Posted by Hymie in Afula on Sun, 25 Aug 2013 07:20 | #

Listen to all the elements of the RC Mass….. in Hebrew

  http://www.catholic.co.il/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=99:listen-to-the-mass-in-hebrew&catid=29:liturgy-and-bible&Itemid=35&lang=en

Posted by DanielS on Sun, 25 Aug 2013 09:41 | #

For the record, I believe the term ‘holohoax’ to be tactless and counter-productive rhetoric. However, I do not find “holocostianity” to be tactless rhetoric and have never complained about it.

I have to locate the particular interview that I came upon, but an author was discussing Hitler’s management style, so to speak - it makes the issue of Hitler’s motives by contrast to what happened more clear.

I have maintained that in essence Hitler and the Nazis wanted to unburden themselves of Jewish imposition.

The particular author of whom I speak is not a White Nationalist, rather a liberal, but he corroborates that as the prime motive

There was not necessarily a plan to kill Jews. The idea was to get rid of them, and Hitler’s underlings were to use their imagination to come up with solutions. The only thing he could not stand was people saying nothing could be done; they could “solve problems” in different ways as he was not so much of micro-manager.

According to this author, it was because Hitler was not a micro-manager that killing of Jews developed from what was originally a more ambiguous notion of “the final solution.”

At first, where they were not shot as resistance fighters, they were put into concentration camps as labor - it was not necessarily the point to kill them. But what happened during the course of the war, and in service of “problem solving”, was that killing came to seem more logical, practical and “humane” from the Nazi point of view.

There was the fact that Jews were undergoing a torturous death of starvation, pestilence and disease, so to the “problem solving” way of thinking, it made more sense to kill them efficiently if not mercifully. 

Adding to “mercy killing” as an emergent “solution” was the infamous incident of Himmler having gotten brains splattered on him when Jews were shot in a ditch in Belarus. From that, he sought a less psychologically traumatic means for both the killed and the killers.

The final solution according to this author was about getting-rid of Jews and though it did not necessarily start out from a pre-plan of killing them from the onset, killing was something that developed along the way.

I’m merely repeating here what I heard in an NPR interview by Terry Gross, explaining how it both corroborated my hypothesis and provided elaboration.

Posted by James Bowery on Sun, 25 Aug 2013 18:16 | #

Holocaustianity is to Holocaust Denial as Christianity is to denial of the historicity of the Bible:

All but irrelevant to the religion considered as social movement.

I say this despite my interest in the Transfer Agreement (I own both editions of the book by Edwin Black and am, as a low priority project, reading both in detail) in which the founding of the Third Reich may be linked directly with the founding of Israel.  There are important historic facts that should be of interest to most people in the West, but those facts have virtually no impact on Holocaustianity’s impact on the wider society.  There is, quite simply, a virtually complete disconnect between the facts and the faith.  The “facts” of Holocaustianity are embodied in the hundreds of Holocaust movies produced by Hollywood which, interestingly, has produced not even one movie about the Holodomor, which occurred the very year Hitler was rising to power as Chancellor and should be of great interest to anyone interested in Hitler.  This, by the way, demonstrates without a shadow of a doubt that Jews acquire positions of cultural influence in other nations and then issue self-serving mythology—as in The Bible as well as Hollywood.

God’s Chosen People my ass.  Innocent Light unto the Nations Eternally Persecuted my ass.

Posted by Leon Haller on Mon, 26 Aug 2013 06:49 | #

What is “Metapedia”?

On another note, I must say I’m glad for this article, as it enabled me to find another past comment of mine, this one on individualism and nationalism, that is worth repeating and that I’d like to save before MR collapses for good (I also found a few laughs from ol’ captainchaos - “Med and Slavic chicks are only good for pump and dump”... the captain had a romantic soul ...  lmao..):

Posted by Leon Haller on April 09, 2012, 05:27 PM | #

The question is what degree of such stratification is acceptable or desirable for a given society and the values it wishes to promote/embody? (Lister)

OK, but how would you answer this question? I mean specifically. I have tried to do so, to some extent, in discussions with you. I have talked about what limitations on individualism ought to be instantiated, using the ‘metric’ of what contributes to the overall perpetuity of the System/Nation/Race. So, I’ve spoken of environmental protections, epidemiological measures, anti-immigration and miscegenation laws, economic protectionism for militarily necessary industries, and some other areas where I am willing to contemplate State interference with individual liberty, classically (liberally) understood.

What I object to are interferences with liberty and/or the market where those interferences confer specific benefits on individuals (and concomitant specific costs on others), ones that are unrelated (or only very distantly related) to collective System survival. For example, it is probably the case that a system of radical individualism cannot properly deal with containing plagues (you would likely know more about this than I do). Therefore, on occasion quarantine measures may have to be instituted for the collective good which, nevertheless, do, from a purely individual rights perspective, unjustifiably interfere with the liberty of particular individuals (though I’m not altogether certain of this, philosophically).

If the collectivity is an independent good, then sometimes it may make claims which override individual rights. The classic example I think would be conscription, whether of men or resources, in life-and-death wartime, though even here, libertarians might be able to argue plausibly that in a real life-death situation, such conscription would be unnecessary, as rational actors would volunteer themselves for the Cause anyway, negating the need for coercion. Perhaps a still better example would posit a private property owner holding title to a particularly militarily necessary piece of geography, who refuses to ‘lend’ his property to the national army for its military use. Would government then be ethically justified in ‘taking’ that property for national/military reasons (albeit, with some proper monetary compensation to the owner)? I think so - because in this case the property owner is standing in the way of the defense of the larger nation or System within which his property is embedded. The part cannot supersede the whole.

But, what does this have to do with an individual’s broken elbow in peacetime? That is, if Lister falls off his bike on a sunny day and injures himself, why exactly is it to be thought that it is taxpayer Haller’s financial responsibility to subsidize his ‘patch-up’? Why shouldn’t Lister be expected to pay the entire cost of his own injury? And is it not in the collectivity’s larger (survival) interest that he (and all others similarly situated) be required to do so? I have pointed out the immense intellectual resources of the free market tradition, which demonstrate in great depth and across disciplines why State programs are invariably inefficient (as compared to the market). State interventions in the market render less exact (where they are not so comprehensive as to negate) economic value calculations (Mises); they fail to maximize the use of inherently dispersed knowledge (Hayek, Michael Polanyi); and they inevitably result in ‘free rider’ problems (Burke, W.H. Mallock, Milton Friedman, the Public Choice School).

A nation of free and responsible individuals - that is, where individuals must bear responsibility and associated costs for their behavior (the bourgeois vision) - results in a strong collective Society, provided that individualism is not permitted to trump Society’s legitimate claims (ie, to endanger Society’s survival). The trick is getting right the balance between individual liberty and the amount of State coercion necessary to protect the collectivity within which the individual discovers his true self and life.

Posted by DanielS on Mon, 26 Aug 2013 08:52 | #

I also found a few laughs from ol’ captainchaos - “Med and Slavic chicks are only good for pump and dump”... the captain had a romantic soul ... lmao..):

Imao = in my (your) ass**** opinion?

Leon, I have been trying to determine whether your aim here is to serve up cognitive dissonance and distraction from useful organization on behalf of one of the letter agencies or whether you really are merely a conceited, Orange County conservative.

I am starting to think the latter is more like it. Add that your wish to wield the Ouija board of wonderfully rich interpretation of Christian symbolism in a direction toward “White Zion” - a term that you insist on using despite the fact that every thoughtful person is repulsed by it - but they are not your audience, are they?...hence for you, MR is dead.

MR is dead/dying for you… but you don’t leave as you have threatened to do a number of times. Is it because you want to misdirect people? To create dissonance? You long for snobbish elitism… you’d wish even for Captain Chaos to come back, if only you could have your country club again.

Just what in your post number 4 is supposed to be so informative as to memorialize?

Posted by john on Mon, 26 Aug 2013 12:47 | #

“The magical gas chamber story” - a Celine line, is still the best label.

Posted by John on Mon, 26 Aug 2013 12:58 | #

Alan Wilson on history:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sUrdDJxv9AM

Posted by Flamethrower on Tue, 27 Aug 2013 18:13 | #

It wasn’t Boomers that started Holocaustianity, it was the liberals and Trotskyists of the WW2 generation.  Then more en masse by the following Silent Generation to spoon feed to the Boomers, and so on. 

I’ve seen a remark on another unremembered site that the Boomers are the biggest generation of Judeo narcissists ever.  Would this sentiment find agreement on MR?

General Patton severely regretted fighting WW2.  Wonder how he would have adjusted to a post-WW2 America if he lived past 1945.

Posted by Hymie In Afula on Wed, 28 Aug 2013 02:18 | #

ok, but…..

http://heartiste.wordpress.com/2013/08/26/hitler-was-beta/

Posted by Leon Haller on Wed, 28 Aug 2013 11:54 | #

Daniels @5

Your usual incoherence is visibly worsening. I have no idea what you’re talking about.

Read my stuff and learn.

Posted by DanielS on Wed, 28 Aug 2013 12:29 | #

Leon,

I accidentally left out the preposition “to” in this sentence: : Add to that your wish..

For you a typo like that is an opportunity to pronounce incoherence.

Add to that your wish to wield the Ouija board of a wonderfully rich interpretation of Christian symbolism, moving it in a direction toward “White Zion”  - a term that you insist on using despite the fact that every thoughtful person is repulsed by it; but they are not your audience, are they? Hence for you, MR is dead.

Posted by DanielS on Wed, 28 Aug 2013 13:32 | #

Son of Orange County:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UAf71o8f27E

...“And in your dreams

you can see yourself,

as a prophet,

saving the world,

the words from your lips,

‘I am not a crook’..

Posted by Anty Ep on Wed, 28 Aug 2013 16:58 | #

Christian fundamentalism, meaning baptists and pentecostals, that is not the same religion as Roman Catholicism/ Orthodoxy.  By that Orthodoxy I mean Russian or Greek oRthodoxy which is basically the same original Christian religion as Roman Catholicism minus the filioque and primacy of the Bishop of Rome. Oh and also minus the obfuscations and confusion generated by Vat 2.  But my point is there is a religion that was the only basic Christianity for 1000 years and then you had the Reformation which spawned thousand of spinoff religious sects and idioms that in many cases are very very diffierent.  To say that an Amish is the same as an Anglican is preposterous.  Lutherans and Presbyterians are different too.  Some Episcopalians are like Catholics and some Episcopalians are really unlike them. 

In general however i have experienced that many protestants resent these distinctions. and most white nationals are from protestant backrounds.  they come to racial activism in many cases only after shucking off religious ideas of the past like William Gayley Simpson.  These are in my opinion, generally sincere evolutions of personal thinking.  I experienced it myself and found William Pierce and Simpson and others inspirational. 

On the other hand.  I have observed that a lot of Roman Catholic or Orthodox people have had sound racial identities their whole lives and are not drawn to the radical feeling of whnite nationlism the way a lot of us former protestants are.  There is not the same experience of animus toward religion nor the need to denounce it.  Ultimately, Conversion to Roman Catholicism and Russian or Greek Orthodoxy are however serious choices that do not entail any racial treason and in fact would help a lot of poeple build a decent life on the ground with other people of good will and raise families which IS by the way where our future racial existence lies.

I dont mean to ignite another conflict over this, because it is self defeating disunion that is the very objective of the jewish support of the refomration in the first place.  Disunite the European gentiles and fragment them and sooner or later we got endless total war and enfranchisement of jews and liberation of jewry to engage in worldwide usury finance.  So as Ben klassen aplty understood, though I am not a creator, but he aptly understood that our way out of this mess does entail some religious unity.  Tribes that are not unified by religious experience get whipped.  in evopsych terms the form may not matter as much as the fact of unity itself.  I should think that much should be obvious to us all.  Unfortunately protestantism TRAINS us to think about religion as individual choice. that is EXACTLY the mistake in the first place.  It should be a matter of community, tribal, national, even racial choice.  When you leave it all up to the individual then you get all this stupid endless religious conflcit like we have in AMERIKA which is a jewish mercantile construct that was a specific product of Enlgithenment ideas that deliverately atomized society into “indviiduals” evnetually even blasting the family to shreds as we have seen in our generation.  And the jews laugh as ride us like masters since THEY are never so foolish as to believe this individual choice crap and that includes socalled individualist jews like ayn rand that were just as much “collectivists” as anybody.  Remember the fasces—many clans united into a strong bundle of rods—that should be the model of our state and not this idiotic creedal nation horse manure.

Posted by Anty Ep on Wed, 28 Aug 2013 17:13 | #

The Shoah or Holocaust is not a new jewish invention. Revilo Oliver’s the Jewish Strategy is a slim, easily obtained book that details the many exagerrated incidents of reprisals against jews throughout history back to Roman times. 

The jews use both real and imagined tribal poisecyootions to reinforce their tribal identity. 

The idea that refuting the specific falsehoods entaield iin the holocaust propaganda means that one has to reject religion as such, does not follow. 

Religion and history are not the same and only Biblical literalists are fixiated on that notion.  Do you believe that Achilles existed?  I do, but it doesnt matter whehter he did every jot and tittle that Homer recited or not. 

As for resurrections they are typical of hellenic heroes, remember both Odysseus and Orpheus and Herakles and Theseus and Aeneas all go to hades and come back alive.  And speaking of Herakles there you have a mortal who becomes divine.  Are all of these notions just childlike fictions?  I think not and if that is the limits of one’s imagination, most unfortunately for that person. 

I recommend another book about religion, Origins of Christianity, by Revilo Oliver, for anyone seriously contemplating he issue of race and religion. In it he tries to reconcile the self described Aryan religion of Zoroastrian, with its obvious monotheistic and dualistic successor, Christianity, which Oliver resolutely believed was a jewish trojan horse for europeans.  I was not convinced by this book but its discussion was very educational and very enjoyable reading on the topic.

Posted by Leon Haller on Thu, 29 Aug 2013 12:12 | #

Anty Ep,

Good comments. I do not recall having read you here before.

I’ve talked about this stuff a great deal at MR. Bottom line is the same whether you are a Christian or an atheist (I assume, perhaps incorrectly - sociologically, not philosophically - that those are the only serious options for reflective white men): we need to work within the faith to render it compatible with white EGI.

Rejecting the faith is not racially liberating, but annihilating. Some WNs might hope to take lapsed Christians (and ALL whites are, at some historical perspective, former Christians) through atheism to Nazism, but the more usual result is nihilistic hedonism. No God, no ethics, what’s the point?

Religion & Race is an extremely complex subject, which can be looked at from several different angles: theological, sociological, psychological, and historical. I hold that from each of those angles, it is more useful to protect whites by reconstituting (really, cleansing PC heresies) and then using the Faith, than by trying to get whites to shed their faith. The postwar coincidence of European secularization and “l’antiracisme” does not inspire confidence in attacking Christianity as a pro-white strategy.

Posted by Fr. John+ on Sat, 12 Oct 2013 13:52 | #

Anty Ep, you have much to say that is quite good.

But, in any column by James Bowery, logic never is included, because Bowery is a Christophobe, pure and simple. And, because he shares that with the Deicides, he’s nothing but a Jewish shabbas goy- a useful slave.

Yes, Fundies in Prot. land, just don’t ‘get’ the absolute necessity of a united Europe, united by the strands of “One Lord, One Faith, One Baptism” - of course, we’d have to jettison the Papacy as a late medieval accretion, and that would mean going back to conciliar Orthodoxy.

Which, for the filioquist West, is a ‘riddle wrapped in a mystery, surrounded by an enigma’ - to paraphrase.

For, until the West comes to grips with the fallacy of Egalitarianism as an outgrowth of the jettisoning of the Filioque for the Papal Pretensions, they ain’t goin’ nowhere.

Much like Bowery’s blather.

Posted by Al Ross on Sun, 20 Oct 2013 12:14 | #

That preposterous, ring - kissing, Papal vassal, Fr John, offers us a glimpse why, even if we rational Men of the West gave the boot to the Jews, we would still be faced with the universalist, superstitious ignorance of Roman Catholicism.

Posted by Graham_Lister on Sun, 20 Oct 2013 13:28 | #

Is ‘Al Ross’ a Rangers man?

If so then there’s some hope for him

Posted by Al Ross on Mon, 21 Oct 2013 11:19 | #

Well, the answer is a qualified yes.  The Glasgow Academicals were my first team of choice but, as regards football, I was a supporter of the Ibrox team.

I will say this, though, for the Fenians ; their perverse religion was always the most important expression of their Irish Nationalism, so, speaking as an Ethno - nationalist, some admiration is grudgingly offered.

Posted by Desmond Jones on Mon, 21 Oct 2013 21:18 | #

Interesting point Al, undoubtedly the reason why inter-ethnic marriage is nominal in N. Ireland.

Posted by Al Ross on Fri, 25 Oct 2013 02:50 | #

I am sure that you are correct, Desmond, and your point is fortified by the fact that not even one of the leading Protestant Republicans (e.g., Robert Emmet , Wolfe Tone , or R.Erskine Childers) looked to the Irish Catholic community for a bride.

Posted by Zionist collaboration confirmed on Tue, 03 May 2016 07:11 | #

TNO, “Zionists Offered to Fight for Nazis” 30 April 2016:

Not only did the world Zionist movement cooperate with Hitler—as claimed by UK politician Ken Livingstone—but it also formally offered in writing to fight for the Nazis against the British to facilitate a German victory in the Middle East.

Among the leading Zionists who made this offer was Yitzhak Shamir, later Israeli Prime Minister.

The offer to fight for Nazi Germany was made by Avraham “Yair” Stern, the leader of the Zionist terrorist Lehi (“Stern Gang”). Other leaders included Yitzhak Shamir, who later became Prime Miniser of Israel.