun, 08 Jul 2012 05:44 | # @Captainchaos For once I share something with Haller, his disappointment in your thinking that he’s part Jewish. Part? Haller’s a full-blooded parasite, not the offspring of an interspecies union between a human and a parasite. A serial poster of Jewish filth couldn’t be otherwise. Just look at the critter above. @81 he proscribes ad hominem. @103 he says “The author of that book is a major asshole (ditto the general editor of the series of which it is a part)- queer, antiracist, whole 9 yards”; no content analysis to be seen. An erudite grad student indeed! And notice how @95 the bergs, the steins and the itz’ of Haller’s bloodline come out. It’s not accidental typing or ignorance when he writes “Above all, he [Hitler] should not have allied with the USSR and invaded Poland with them.” This is deliberate noise, like Silverstein trolling @101, and it’s lies. It isn’t ignorance when he writes “If the Nazis had indeed been patient, they could have gotten their war with the USSR,” suggesting that the NSDAP either needed a war with the Russians or were itching for it. The war was forced by the Jew bankers. He says that the NSDAP should’ve encouraged Jewish emigration. This was already there. In 1934, Hjalmar Schacht arranged with the World Zionist Organization a deal where German Jews could pay 15,000 Reichmarks to emigrate to Palestine. In the next four years, over 170,000 Jews reached Palestine under this agreement. He says that the NSDAP should’ve “drafted their unemployed into the military, to be used for action primarily in the Middle East or North Africa, to secure oil supplies.” There was no need to invade the Middle East to secure oil. All that was needed was to make money more plentiful to attain financial prosperity, which is what happened slowly till 1939, with Germany attaining financial prosperity when other nations, except Japan, were suffering under the Great Depression. When financial reform was thrown in full gear, WWII started within months. The vermin makes much of the NSDAP’s failure to seek an alliance against the commies, the Bolshevists. During WWII, around 40% of the SS comprised of non-Germans, including non-Europeans. Presumably, had Hitler crushed Russia, they‘d “still be in power today (with immeasurably positive effects on the political and racial development of the West).” So facts don’t matter to these pests. Russia had socialism forced upon her, by the Jew bankers. This version of socialism was known as Bolshevism. The same Jew bankers brought a different version of socialism to power in Germany, national socialism. I provided this Jew pest links to excellent documentation on these claims by Anthony Sutton. Sutton documented the Jew bankers implementing yet another version of socialism, in the U.S. in the 1930s, corporate socialism. Sutton also documented that when the U.S.-U.S.S.R. cold war was on and the governments and media of these countries were promoting mutual dislike, Wall Street was sending lots of money to the U.S.S.R. to build and empower the Russian federation. Why? A straightforward balance-of-power arrangement. The Jew bankers don’t put their eggs in one basket. If a powerful nation rebels against them it could be over for them if another powerful nation couldn’t be raised against the rebels. The prospects of a powerful Soviet Union that may lose its animosity toward the U.S. and rise against the Jew bankers were addressed by splitting the Soviet Union and the building up of China. Similar to the American-Soviet cold war, American jobs have been sent to China in droves over the past two decades while the government and media keep screeching about the human rights abuses in China and the ills of the communists there. Pestilence like Haller deliberately ignore or lie about the money players behind the scenes and fill our living space with lies and misdirected outrage against liberals, leftists, commies and socialists, who in turn are blaming conservatives, rightists, racists, Nazis… it’s a con game these Jewish critters are playing. 119
Posted by Bill on Sun, 08 Jul 2012 11:17 | # Janet Daley, Telegraph journalist has a piece up this morning entitled ‘The law cannot curb greedy bankers, but morals might’ She could just as easily labelled her grouse ‘Where did it all go horribly wrong?’ With the bankers being brought to book yet again, this refrain is common currency throughout the media. Trouble is, over thousands of words spilt explaining why British society has gone down the crapper, the one most important link missing is the ‘L’ word. Nowhere does she remotely hint that exchanging Christianity for the wisdom of post modern liberalism is a bum deal. When the central planks of our hegemonic narrative espouse there is no such thing as truth and all is relative what - does she, (and the rest) expect? PS. Similarly, with Britain’s worsening housing crisis, never mention immigration or population growth. 120
Posted by daniel on Sun, 08 Jul 2012 11:44 | # ..for the wisdom of post modern liberalism is a bum deal. Again, we need to discuss what post modernism is. Properly understood, it is not liberalism. 122
Posted by Leon Haller on Sun, 08 Jul 2012 22:48 | # Excellent video posted by Jimmy Marr! I repeat my position: the Nazis did immense damage to the cause of Western survival, and certainly committed many crimes from a Christian natural law perspective. Denying or minimizing those crimes is tactically stupid. They were not “driven to war” by international Jewry or bankers. Hitler had been clamoring for war for decades (to say otherwise is to be either monumentally ignorant of the historiography of the period, or to allege that there are no or few honest historians, as well as to disregard Hitler’s writings and speeches). That said, the West’s wartime alliance with Stalin was morally inexcusable, and given that the real wars within WW2 were between the Germans and the Soviets in Europe, and the US and Japan in the Pacific, it is clear that the US should have stayed neutral wrt Europe (of course, Hitler’s idiotic decision to declare war on the US following Pearl Harbor didn’t help!) and concentrated all its efforts on annihilating the Japs. Within the European East it was clearly the Germans who were fighting on the side of civilization and human advance. That much we can defend (and we can always tell the truth re the brutal mistreatment of Germans both during and following the war). This monument to the “air-butchers” listed in the OP is disgraceful, and serves the function I stated in #5. 123
Posted by daniel on Sun, 08 Jul 2012 23:10 | # ..which would have crushed the Soviets, and left Germany in control of its needed living space in the East. “Needed,” was it? Germany would not have been able to survive without it? Lol. Incredibly, I’m supposedly the one who can’t be trusted. You have a point, Silver. 124
Posted by Desmond Jones on Mon, 09 Jul 2012 08:37 | #
Except of course, that the US war with Japan aided and abetted the Soviet agenda, and was engineered by Soviet infiltrators in the State Department, in the same way that air support for the Warsaw Uprising was undermined by Soviet moles in the British Foreign Office. 125
Posted by ffss on Tue, 10 Jul 2012 17:53 | #
What cannot be documented is anything related to “the orders of Jew bankers.” Furthermore, what can be absolutely contradicted by documentary evidence is the claim that “the boiling point” was June 15, 1939. Excepting some liberal commentators in North America who were not in the thick of it and yet ascribe a highly liberal motive for the tensions, I have seen no evidence of anyone of importance in the conflict who believed that issues of specifically monetary systems or central banking played any role in it whatsoever—that they eyed the Reichsbank.
That’s only true in the case of the Soviet Union and, in a limited sense, the phony state of Czechoslovakia. By “historiography of the period” do you perchance mean the court historians of the highly censored IMT? Where are Americans indoctrinated with this information at? 126
Posted by Leon Haller on Tue, 10 Jul 2012 20:02 | # What is “IMT”? Read Mein Kampf. Consider Hitler’s utterances re Poland and France. I like Michael Burleigh, even if he may not be anti-semitic. Just because historians tread lightly re challenging conventional interpretations of Nazi aggression or the Holocaust doesn’t mean that all their work is worthless. Britain’s Ian Kershaw is a left-liberal, but his two volumes on Hitler were nevertheless written to a very high standard. The facts are what they are. I’m completely in favor of historical revisionism where truth is the goal pursued. Historians have done excellent work in recent decades exposing the Allied war crimes against German POWs in the war’s aftermath, for example. But WNs should stop trying to undermine the factual elements in conventional narratives, unless they have very strong evidence for doing so (which most radical revisionists usually do not). Instead, they ought to challenge the moral interpretations of the facts. A true neo-Nazi would not deny the Holocaust, but, rather, offer justification for it. Doing otherwise makes one look weak as well as weaselly - truly cringeworthy. And on a broader note, all these issues are mere distractions from what remains the most important white EGI-empowering task today, which is to mobilize public opinion against mass (nonwhite) immigration. If we do not end that invasion, all else is lost - including battles for what WN WW2 revisionists would call the “historiographical struggle”.
127
Posted by Silver on Tue, 10 Jul 2012 22:34 | #
No wonder people here are so dismissive of you. Anybody who has read as deeply as you claim to have about the goings on of the period would immediately recognize the abbreviation for the International Military Tribunal. Sheesh.
128
Posted by Leon Haller on Wed, 11 Jul 2012 02:42 | # Silver, Stick to money, and the futile task of trying to disprove the Austrian theory of money and banking, for which I still have yet to see any evidence of your familiarity. I wasn’t thinking postwar with that acronym - why should I have been? I was writing about the topic at hand, namely, Hitler’s intentions pre-war. I made no reference to Nurnberg, nor had it in mind at all. I thought the acronym stood for some pre-war entity. If someone asked me about NATO in the context of a discussion of the 30s, I might naturally inquire as to the acronym’s provenance, now wouldn’t I? In high school I even had to review a book on the Nurnberg trials for a modern history class - Airey Neave, Nuremberg. 129
Posted by ffss on Wed, 11 Jul 2012 11:54 | # @Leon Haller Ian Kershaw is a hack and his books are based entirely on secondary sources; his treatment of the war years is submoronic and full of one-sided hatred. And you obviously have not read Mein Kampf. The IMT is the International Military Tribunal at Nuremberg, whose proceedings established in the judgement the conspiracy theory that:
It is almost surreal that denying this is illegal in parts of Europe. The historical record is clear on the matter: the majority of Austrians were happy to join the rest of the Reich, and the three “seizures” were unrelated and not part of any master plan. But let’s go back to Poland. The Danzig and Corridor issue could have been reasonably resolved, as Memel’s example with Lithuania (who had illegally invaded it) shows. Even well into the war, Germany’s offer of free economic access was upheld as promised. Poland broke the German-Polish Non-Aggression Pact signed in 1934 by agreeing to the British guarantee in late March 1939, adopting an increasingly aggressive stance towards Germany and the Danzigers (whose senate was controlled by the NSDAP, and poised to breach the 10% more needed to change the constitution and peacefully reunite with the Reich), acting as one of the satrapies in the British bid to encircle Germany. Germany, on the other hand, had wanted to drop all revisionist territorial claims against Poland that the former Weimar government teethlessly upheld and enlist Poland as a junior partner in the future coalition against the Soviet Union. For this unpopular policy Hitler received a lot of flak, both when openly accused to be a traitor by system lackeys and internally after taking power. His Polish anti-Soviet counterpart Pilsudski was in on it until his death, after which the Colonels took over Poland with silly aspirations for westward expansion. Nevertheless, the German Government still pursued a policy of Polish appeasement, despite the objections of the Junkers caste. After the eccentric Colonels’ regime happily received the blank cheque that set Danzig as a tripwire for war and encouraged Polish diplomatic intransigence, German-Polish relations deteriorated fast. Britain thus created a situation where Germany had a choice between a resort to military force to overcome Polish resistance over the Danzig issue, which would provide Britain with a casus belli, or a humiliating back-down with the prospect of a folded-up, encircled, impoverished North Korean-style economy. To Hitler it looked like Poland joining a military alliance confronting Germany, in which it constituted the eastern front. Hitler was not wrong, as the ‘western front’ had exactly the same idea. Britain even wanted to include the Soviet Union into an invasion alliance with France and Poland, but the deal fell through as the Soviets demanded passage of the Red Army through Poland to attack Germany whereas the Polish side claimed it unacceptable for the obvious reason of never getting rid of them. (We wonder whether this deal was kosher for Guessedworker.) Once Britain and France had declared war on Germany, all the following German actions were more-or-less unavoidable consequences of that state of war. For example, the German invasion of Denmark and Norway was not triggered by a desire to subjugate those countries and seize their territory, but rather by the need to defend itself against Allied attempts to cut off its supply of iron ore. However, some regrettable things occurred against some European populations deemed sovietised—things which pale in comparison to their present governments’ agenda. Presumably you keep forgetting that what every actor thought at every point is known from a wealth of available documentation. The only exception is Stalin; what’s left of the Presidential Archives is still closed to historians, and the de-Stalinisation process the Soviet Union undertook—much like the rest of the world per its scope of propaganda—mythologised him as a hapless victim, wrongly so in my opinion. Hitler’s policy towards Poland after March 1939 became radically different from that before that date. Minutes of the talks between the two governments from October 1938 until March have been published for ages and challenge the notion that Hitler acted with malice aforethought, as part of a master plan, rather than reactively. 130
Posted by Leon Haller on Wed, 11 Jul 2012 19:13 | #
Who are you and what have you written to be so dismissive of a knighted scholar? (If David Irving, I salute your infinitely superior knowledge of these issues.) Whether Kershaw is lazy about archival work, as Irving alleges, I leave for others to determine (how much “new” stuff would he be expected to uncover for a biography of Hitler?). But he is a fine writer, albeit the left-liberal I alleged above. I own a copy of MK, and did indeed read large portions of it (perhaps as much as 40% - it’s quite thick, as I recall) for a college course in Modern German History (at one of the best universities in the US; my prof was another anti-Nazi liberal, but who isn’t in academia?). I found it occasionally exciting, but mostly turgid and hectoring. Of course, this was more than a quarter century ago, so, no, I don’t remember many specific details. I know what IMT stands for. I just didn’t recognize the acronym in the context of what I thought was being discussed. I agree that no genuine speech should be censored (I demur wrt what our stupid Supreme Court has ludicrously characterized as “speech”; namely, pornography). I never stated agreement with the notion that Austria was “victimized” by Hitler. As for the substance of your comment, I do not claim to be especially knowledgeable in the diplomatic history of interwar Europe, certainly less so than you probably are, though some of what you write is completely unfamiliar to me, and seems to contradict ‘general’ histories of the period. I would therefore like to know your sources for the assertions re Germany’s peaceful intention toward Poland, and esp this:
I’ve read a fair bit of history, including of Europe (though mostly American, world, and intellectual history), but cannot recall ever coming across this line of argument. I’m ready to be corrected, but it sounds suspiciously unconventional. Strikingly remarkable theories require similarly remarkable evidence. Your sources, please.
131
Posted by Silver on Wed, 11 Jul 2012 22:59 | #
I’d wager that’s Colin Laney/Wintermute you’re talking to, a formerly active and much loved poster here. Factual disputes with his standard nazi apologist recital aside, most curious to me is the sheer innocence with which he prosecutes his case: in his mind, the nazi ideology has nothing to do with how the events of the period are perceived. No, it was just an unremarkable spat among European nations and all that’s required is to set the record straight on a few key facts and figures and presto. 132
Posted by ffss on Thu, 12 Jul 2012 00:36 | # What’s silver’s ethnicity nowadays? Has he reverted to his Pakistani roots? 133
Posted by Helvena on Thu, 12 Jul 2012 02:23 | # Does anyone know what happened to Wintermute? I came on the scene too late and have only read some of his old post. I’ve linked from my blog to the blog he had. I wish he’d come back. 134
Posted by Desmond Jones on Thu, 12 Jul 2012 02:36 | #
135
Posted by Lurker on Thu, 12 Jul 2012 03:47 | # Silver’s ethnicity has plasticity. These days he is one us.
Because of course nazi ideology itself has nothing to do with events of the period, it just springs out of the ground fully formed. Much as gentiles are always patient zero when afflicted with anti-semitism, its never related to any jewish behaviour. 136
Posted by Captainchaos on Thu, 12 Jul 2012 05:30 | #
So, um, you’re saying Socrates was a Jew? I’m inclined to say there is about as much direct evidence to document this insinuation as there is for the omnipotent, string-pulling machinations of Richards’ “Jew bankers”.
Is this to claim that Slavs weren’t to be cleansed from eastern Europe so that the conquered land could be settled by Germans?
137
Posted by Captainchaos on Thu, 12 Jul 2012 06:17 | #
The whole thing is as I’ve for some time suspected, merely a pissing contest between the two most powerful Northern European ethnies. Jews, as well as all the other peoples of the earth, only have what power Northern Europeans allow them to have. We wonder whether Hitler’s plan, once events were set in motion and he saw the opporunity, to take eastern Europe’s natural resources and her peoples as slave labor in order to secure German autarky against a British-lead coalition is kosher with Wintermute. 138
Posted by daniel on Thu, 12 Jul 2012 06:33 | # Country German ancestry In the United States 1990 census, 57 million people were fully or partly of German ancestry, forming the largest single ethnic group in the country. States with the highest percentage of Americans of German descent are in the northern Midwest (especially Wisconsin, Minnesota, North Dakota, South Dakota, Nebraska, Iowa, Kansas, Michigan) and the Mid-Atlantic state, Pennsylvania. But Germanic immigrant enclaves existed in many other states (e.g., the German Texans and the Denver, Colorado area) and to a lesser extent, the Pacific Northwest (i.e. Idaho, Montana, Oregon and Washington state). 139
Posted by Desmond Jones on Thu, 12 Jul 2012 06:59 | #
He already answered the question. http://majorityrights.com/weblog/comments/waffen_ss_depedestaled#c69205 Is Master Race supremacy, land theft, taking slaves and ethnic cleansing, racially characteristic of Germans? “It is a racial characteristic of the Ango-American imagination.”
140
Posted by Silver on Thu, 12 Jul 2012 08:27 | # Lurker,
I am? I had thought I was merely making political allegiance. Just stop and think about that for a second, if you please. Should it be impossible that you find allies in this cause? Forget about whether I personally qualify as such and just answer (to yourself at least) whether it’s impossible or not. I’ll tell you what I think: from where I stand, it appears to be not only possible, but absolutely necessary (for both you, and I, and any other racial identitarian, of whatever racial provenance). The alternative is (from your pov) you vs the world. I can’t see that ever happening.
I’m not interested in an interminable what came first, the jew or the nazi chicken/egg debate. The point is the nazis’ actions took place under the rubric of we are the greatest, everyone else must make way, genes determine everything, jews are demons in disguise. These are perceived as the reasons why those events took place (to extent that the nazis’ actions alone drove events). Right or wrong that is the perception, and it’s one hell of a challenge to overcome it. That’s why so many people freak out at the mention of a link between genes and behavior/intelligence. That’s why people freak out at anything pointedly pro-white. “OHMYGOD nazis thought the same thing, eek! Surely you must want to repeat their actions!” This is so obvious it beggars belief that it’d require explanation. Colin Laney either doesn’t get that or thinks it doesn’t matter. Neo-nazis like him will just drone on and on and on and on, obsessed with the vision of how splendid life would be under NS and how unbearable, utterly, utterly unbearable it is without it, and he’ll keep it up whether anyone’s listening or not, or even whether they’re thoroughly turned off racialism by it or not. Hardly a surefire recipe for racial salvation if you ask me. I don’t know what made him post here again. Perhaps he’s fresh from a rereading of Hellstorm and so fired up he just had to log in and let people have it, I don’t know. But I’ll take the occasion of his posting to draw attention to two more “fallacies” that I believe WNs habitually commit that keep their movement mired in obscurity. I’ve already mentioned the “Race is wrong, therefore everything is wrong” and the “One fell swoop” fallacies. (Not everything is wrong and believing it is depresses one and ensures one’s appeals are rejected; and a single statement or a few choice facts are not enough to transform minds.) To those we can also add: “Race, therefore war” and “Inferior, therefore hateworthy.” Colin Laney’s guilty of both. Race matters, so quick fuck over everyone else. And if something or someone can be fairly deemed inferior, that’s reason enough to hate him/her/it. These are fallacies because race mattering doesn’t mean anyone should be made to suffer for it, and just because something or someone is inferior doesn’t mean it or they deserve to be hated. On the contrary, “enlightened groupism” (my awkward term), in which we each recognize we’re better off with our own and each other’s rights to be with our own, is both a factual possibility and, I say, a normative necessity. And inferior beings and inferior things remain lovable despite being inferior. We all know someone stupider or uglier than us but if we love them we love them; their stupidity or ugliness is not a reason to hate them.
141
Posted by Captainchaos on Thu, 12 Jul 2012 08:29 | #
Horseshit. The English and Germans merely have different means by which they get their Master Race mojo going. The English hopped up on their Manichean moralistic narrative by which they justify their conquests to themselves as vanquishing devils in human form; whilst Germans say to themselves “Look, everyone else is doing it. So why can’t we? We’ll psych ourselves up with some uniforms and jackboots and get in the game!” It is as Nietzsche said, “The world itself is the will to power - and nothing else!” The English had already conquered their Lebensraum on the North American continent and along with their descendents assimilated many Northern Europeans under one “Anglo” identity. In the event that the Anglo powers would not allow Germany to become a great power again and gather all Germans back into the Reich Germany had to counter this with Lebensraum of its own in eastern Europe. If Hitler could not conceptualize this then he was a retard. If Hitler did not have the balls to take it then he was a coward. I wonder if Winty thinks Hitler was either a retard or a coward? 142
Posted by Captainchaos on Thu, 12 Jul 2012 09:10 | #
I hate to play the “projection” card here, Silv, because I think it’s a pussy card to play, but here I can’t resist. Jews are oh-so compulsive projecters. I mean, all we have to do is contrast the way in which Nordic plantation owners in the Antebellum South treated their niggers (it doesn’t get more “inferior” than niggers) with the way Jewish Bolsheviks treated their Slavic slaves. As Himmler stated, “We will never be needlessly cruel.” The Jews? They get their rocks off on needless cruelty, all day long. 143
Posted by Captainchaos on Thu, 12 Jul 2012 09:34 | # In the real world, it is not a question of if there will be masters and slaves, but who will be the master and who the slave - de facto or de jure, all parsing of definitions and games of semantics aside. The verdict of history is that, for the good of humanity, it must be Nordics, and never Jews. This is the final word. All else is kabuki theatre for the lemmings. 144
Posted by Leon Haller on Thu, 12 Jul 2012 09:55 | #
WOW! An uncharacteristically brilliant comment from sourpuss Chaos! Exactly right! It is much better for the whole world when the white man is the ruler. And, inevitably, libertarian and socialist fantasies aside, someone will rule. 145
Posted by Silver on Thu, 12 Jul 2012 10:30 | # Crapandchaos,
I’ll tell you what I think: he was a loser. He tried and he failed. The really pertinent point, though, is that he failed for lack of support/too many enemies, a mistake your side continues to make. The specter of Hitler used to haunt me but I can talk about his project dispassionately now. While part of me remains glad you lost (I think of May 9th as “Glory Day,” our glorious salvation from the world-hating nazi swine), I think it would have been better had you won. Not because I care at all for nazi ideology, but because I don’t believe the nazi fervor could have lasted and that by the time I was born the more troublesome and problematic elements would have been weeded out, while avoiding today’s racial problems.
By all means, make that comparison. The average slav was never treated as horribly as the average nigger. Mistreated slavs always had the opportunity to avoid their fate by ceasing their opposition to the state, and the communist state enormously improved the lot of the average slav. 19th century niggers would have gladly traded places with 20th century slavs.
Sure, provided the definition of “needlessly” is expansionary as today’s definition of “racism.” As for the latter statement, heh, that’s just the sort of factfree horseshit we’ve all come to love and expect from you.
To put it to you plainly, you’ll have to be sidelined, simply to be saved from yourself. I can understand your nazi fascination. More than once I’ve watched Triumph of the Will and told myself these could very well be the last real men to live, I won’t deny that. But nazis, in their quest for self-assertion, miss far too much of what is good and enjoyable and loving and compassionate in life. You’re not the ones, Cap. Of that I’m certain. 146
Posted by Kearns on Thu, 12 Jul 2012 10:57 | # Hitler may have been Jewish. Hitler’s father Alois was born illegitimate with no father. Hitler’s paternal grandfather is still unknown. His paternal grandmother is known to have worked in the home of a wealthy Jew. There were DNA tests done recently of some of his relatives, and they found Y chromosome Haplogroup E1b1b1: The Y-chromosome is transmitted paternally, and E1b1b1 is not one associated with Europeans and Indo-Europeans/Aryans like R1b or R1a. E1b1b1 is Jewish and African. It is one of the major founding lineages of the Jews. This may fit in with James Bowery’s “parasitic castration” thing and how Jews are good at it. Hitler may have turned Germany into his personal colony of workers and soldiers. 147
Posted by ffss on Thu, 12 Jul 2012 15:08 | # @Leon Haller Regarding the ‘cold war’-like German-Polish relationship before 1933 and how it changed for the better, you are invited to read Harold von Riekhoff’s German-Polish Relations, 1918-1933 as a starter. For the decent relationship existing between the two countries until 1939 you could try Diplomat in Berlin, 1933-1939 based on Josef Lipski’s papers or just the American foreign policy journals of the time. Peter D. Stachura’s Poland, 1918-1945: an interpretive and documentary history of the Second Republic is also data-rich. Every library should have the above, and they are fairly pro-Polish. You could also wonder why Hitler was getting called out as a traitor by desperate system tools just before taking power for his allegedly insufficient support of the eastern border—how could that libel possibly make sense?—or why the German–Polish Non-Aggression Pact was signed. Regarding Germany’s relationship to Poland ‘38-‘39, specifically the efforts of the German Government to find a peaceful solution to the Danzig problem, including by doing political favours for Poland on the international scene that remained unreciprocated, the DGFP (Documents on German Foreign Policy) or ADAP (Akten zur deutschen auswärtigen Politik 1918 - 1945) series are great (if incomplete) sources to start with. They are also online. Regarding Britain’s decision on a policy of confrontation of Germany and its attempt to draw in the Soviet Union, you can read the official Cabinet record. PRO’s CAB 23/98 is available online here (link goes to p.59 upon loading) and of note are parts of the March 18 (pp.59-61,64) and March 20 (pp.76-79) records. I warn in advance that the PDF is quite large—75MB—although only 363 pages long. If you will indulge the admittedly large download and the seven large-type pages I offered, you can tell the rest of thread whether Britain had become an anti-German confronting power, whether the Soviet Union was considered as an ally and whether an emphasis existed on creating a two-front war—or a two-front encirclement—to curb Germany’s growing influence exactly as described above. The process of building an anti-German coalition accelerated on 20 March 1939 as a proposal was sent to Paris, Warsaw and Moscow. Ten days later it became a bilateral affair with Poland. @Captainchaos
I am saying the very Nietzsche whom you have just quoted, among others, identified Socrates as a racial alien. A historical case for that is not far off. As to the rest, that can be addressed once you explain how you fell for Silver’s trolling antics according to which I am “Winty”, the source of the apparent hostility. Should I have responded to the pest? Hard to believe, I know, but I am not even extremely familiar with MR history and know little of him. I do remember why Silver ought to be mucked out of the site pronto, though. 148
Posted by Leon Haller on Fri, 13 Jul 2012 06:56 | # ffss, Thank you for the link and bibliographic recommendations. You sound like an historian - is interwar foreign policy and diplomacy your field of specialization? Also, do you write on these issues anywhere in the WN blogosphere, and is “ffss” your sole nom de guerre? I cannot really offer anything in rebuttal to the substance of your claims, other than to reiterate that it is not the conventional interpretation, and to wonder why that might be. I mentioned Irving because he seems to be not only the leading authority on the German side of WW2, but also the leading critic of historiographical assertions of German/Nazi guilt for the instigation of hostilities. The notion that Hitler was not actively seeking war is hardly widespread. Do you like Burleigh, The Third Reich? 149
Posted by daniel on Fri, 13 Jul 2012 08:00 | # It is amazing how similar Jews and Nazis typically are in their method of argumentation. Neither are ever wrong, are always pure and innocent in their motives, always the only important victims, everyone else is to blame for everything, no point of view which does not exactly correspond is ever valid. 150
Posted by ffss on Sat, 14 Jul 2012 19:51 | # @Leon Haller
No, it is not my field of specialisation. However, I have gleaned enough of the diplomatic exchanges and the decision-making process through reading books and even browsing through archives. I am also familiar enough with basic European history to know what the major political factions in interwar Poland were, and what they were about. It is fairly well-known in Europe that Hitler became friend of Pilsudksi, a Polish nationalist dictator who shared his anti-Soviet views and with whom he would be able to negotiate final frontiers with Poland as he did not desire westward expansion. Upon Pilsudski’s untimely death in 1935 (whose deathbed statement was an indictment of the recent Franco-Soviet treaty), Hitler markedly disrupted his ritualic schedule and organised and attended a funeral service in Berlin. You can find pictures of that on the Internet; even one with the guard of honour later placed at his gravesite. Perhaps another ruse?
You could say I haven’t been around.
I do not recall Mr. Irving being the “leading critic of historiographical assertions of German/Nazi guilt for the instigation of hostilities”. I do recall that is what his detractors claim, however. As to “the notion that Hitler was not actively seeking war [being] hardly widespread”, I would expect it not to be. After all, what sort of legitimacy have today’s brigand anti-white regimes if not their stellar “anti-fascist” credentials in the face of a mythologised “anti-fascist” narrative, which bottom-scrapers like Guessedworker would really like to share in? If you check out Soren Renner’s latest MR entry, you can see an idiot half-heartedly saying how crazy-funny it is that nationalists would come together at an European level. That the system liars of yesteryear pestered the Nazis with an exceptional amount of libel—first saying they are traitors to their country, then that they are just looking for war and trouble—and the fact that today’s system liars employ the exact same routine against all European nationalists (some of whom are useful idiots) should give some pause. Not to daniel, naturally, for whom the timeline must start where his cartoons say it must: with Hitler invading a Poland whose rulership and politics is unknown and irrelevant. Of course, there was no German plan to actively seek war. Britain made a final decision to confront Germany, enlisting Poland as the eastern front. Germany then made a final decision to confront Poland due to its enlistment. This final decision occurred before the Soviets came and proposed a deal. To that deal Germany was at first dismissive then reluctant, but later realised the pickle it was in—namely, the lack of resources no Ostrich economics can help conjure—and took it. Everything was not only highly unplanned for, but turned Germany’s initial foreign policy planning on its head.
Yes and no, see Burleigh’s history. 151
Posted by daniel on Sat, 14 Jul 2012 20:29 | # Not to daniel, naturally, for whom the timeline must start where his cartoons say it must: with Hitler invading a Poland whose rulership and politics is unknown and irrelevant.
Ostragoths vs. now extinct western Slav tribes anyone? 154
Posted by Gudmund on Mon, 16 Jul 2012 01:02 | #
Though he says he is, I doubt it. Dan Dare may be an accomplished historian (of the autodidactic sort), but would *never* describe the NS regime in a positive fashion. Furthermore, this ‘ffss’ has some particular viewpoints that I do not recall Dare ever expressing familiarity with, such as the perspective of German Romantic philosophers. Here:
and here:
I can only recall *one* person being familiar with these arguments (made by Hegel, Nietzsche and Klages) over time, a South African-born fellow who used to post on another forum. This person has a very similar writing style also. I’m certain it is him. 155
Posted by ffss on Mon, 16 Jul 2012 08:37 | # Presumably Leon is still incredulous that his cartoonists would keep anything from him, and thought I was merely a Dan Dare-created joke. Attentive readers will note that I was asked whether I am not Dan Dare, or whether I am, answering that Leon’s got me—as vague as it gets. As for the other guess, I try in vain to recall being born in South Africa or spending more than two weeks there. 156
Posted by Silver on Mon, 16 Jul 2012 10:39 | #
His style has Wintermute written all over it, which is why Crapandchaos was so quick to agree after I pointed it out. He says he’s not familiar with MR posting history but remembers the paki joke, yeah that’s believable. (As for thinking it’s Dan Dare, lol, Haller’s ability to reconcile pseudonyms leaves a lot to be desired.)
157
Posted by Classic Sparkle on Mon, 16 Jul 2012 14:07 | # Does anyone know what happened to Wintermute? Yep. I came on the scene too late and have only read some of his old post. I’ve linked from my blog to the blog he had. I wish he’d come back. Somebody has a blog where they have collected his comments. Most of us do. 158
Posted by Gudmund on Mon, 16 Jul 2012 20:10 | #
Well, your writing style and interests are very similar to another poster who claimed such. I still think you are this person, but maybe you were not being honest about your life history on that other forum. Your writing style and interests are simply too distinctive for this to be a case of mistaken identity. And I should add that your statements that I highlighted above (among others) are almost verbatim copies of things I saw written at that other forum. For it to be a coincidental resemblance is just not believable given the obscure nature of the subject matter.
I admit I haven’t been around these parts for long enough to know who Wintermute is (IIRC I began reading this site around 2008, having been referred from TackyMag), but this is definitely someone I’ve read before. 159
Posted by Dan Dare on Thu, 19 Jul 2012 23:17 | # Per Gudmund:
This is patently untrue. I have very little negative to say about the NS era until the regime started to bully and harass its neighbours. The po-faced zealotry and costume histrionics are not to English tastes but the Krauts seemed to like it, so good luck to them would have been my response. It’s gone done the memory hole now but I recall an epic debate with Hunter Wallace in which I opposed (and would claim to have defeated) the proposition that “The Third Reich was a Cultural Desert”. So there. Post a comment:
Next entry: Putting Nowak, et al, In Perspective With “The Extended Phenotype”
|
|
Existential IssuesDNA NationsCategoriesContributorsEach author's name links to a list of all articles posted by the writer. LinksEndorsement not implied. Immigration
Islamist Threat
Anti-white Media Networks Audio/Video
Crime
Economics
Education General
Historical Re-Evaluation Controlled Opposition
Nationalist Political Parties
Science Europeans in Africa
Of Note MR Central & News— CENTRAL— An Ancient Race In The Myths Of Time by James Bowery on Wednesday, 21 August 2024 15:26. (View) Slaying The Dragon by James Bowery on Monday, 05 August 2024 15:32. (View) The legacy of Southport by Guessedworker on Friday, 02 August 2024 07:34. (View) Ukraine, Israel, Taiwan … defend or desert by Guessedworker on Sunday, 14 April 2024 10:34. (View) — NEWS — Farage only goes down on one knee. by Guessedworker on Saturday, 29 June 2024 06:55. (View) |
Posted by prussiancroat on Mon, 02 Jul 2012 02:31 | #
The Anglo-Saxons in their attempt to destroy Germany ended up destroying themselves. Instead of being Germany’s right hand man in a National Socialist Europe, Great Britain became a triple colony, first a military colony of the United States, second an economic colony of the European Union and finally a sexual and biological colony of Jamaica and Pakistan.
How many of the brave lads who burned thousand year old cities to the ground and roasted white christian women and children alive lived long enough to see their grand-daughters pushing their mongrel bastards around in baby carriages and how many came to the realization that Uncle Adolf maybe wasn’t such a bad guy after all.