Posted by s.e. on Tue, 24 Feb 2009 14:04 | #

The violent tough-man fantasies and apocalyptic daydreams of WN bear a similar stamp: they are minted in the experience of our own powerlessness.

And the daydreams of MR? Subtilization hasn’t removed anyone from the dialectic of powerlessness.

Great post. Totally cleanses the bad taste in the mouth left by Big Von’s ridiculous scribblings. One can identify with this post. That’s the most important thing. That, and it doesn’t raise the blood pressure.

Posted by Darren on Tue, 24 Feb 2009 14:30 | #

Indeed. Many people channel Nietzsche but understand him so poorly.

Posted by the Narrator... on Tue, 24 Feb 2009 16:32 | #

I see quite nakedly - as I’m sure the older and wiser posters saw in me - the amoralism, the power-worship, and deferral to instinct which kicks about in the posts of certain people (most recently, The Narrator). People who learn this kind of morality make terrible sheep, and can become zealots. This is what happens when you wound trust and cast people out amongst the wolves.

I radically changed from a very trusting and open teenager, perhaps more so than those reading this can conceive, to a withdrawn, recalcitrant, distrustful person. I swung very far in the opposite direction. At the same time I devoured literature which vindicated an amoralist, Machiavellian perspective: Nietzsche, Machiavelli, Prussian history, what else. At this point in life I was not in white society, I had few white friends and belonged to no white social group. Unlike some, I could not go running back into the arms of a group of white friends or neighbors. My parents and family were my only link but I didn’t trust them either, because they had lied to me.

That you read that into what I wrote is a shame. My point, which has been consistent (though maybe I should have spelled it out, pointedly, in each article) is that morals are not universally shared by the various races.
The general context was never about our (Whites) morality,  which would be a different subject altogether.

Power worship and deferral to instinct are things I would say reflect the natural morals of non-Whites, not Whites. In fact that’s why people such as Obama, King, Mugabee and others develop cult like followings from their sheep like fellow ethnics.
So you didn’t actually read what I wrote but just assumed you knew what I was getting at and ran with that.

Though the attempt at psychoanalysis seems a tad bit contrived and insincere on your part, I’ll respond anyway.
My personal experiences growing up were the complete opposite of yours, at least as you present it above.
I grew up in and still reside in is one of the most culturally, racially and religiously homogeneous (White) areas in North America.
The world I knew growing up was/is a cross between Mayberry and The Waltons.

And for that I’m certainly grateful but the reason I blog and write here is because I know it won’t stay that way forever.

Never really read much of Nietzsche, none of Machiavelli and have had neither the time nor inclination to get into Prussian history.

As far as NS and “The Nazis!!!!”, the discussion around them usually unfolds in a context that casts them as something other within Western History. 
That is what I disagree with.

Discussing Nazi Germany should be no different than discussing Victorian England or The Italian Renaissance.

And though I know Guessedworker disagrees (as we’ve went round and round on this once before) my position is that the general ideals and philosophies within NS were not inconsistent with the whole of European history. NS did not, in general, stand out from Western Civilization or History in a way meaningful enough to find itself used as a scare-adjective today.

In other words there is nothing about German ideals and philosophies between 1914 and 1945 that distinguishes it from collective Western Civilization.
It had its good point and it had its bad points, but it was 100% European.
That is why the left continues to demonize it. For them Nazi Germany is Europe being continually burned if effigy by those who despise The West.

Again, maybe I should have been clearer, but what I’ve written on more than one occasion, is that morals…..are…...not…..universally…shared….among….the….various….races.

Our (WHITE) morals are a completely different conversation.

Hope that clears it up for you.

.

Posted by Prozium on Tue, 24 Feb 2009 18:09 | #

So what exactly is your stance now?

Posted by the Narrator... on Tue, 24 Feb 2009 18:46 | #

So what exactly is your stance now?

Posted by Prozium on February 24, 2009, 05:09 PM

Who?

And on what specifically?

...

Posted by exPF on Tue, 24 Feb 2009 20:37 | #

s.e. wrote

And the daydreams of MR? Subtilization hasn’t removed anyone from the dialectic of powerlessness.

True. But the First International was not the October Revolution.

the Narrator wrote:

Though the attempt at psychoanalysis seems a tad bit contrived and insincere on your part, I’ll respond anyway.

I guess you were a bad choice of someone to pick on. I hoped that the psychological tendencies I outlined, which are MY OWN, would be recognized as generally belonging to many on the far right.
Please don’t feel singled out.

Prozium wrote:

So what exactly is your stance now?

Anybody seen the movie “Alfie” -

Alfie, whats it all about?  That movie is just like this post, if you ponder it deeply enough.

Unfortunately I dont know how to codify my stance in words. I live now as a white amongst whites, but I am acutely aware that the border of our genetic universe is also the border of our metaphysical and moral universe: that the ‘right to a fair trial’ and the ‘right to pursuit of happiness’ and ‘common decency’ are retreating exactly as fast as our allelle frequencies are.

You could say I’ve learned by trial and error the necessity of a clearly divided in-group/out-group morality. I guess thats what this post represents.

And I think in hindsight, if I had been forced to live in black areas, and suffer their depredations, I would never have the tolerance for gangster rap which is a blot on my personality and sparks other whites’ immune responses against me (rightfully). Because I lived amongst middle-easterners and arabs and asians is why I have a blind spot for the ruinous nature of black cultural excesses, I am working presently to excise this blemish.

Posted by exPF on Tue, 24 Feb 2009 20:59 | #

Apologies again to the Narrator, it was an unnecessary and poorly-researched jab.

Posted by s.e. on Tue, 24 Feb 2009 21:42 | #

True. But the First International was not the October Revolution.

Eh. I thought MR-type rhetoric had at least got past drawing easy historical parallels to disguise all the wishful thinking. Then again, if you’re hinting at guerrilla action against the White House and wholesale murder of American elites, I’m quite willing to play along and wish you the best.

I guess you were a bad choice of someone to pick on.

Captainchaos seemed more appropriate.

that the ‘right to a fair trial’ and the ‘right to pursuit of happiness’ and ‘common decency’ are retreating exactly as fast as our allelle frequencies are.

Or they’re not, and at least the conscious remnant will suffer all the more for it. I’ve never believed our genes or precious bodily fluids are in danger of actually disappearing, because races don’t really disappear, contrary to the rhetoric of historians and talk of “genocide”. Red-herring, the whole “extinction” meme. Look at Brazil (instead of just using it as a foil): plenty of whites, but totally “brazilianized” in culture. This is all that will happen with northern whites. Fifty, sixty years down the road, no one will remember what you talked about here. I suspect very little will be remembered. But there will still be plenty of white genes around, just completely past the deracination stage — the birth pangs of the Jewish Reich — more thoroughly “americanized”.

For perhaps it is fear that prompts one to believe and assert that our genes are retreating in tandem with our mores: for what is left over will be that much more vulnerable, and one must hopefully imagine that the genes, the bodies, the people themselves, whom one idealizes, will also disappear — sparing them.

I can’t wait for it, personally. The harder it gets, the more I savor life in this era. Fear and learnéd hand-wringing are just not the right response for me.

Posted by s.e. on Tue, 24 Feb 2009 22:07 | #

And I think in hindsight, if I had been forced to live in black areas, and suffer their depredations, I would never have the tolerance for gangster rap which is a blot on my personality

Perhaps it isn’t a blot — perhaps you’re ahead of the curve. How many know what you do yet are also able to appreciate bestial nigger garbage? Surely there’s something to be worked out there, and not “excised” to fit in better with the racialist gang. You’re adapted, don’t you see: this is an advantage in modern society. You are more a part of it than we are.

I have a friend, most brilliant guy I know, writes correct poetry down to the iamb in a dozen meters, but who initially struggled with sounding too artificial in his poems. Eventually he lost interest in his own purity and began introducing trash from the other side of his brain into it — ebonics, blues, anti-Semitism, racism, pornography, all of his base instincts and thoughts, hatreds, everything. He came to see all of this as equally relevant to his being, his position in a corrupt society, as indeed it is. He stopped hiding from kwa, from the nigger, stopped wishing he were dirty inside and the world were politer, whiter, cleaner. He embraced his inner nigger, and became a poet.

Reconsider your guilt on this point. Ideological purity isn’t worth dick out there. Instead of wishing you were pure, consider if there is a way to harness one thing to the other, or somehow turn your impurity to account. Roll widdit dawg.

Posted by s.e. on Tue, 24 Feb 2009 22:09 | #

*weren’t dirty

Posted by the Narrator... on Tue, 24 Feb 2009 22:24 | #

Apologies again to the Narrator, it was an unnecessary and poorly-researched jab.

Posted by exPF on February 24, 2009, 07:59 PM

That’s okay. You don’t have to apologize for critiquing or disagreeing with what I’ve written. I was just responding to what I perceived to be a misunderstanding of what I’d written.

Going back and forth is how we sharpen our arguments.

So no hard feelings at all….

.

Posted by Captainchaos on Tue, 24 Feb 2009 23:07 | #

s.e.: “Captainchaos seemed more appropriate.”

Is there something you want to say to me, you pretentious fuck? 

Defeatism is hip, how clever.  LOL!

Posted by exPF on Tue, 24 Feb 2009 23:10 | #

s.e.,

You bring some interesting perspectives.

Eh. I thought MR-type rhetoric had at least got past drawing easy historical parallels to disguise all the wishful thinking. Then again, if you’re hinting at guerrilla action against the White House and wholesale murder of American elites, I’m quite willing to play along and wish you the best.

I see this as effectively the same as saying: if MR’s writers cannot effect political change, they may as well not write. If we remain politically powerless, we might as well just cease to exist and take down the blog. Since I believe in the power of ideas, I don’t see that as being true.

I have a friend, most brilliant guy I know, writes correct poetry down to the iamb in a dozen meters, but who initially struggled with sounding too artificial in his poems. Eventually he lost interest in his own purity and began introducing trash from the other side of his brain into it — ebonics, blues, anti-Semitism, racism, pornography, all of his base instincts and thoughts, hatreds, everything. He came to see all of this as equally relevant to his being, his position in a corrupt society, as indeed it is. He stopped hiding from kwa, from the nigger, stopped wishing he were dirty inside and the world were politer, whiter, cleaner. He embraced his inner nigger, and became a poet.

I know too well what you’re talking about, and how white men are taught to interpret their own Dionysian (call it what you will) wildness, or excesses, or indulgences, as being part and parcel of the ‘niggah’ within them. Its the same, in my view, as white women who view black men as being symbolic of the ultimate carnal act, and a vehicle to experience the darker side of their natures.

Ultimately, I think all of this soils us and makes us insipid. Whites should be proud of their culture and practice it to the exclusion of other cultures. We only do this because we are sold a false view of our historical culture, which was supposedly inflexible, rigid, autocratic and repressive. I now no longer believe that to be true. I view this as a blot upon myself regardless of what other people think.

Roll widdit dawg.

I don’t know how old you are. I’m in my mid-twenties.
I’m going to have children one day, and I can’t see myself starting a family with this kind of mindset that I can somehow accept the negrification of our culture, and affirm it as if it is going to be a net-positive for those of us agile enough to thrive.

I can’t wait for it, personally. The harder it gets, the more I savor life in this era. Fear and learnéd hand-wringing are just not the right response for me.

Can’t wait for what? You dont even know what the future is going to hold, how can you eagerly anticipate it? What in particular are you longing for: third world economic status, to be ethnically
cleansed from where you live, or to be encroached upon by ever expanding slums? Do you really admire Brazilian culture, or do you just use it in arguments?

I have a hard time believing that this is anything beyond tough-man posturing. Do you have loved ones? Are you going to start a family? One day you (maybe) are going to have a little daughter.

Whats life going to be like for her? At any rate, I respectfully disagree with you on most of what you said. It is a clever attitude however because it allows one to affirm the disastrous developments of our present day, this attitude must give you some kind of psychological comfort. I suppose the pressure of developments is such that there would be a psychological incentive to perform such a contortion of viewpoint until the coming disasters actually looked desirable.

“Bring it on” you are essentially saying to the future. Well, I am fearful.

Posted by Guessedworker on Wed, 25 Feb 2009 00:19 | #

s.e: I’ve never believed our genes or precious bodily fluids are in danger of actually disappearing, because races don’t really disappear, contrary to the rhetoric of historians and talk of “genocide”.

Genocide isn’t an absolute.  Check the terms of the UN Convention.  The re-appraise what we are saying with regard to genetic continuity and the possession of homeland.

Posted by s.e. on Wed, 25 Feb 2009 00:29 | #

Since I believe in the power of ideas, I don’t see that as being true.

My point was that WN ideas are inescapably ether-bound. There is no money or power to enfranchise them in the political sphere: they are subpolitical. Lenin had his seething masses, we do not, so the parallel fails. You put your finger on something that has always alienated me from the WN gang and you expressed it so gingerly that no one seems to have noticed: you said that WN is a reflex of disenfranchisement, weakness, impotence — and for just this reason the rhetoric runs to the grandiose, to delusions of future empowerment. But you a draw a line between the bully neo-Nazi WNs and the MR crowd: I would like to do no more than nudge that line a little further to bring you chaps behind it, too. Because once this idea is introduced, there is no effective defense against it for you yourselves: your rhetoric, as part of the WN continuum, is also a discursive reflex of disenfranchisement. No matter that you’re highbrows, the principle holds for all. We are here with our ideas because there’s no way we can be out there in the realm of political power. Your idea is sharper than you’re comfortable with, perhaps. By “subtilization” I meant simply that those grandiose delusions of future empowerment have become, under the deft hand of GW, subtle delusions of imminent or inevitable empowerment. Inevitable is the keyword, here: you’ll remember it from the Hegelians and Marxists, but the difference is that Hegel had the Prussian state, and the Marxists had the masses and revolutionary Jews. We have nothing but blogs. So it just won’t do to fall back on dead paradigms.

If we remain politically powerless, we might as well just cease to exist and take down the blog.

Well, my problem with WN rhetoric is that there isn’t a viable “we” at issue. Modern WN is a child of the internet. I’m unaware of any serious political movement that has transferred from cyberspace to political space. And we’re also talking around the central problem of “the end of history” — the uncomfortable sense that movements and upstart parties aren’t possible at all anymore. There’s a good reason Islamic suicide bombers cut so pathetic a figure against the backdrop of the modern democratic-totalitarian state. We’re even less than that. There is no transition from here to anything GW or anyone imagines. There are just words, words, words, and more words.

Its the same, in my view, as white women who view black men as being symbolic of the ultimate carnal act, and a vehicle to experience the darker side of their natures.

In terms of sexual transgression, though, that isn’t false. Unsightly and repugnant, but not false. My point was simply that a good many of us will have absorbed trash culture. It is our culture, after all. We didn’t invent it, we didn’t sell it, we didn’t choose it for ourselves, but we were raised in it, and culture is not choice, just as race is not choice. A man’s character is his fate, Heraclitus said. Though my views aren’t too different from anybody’s here, the fact that I express myself differently dogs me wherever I turn: I’m not interested in shoving a stick any farther up my ass to become more dogmatic, more “pure”, more fascistic in bearing. I don’t want to become a receptacle for IQ statistics and obscure dates relating to slavery and immigration. I don’t want to affect a “vatic” pomo style like GW or be a tuffguy heresey-hunter like CC. These are problems of personality, not so much doctrine (though I’m much closer to GW in that respect). Point is: adapt your knowledge to your personality, not your personality to a body of knowledge.

Ultimately, I think all of this soils us and makes us insipid. Whites should be proud of their culture and practice it to the exclusion of other cultures.

I don’t believe “culture” is something one practices. One practices rites, but then, white kulchur as envisioned by many WNs does have the air of ritual.

Can’t wait for what? You dont even know what the future is going to hold, how can you eagerly anticipate it?

I’m pretty sure the prospects are grim and the future will hold nothing but further discomfiture for those of our kind aware of what is going on. Every bimbo, Hallmark card and fortune cookie says approximately the same thing: “You never know what the future will hold.” This is platitude for the sake of emotional rescue: If we “don’t know” how the future will be — as though we suddenly lack all tools and indications for prognosis of any kind! — then it could just as well turn out good as ill, and the whole reason for saying things like this is to lean toward belief in the good. Well, after x years following the decline, reading your blogs, watching you all wring your hands and raise the alarm, I don’t feel anyone is entitled to have the slightest hope, and the maintenance of hope under all the pressures of modern society and despite all your own ferocious worry and doomsaying is highly contradictory, and to me suspect. There’s a logical (and psychological) evasion at this point, I’m saying: either you accept the probable outcome of all the encroaching barbarism you’ve been cataloguing for the past decade (not you in particular perhaps), as night follows day and other such mundane consequential transactions, or nothing’s really so bad after all and there’s no reason for alarm, we’re going to win anyway. Huge semantic problems in all this. WNs are unwilling to consider that their rhetoric arose from disenfrachisement and its orbit is exactly that of a resentful disenfranchised class. Unwilling to consider that they turn away from their own doomsaying rhetoric when it comes time to speculate on probability of success or the mere possibility of genuine resistance, where they become unreflectively positive. Either it is that bad or it isn’t: you tell me. Because if is, we’re very far past the point of no return; and if it isn’t, we have not nearly so much to worry about.

What in particular are you longing for: third world economic status, to be ethnically
cleansed from where you live, or to be encroached upon by ever expanding slums?

All of the above. I’m dead serious: I welcome macro- and micro-catastrophe. You’re the ones who say “it’s got to get worse before it gets better”. I’m just filling in the missing emotional component, the thrill of being a target, of being hunted and forced to try and survive for once. I don’t want to wake up thirty years from now and still be reading MR. Do you? We should all hope things get very, very much worse, as indeed they will. So fate makes us dance a little?

I have a hard time believing that this is anything beyond tough-man posturing. Do you have loved ones? Are you going to start a family? One day you (maybe) are going to have a little daughter.

Not for me. I have neither the money nor the standing in society to make a go of fatherhood. Nor do my precious white sisters have eyes for me. Big frowny face there: I was so looking forward to spending my hard-earned on perfumy shit and insurance. But I don’t know if it’s tough-man posturing. Certainly it is posturing, but probably not tough-man. We’re each of us guilty of some kind of posturing, of course. I’m suggesting a different kind, one less dependent on verbiage and the trappings of society for wresting a bit of contentment from this long disease. Again, if society is as bad as we say, as it looks, then we can’t just harbor the same old bourgeois expectations of life within it. That would be stupid, romantic, sandcastles at high tide. Something has to go ...... is it gangsta rap or one’s cherished dreams of domestic fulfilment?

Do you really admire Brazilian culture, or do you just use it in arguments?

You misread me there. Never expressed admiration for Brazilian culture. It’s rather WNs who use “Brazil” in arguments, or rather alarmist rhetoric (“brazilianization”, relying on a false idea of that country). And here again is a contradiction in the WN belief system: some use “Brazil”, this ghastly image of a totally mongrelized state, to preach to the choir about the dangers of miscegenation, while others romanticize the whites of southern Brazil as “pure”, “racist”, worth living among, or whatever. MY point was that the millions of Brazilian whites are culturally “brazilian”, not “white”, despite the usual trappings of affluence and respectability. But they are still white bodies and are in no danger of disappearing or miscegenating into the mythical “mystery meat” of WN alarmists. I contend that American whites are in no such danger, either. That isn’t to say they aren’t in danger of becoming ever more negrified or dissociative.

It is a clever attitude however because it allows one to affirm the disastrous developments of our present day, this attitude must give you some kind of psychological comfort.

Naturally. I’ve tried in my awkward way to point out how yours does for you. But that’s just the thing: having a cute little daughter isn’t as viable as affirming the situation. Instead of chaining a little girl to my ankle, which is unrealistic anyway, I am saying it is better to break with kwa completely, to not strive to replicate the domestic responsibilities of our families in a worsening society. Pretty simple. I know it flies in the face of protecting our ethny or whatever, but again, I don’t believe whites are in any danger of disappearing. In fact there are no more dangers or future worsenings to worry about: we’re already fucked.

Posted by s.e. on Wed, 25 Feb 2009 00:43 | #

Genocide isn’t an absolute.  Check the terms of the UN Convention.  The re-appraise what we are saying with regard to genetic continuity and the possession of homeland.

That’s fine, and there is no argument against race-replacement, but I don’t believe whites will ever disappear, become rare, “mystery meat” or anything like that.

I’m totally maxed out on the subject, though.

Posted by s.e. on Wed, 25 Feb 2009 00:51 | #

“Bring it on” you are essentially saying to the future. Well, I am fearful.

Hey, so am I at times. We’re both young, both have decades of alienation before us, which at least in my case can only deepen. And that sucks! But, well, I can either pretend all will turn out for the best, pretend I can improve my life on the great sinking ship (which means pretending it’d be worth the effort!), or abandon hope and let it come without a struggle. White nationalism is also an existential problem, seldom explored owing to its obsession with politics. Apparently I’m a real asshole for thinking this way! It’s shocking stuff, not wanting to spend an already uncomfortable life clinging to uncomfortable communitarian idealism.

Anyway, feel free to respond to that monstrous mess of a post above, but I got nothing else. Again, great writing up there — and good luck

doin
yo
THANG

Posted by Fred Scrooby on Wed, 25 Feb 2009 01:04 | #

Notice, pessimists like s.e. have nothing interesting to say.  We’re discussing things they don’t want discussed.  That’s what their “contribution” boils down to.  Sorry, I like discussing it.

Posted by Captainchaos on Wed, 25 Feb 2009 01:11 | #

s.e.: “But, well, I can either pretend all will turn out for the best, pretend I can improve my life on the great sinking ship (which means pretending it’d be worth the effort!), or abandon hope and let it come without a struggle.”

Of course that is the false dichotomy you offer, because you want us to give in; because it serves YOUR ethnic genetic interests that we do so.

“White nationalism is also an existential problem, seldom explored owing to its obsession with politics.”

Even in the stage of armed revolution we would need a quasi-political command structure.  Stop striving to attain the means to get real power and just wallow in “existential” gloom this non-White piece of shit says.  LOL! 

Get this shithead, Jedi Mind Fuck no workee.  Got that? 

At least it doesn’t work on Whites who are not weak-minded ass-clowns. 

It is REAL defiance that will break our enemies, you know that, that is why you council despair.

Posted by skeptical on Wed, 25 Feb 2009 01:36 | #

Touching upon s.e.‘s point that history has ended and that political movements aren’t possible anymore, I would like to add that to a certain extent this was Evola’s idea as well.  He thought that we were undergoing a long process of dissolution, which in his thinking started centuries ago and is synonymous with the Hindu concept of “Kali Yuga”, and that any kind of rebirth would be impossible until this destructive phase was over.

To put the best face on it, I think that the budding online WN community is an early sign that our people’s dissolutive cycle is coming to an end, and that we will begin awkwardly asserting ourselves sometime soon (say within the next few decades).  Whatever else can be said about the online WN community, it is at least a new phenomenon in that it’s attracted people who have no connection (real or imagined) with the nationalist scene of the 60s/70s.

However, I don’t agree with the notion that crazed Nietzschean fantasies are a natural outgrowth of powerlessness and frustration.  There are more than a few groups out there which are powerless and frustrated but don’t exhibit the kinds off grandiose fantasy that certain WNs fall victim to.

Posted by exPF on Wed, 25 Feb 2009 02:07 | #

s.e.,

My point was that WN ideas are inescapably ether-bound. There is no money or power to enfranchise them in the political sphere: they are subpolitical. Lenin had his seething masses, we do not, so the parallel fails. You put your finger on something that has always alienated me from the WN gang and you expressed it so gingerly that no one seems to have noticed: you said that WN is a reflex of disenfranchisement, weakness, impotence — and for just this reason the rhetoric runs to the grandiose, to delusions of future empowerment. But you a draw a line between the bully neo-Nazi WNs and the MR crowd: I would like to do no more than nudge that line a little further to bring you chaps behind it, too. Because once this idea is introduced, there is no effective defense against it for you yourselves: your rhetoric, as part of the WN continuum, is also a discursive reflex of disenfranchisement. No matter that you’re highbrows, the principle holds for all

Are you really interested in the parallel between WN and Marxism? What were the perspectives for Marxism in 1880? How ‘doomed’ did marxist socialism appear in 1880?

You’re essentially bluffing that you know the limits of what is politically possible, and prognosticate a lack of any political mass movements in the future, at least that’s what I’m reading in your reply.

As far as MR being an expression of the disenfranchised - I think thats not the radically new thesis you are presenting it as. We at MR are (in my opinion) in no way better, and in most ways not fundamentally different, from many other expressions of resurgent white ethnonationalism in the west.

How does that constitute an objection to MR or WN?

Well, my problem with WN rhetoric is that there isn’t a viable “we” at issue. Modern WN is a child of the internet. I’m unaware of any serious political movement that has transferred from cyberspace to political space.

Again, you are demanding political power in order to justify our existence. Mock it all you want, but what would the Civil rights have been without Boas? What would have happened in Russia if Marx hadn’t written? It is permitted to philosophize without being oneself a philosopher-King. We don’t have to have our hands on the levers of power in order to think about life and the state. Ideas didn’t stop having effects after 1960.

Either it is that bad or it isn’t: you tell me. Because if is, we’re very far past the point of no return; and if it isn’t, we have not nearly so much to worry about

Thats clearly a false dichotomy.

I have neither the money nor the standing in society to make a go of fatherhood. Nor do my precious white sisters have eyes for me. Big frowny face there: I was so looking forward to spending my hard-earned on perfumy shit and insurance. But I don’t know if it’s tough-man posturing. Certainly it is posturing, but probably not tough-man.

I’m a man, all pretty post-modernist critiques aside. You know when you tell me you cant earn money, cant get a good job, and cant get a girl- you know that despite whatever intellectualism you can muster I have to suspect you to be a pitiful wretch.

But, well, I can either pretend all will turn out for the best, pretend I can improve my life on the great sinking ship (which means pretending it’d be worth the effort!), or abandon hope and let it come without a struggle. White nationalism is also an existential problem, seldom explored owing to its obsession with politics. Apparently I’m a real asshole for thinking this way!

The fact that you view your alternatives as: 1) pretending to live in candyland
or 2) giving up all hope, show that you lack a manly character which can perservere
in the face of struggle.

Real men don’t need guarantees of success before they exert themselves, they are happy
to toil in the service of a just cause. Men can tolerate risk and uncertainty,
and have the patience to struggle under duress.

Posted by Armor on Wed, 25 Feb 2009 02:43 | #

I would like to add that to a certain extent this was Evola’s idea as well.  He thought that we were undergoing a long process of dissolution, which in his thinking started centuries ago and is synonymous with the Hindu concept of “Kali Yuga” (—Skeptical)

I think reading Evola is probably a waste of time. We have to be optimistic and practical.

Whatever else can be said about the online WN community, it is at least a new phenomenon in that it’s attracted people who have no connection (real or imagined) with the nationalist scene of the 60s/70s.

Even if there had never been white nationalists before, there would still be people today trying to resist the race-replacement policy. It is not about maintaining the traditions of the WN scene. What matters is to stop and reverse the immigration policy.

Posted by Lurker on Wed, 25 Feb 2009 03:59 | #

Get this shithead, Jedi Mind Fuck no workee.  Got that?

Nice one Cap’n, made me laugh.

From his first comment, I mentally wrote off s.e. as an irritant.

Posted by exPF on Wed, 25 Feb 2009 04:28 | #

LOL @ Captain Chaos’s replies to s.e.

Posted by skeptical on Wed, 25 Feb 2009 05:00 | #

Armor,

From my point of view it is an encouraging sign that the bulk of the recently formed online WN community has minimal connection with old nationalist scene, that we are working with social energies that are only beginning to externally manifest themselves is encouraging (in contrast to the failed nationalist movements of yesteryear).

I think reading Evola is probably a waste of time. We have to be optimistic and practical.

I’ve found Evola to be a mixed bag.  His commentary on dissolution, as a cyclical epoch, seems correct to me; however, his idealization of our hierarchical past seems more a reflection of his bitterness over the demise of European aristocracy (the remnants of which he was descended from).  Certainly, many aspects of human history betray cyclical qualities, such as the rise and fall of ancient empires.

Evola is no different from any thinker in that the reader needs to separate the good from the bad in reading his work.

Posted by Armor on Wed, 25 Feb 2009 07:36 | #

Skeptical,

I haven’t read Evola. What I know of him amounts to one blog article I read last week: Les hommes qui tournent en rond, by Hervé Ryssen. It means: “Men who go round in circles” (as a gold fish in its bowl).

In his book “Ride the Tiger” (1961), Evola says it is no use fighting when a cycle of civilization is nearing its end. At that point, the correct course of action may be to give up direct action and retreat to an inner defensive position. A resurrection is supposed to occur in the next cycle. According to Ryssen, this is a suicidal tactic. Meanwhile, the Jewish project is to speed up the end of our current civilization, with no future resurrection on the cards: it will just be the end of history, and the end of every civilization. From then on, there will be a unique world government.

Evola is just as fatalistic about the destruction of the patriarchal family cell. He says it is absurd to think that we can take effective measures to stop the phenomenon. Evola refused to notice that Jewish movie makers had obviously been encouraging divorce, adultery, hedonism, even pornography. At the same time, he criticized the Church for being anti-sex.

In “Men Among the Ruins” (1953), Evola did mention judaism and the forces of moral subversion. In “Revolt Against the Modern World” (1934), he even had a brief spell of lucidity and admitted that “revolutions are not spontaneous”. “The fact is that those people can see far ahead”, he wrote. Another quote from the same book: “This world is such that it can not be a basis for anything”. And from “Ride the Tiger” (1961): “The only remaining prospect is of an invisible unity through the world, beyond the borders, of those rare individuals who possess the same nature, different from today’s man, and the same inner law”.

Evola must have written interesting things or he would not be so well known, but it can not be said that he offered a good strategy to save the white man. In the same blog entry, Ryssen mentions Alain de Benoist, René Guénon, Nietzsche, Guillaume Faye, Oswald Spengler and a few others, besides Evola. His criticism is the same for the lot of them. He thinks they are intellectually myopic: “They can’t believe that Jewish propaganda and Jewish influence through the media can explain the decadence of Western civilization. It is too simple, barely good enough for narrow-minded, paranoiac Christian cranks. The truth is that Jewish intellectuals have succeeded in making them ashamed of being antisemites. That is why they had to rack their brains to explain decadence by draping themselves in philosophy.”

Another Ryssen quote: “Once more, the reader feels that our civilizational slump is a natural phenomenon. Jewish influence in the movies is never mentioned to explain how homosexuality became so common, for example. Even though it is the only possible explanation.”

Two excerpts from the end of Ryssen’s blog article :

Time to get down from the mountain top

We are dying from those intellectuals, who not only invite us to stay inactive, to try nothing to fight our enemies, but moreover, who spit on the religion of our forefathers, because they are too cowardly, have too much of a bourgeois mentality, to denounce the source of our troubles.

Learned nationalist activists are not initiated thinkers who meditate alone at the top of the mountain, but priests whose duty is to go meet the people, instruct the people, find men and women who will understand the world, radiate their knowledge and march forward with us, bringing the others along.

Posted by Mac on Wed, 25 Feb 2009 09:42 | #

Great essay, PF.  Your experience parallels in many respects my own (though I never had the slightest appreciation for rap, beyond noting that white rappers were invariably the best). 

I think this is a crucial and very well-put point:

I am acutely aware that the border of our genetic universe is also the border of our metaphysical and moral universe: that the ‘right to a fair trial’ and the ‘right to pursuit of happiness’ and ‘common decency’ are retreating exactly as fast as our allelle frequencies are.

The interrelation of genetics and morality/law is a fascinating issue.  It’s obvious that a racially mixed America is utterly incompatible with historical American/Caucasian law and morality. 

Evidence of this is growing by leaps and bounds. 

I doubt this organization is anything more than a tool of the egalitarians, but the concept has potential:

http://law.vanderbilt.edu/seal/index.htm

Posted by danielj on Wed, 25 Feb 2009 11:45 | #

s.e.: but I don’t believe whites will ever disappear, become rare, “mystery meat” or anything like that.

I bet the Arawaks thought the same thing and look where they are. People often don’t want to believe the shocking and horrific truth that is right in front of their eyes…. Cognitive dissonance or something.

Posted by theorist on Wed, 25 Feb 2009 14:04 | #

And the signs of times proclaim that the day He — Kalki — will appear, is drawing nigh.

He will appear when all but the last and toughest of the natural Aryan aristocracy — His chosen compagnons at arms — have definitely taken the way to the abyss. And all but the chosen few are rapidly taking that way.

A more and more glaring sign of fate is to be observed in the shocking increase of the population of the globe from year to years; specially in the increase of the lower races and in the rapid bastardisation of the higher ones and the resulting accelerated fall of the whole of mankind to the level of an enormous unthinking herd.
...
Upon the surface of this unfortunate planet, which is loosing with alarming rapidity its once so broad and thick mantle of forests; of this unfortunate planet, where whole species of proud wild creatures — the aristocracy of the animal world — have already been or are being, with no less speed, wiped away, — killed off to the last, — one notices an increasingly obnoxious and steadily expanding swarm of dreary (when not positively ugly) vulgar, silly, worthless two-legged mammals. And the more worthless they are, the quicker they breed. The sickly and the dull have more children than the healthy and bright; the inferior races, and the people who have no race at all, definitely more than the hundred per cent Aryan; and the down-right rotten — afflicted both with hereditary diseases and racially undefinable blood — are, more often than not, terrifyingly fertile.

- http://www.savitridevi.org/lightning-16.html

Posted by Guessedworker on Wed, 25 Feb 2009 14:10 | #

Armor,

So this Ryssen character is a real champion of the Jewish Single Cause.  By his analysis the problem is Jewish-inspired decadence and not philosophically-abstracted individualism, and therefore no attention need be paid to the last three and half centuries of Western philosophical and political thought.  The effects of the replacement of a poor and largely rural society of religious bondsmen, freemen and barons by a prosperous and secular, urbanised and industrialised society of equals need not detain us.  Just bust the big H, get the Judenhass flowing, and everything will return naturally to its proper place.  As if by magic.  To hell with scholars and seers, to hell with revolutionaries.

How does one get through to such people that, for Jews, the Environment of Evolutionary Adaptiveness is OUR CULTURE, and our present liberal milieu is wholly benign and suited to them.  Hence they are leaders in it.  If you want to disaccomodate them you have to CHANGE that environment wholesale.

It was done in 1933 without sufficient understanding of what that change really entailed.  Idealism and pure fantasy entered where analysis was not.  The philosophical DNA was no good, and the political phenotype was compromised accordingly.  Things were done - murders, landgrabs, enslavements - that in no way constitute a foundation for a sustainable, post-liberal, post-individualist communal life.  The solution to the LQ is Being + Blood + Nation.  It is not free-floating totalitarian politics + ethnic supremacism + violence against our racial enemies.

Posted by theorist on Wed, 25 Feb 2009 14:25 | #

GW: the problem is Jewish-inspired decadence…our present liberal milieu is wholly benign and suited to [Jews]

That ideal is the one forwarded, under one form or another, more and more unmistakably in the course of centuries, by all typical Dark Age leaders “in Time,” in particular, by that most efficient of all agents of the Dark Powers during the last two thousand four hundred years (at least) and specially during the last three or four hundred years: the international Jew.

The advanced Dark Age of this present Time-cycle is the reign of the Jew — of the negative element; of the reverser of eternal values for the sake of “human” ones, and, finally, for that of his own, selfish interests; the reign of the “destroyer of culture,” as Adolf Hitler so rightly pointed out; of the age-old “ferment of disintegration.” It is natural that “ferments of disintegration” should become more and more active — more and more alive — as a Time-cycle nears its end.

- http://www.savitridevi.org/lightning-16.html

Posted by bongoparty5 on Wed, 25 Feb 2009 14:43 | #

Some of you mentioned Brazil. I don’t think the comparison to Brazil is really valid, the whites in Brazil had immigrated mostly in the late 19th and early 20th centuries into a society that was already a mixed race and monocultural. They went into the southeast and Uruguay.  Brazil had been full of mestizos for quite some time before. PS. You’re really boring, s.e.

Posted by Gudmund on Wed, 25 Feb 2009 17:04 | #

The solution to the LQ is Being + Blood + Nation.  It is not free-floating totalitarian politics + ethnic supremacism + violence against our racial enemies.
>GW

If we were to wrest back power, you know very well that it would not be bloodless.  There will be totalitarianism and murder before we are the victors.  That much is unavoidable.  Not something to be welcomed, perhaps, but inevitable if we are to regain power.  There won’t be any Glorious Revolution this time around!

As one Zarathustra at VNN said, it is possible to both a.) be a gentlemen, and b.) support murder and mayhem if necessary.  I agree.  If violence against our racial enemies can be a means to the end that is our victory, I would not shed any tears to see it used for such a noble purpose.  The only blood that matters to me is Euro blood.

Posted by Guessedworker on Wed, 25 Feb 2009 17:26 | #

Gudmund,

You are mixing up self-defence and ethnic aggression.  Were Polish villagers the racial enemies of Hamburg shopkeepers?  NS was a perversion and is useless to us.  We can do better intellectually.

Posted by Gudmund on Wed, 25 Feb 2009 17:49 | #

You are mixing up self-defence and ethnic aggression.  Were Polish villagers the racial enemies of Hamburg shopkeepers?  NS was a perversion and is useless to us.  We can do better intellectually.
>GW

I think you’ve mistaken my intent, GW.  I’m no NS, in fact I’m 1/4 Polish!  I’m all for a purely ontological view of Euro nationalism without all the, as you put it, “peaks and valleys of palingenesis.”

Posted by Fred Scrooby on Wed, 25 Feb 2009 18:15 | #

We’re after recovery of the communal and national ethnoracial homogeneity the (fill in the blank) _______ have stolen from us.  Period.  We will accept no compromise on that.

Posted by Fred Scrooby on Wed, 25 Feb 2009 18:19 | #

And no, Negroes in their aggregate can never become “ethnically” French, Italian, English, German, Russian, or Greek no matter how many years, decades, centuries, or millennia they’ve lived in France, England, Italy, or the rest.  Sorry, Jews.  They can’t.  You can stop trying to ram them down our throats now.  Ram them down your own because we’re, frankly, sick of them and sick of you.

Posted by Armor on Wed, 25 Feb 2009 18:27 | #

GW,
I think that post of yours was much more of a caricature than anything Ryssen might write.

“So this Ryssen character is a real champion of the Jewish Single Cause”

It looks somewhat like that because he focuses on a single aspect of our current problem, which is the Jewish aspect, but it is unlikely he believes in a single cause, since he is clearly not stupid. I don’t think it matters. I’m glad he doesn’t keep repeating, at the end of every sentence, that not all Jews are hostile, and that Jewish activism is not the only problem. It would make his website unreadable. Even if he did believe our problems have a Jewish single cause, which he probably doesn’t, his work would be just as useful, because he gives plenty of interesting perspectives and information that most people would rather keep silent about. It’s like the work of a journalist. I don’t always care what are the political views of a journalist if his article is informative. There is no doubt that Jewish activism plays an important part in our troubles, and there is no good reason to keep silent about that. Complaining about the discrimination against non-Jews in the media will not lead to anti-Jewish pogroms. We need to put a stop to the Jewish overrepresentation in the media and at the top of our public institutions. It is a reasonable, achievable objective. By contrast, trying to address the social problems induced by industrialization and the end of rural society is much more complicated. There may be something to the miasma and zeitgeist theories, but it is much more easy to take action against identified viruses. (No, I’m not suggesting the use of violence against Jews and leftists). Non-Jews need to have their own non-Jewish media. Who prevents us from having our own entirely non-Jewish TV-stations? I think it is mainly the Jews. It doesn’t matter whether the presence of Jews is sufficient to destroy the West, whether it is a necessary but insufficient condition, or whether it isn’t a necessary condition at all. It is easy to see that they are very active in organizing our race-replacement, and there must be a reaction against that.

I like to see pictures of Julius Evola with his “aristocratic monocle”. But I agree with Ryssen that there is something ridiculous in the myopia of our intellectuals. Ryssen didn’t say that Evola is a waste of time, I did. And he didn’t say that “no attention need be paid to the last three and half centuries of Western philosophical and political thought”. He took the pain to read many books, which I didn’t. I think he is right to poke fun at some of the authors. His criticism is down-to-earth and I am unlikely to get that kind of refreshing honesty from most intellectuals.

“It was done in 1933 / murders, landgrabs, enslavements”

You should write that in a separate post.
Ryssen does not approve of violence.

“Just bust the big H, get the Judenhass flowing, and everything will return naturally to its proper place.  As if by magic.”

One big problem we have is the toxic ideology of the media. Having alternative TV stations to give our point of view would not solve everything from the beginning, but it would save many people from the brainwashing and would make it possible to address the problems publically. (I’m told that having our own TV stations would indicate that we have won already).

Getting our own European media will be like the declaration of independence by the USA. Did they think it would make every problem disappear, as if by magic? At least, it gave them more leverage.

Posted by Armor on Wed, 25 Feb 2009 18:44 | #

But anyway, we are not only concerned with our continued existence as a race/races, not merely seeking to avoid complete racial annihilation (—Loriver)

In Brittany, some people are fascinated by the idea that the last natural Breton speaker raised in a rural setting may not die before 2050. They are going to wait until 2050, and they will put a big headline in the newspaper.

In fact, it is much more important to notice that the total number of speakers has dwindled from 1,3 million speakers a century ago to less than 200,000 today. Others are glad that the language has been clearly described in grammars and dictionaries, together with recorded samples of the pronunciation. It’s like keeping a copy of the European genome in a laboratory.

Posted by skeptical on Wed, 25 Feb 2009 18:56 | #

Armor,

I only agree with less than half of what Evola wrote, but I nonetheless found his perspective to be a refreshing break from what our poisonous media offers and the endless back-and-forth between online commenters.

However, there can be no doubt that we are living in a cycle of cultural dissolution, I think there is a kernel of truth in Evola’s remarks here.  In fact, I am firmly convinced that nothing substantial can be achieved, in terms of reaching & saving our people, unless the nature of our daily existence fundamentally changes.  Between a brainwashed, idiotic public and an inseperable coalition of hate among our society’s major organs we are truly checkmated at this moment.  The hope has always been that some future catastrophe will devastate the texture of our daily life and, in so doing, provide an opening through our activities can finally be productive.

Posted by skeptical on Wed, 25 Feb 2009 19:23 | #

Let me qualify my last statement by saying that Europids living in North America are (for the moment) checkated.

Perhaps something can still be achieved somewhere in the continent within a contemporary societal context, I am not so bold as to speak for all Europids living in Europe.

Posted by Desmond Jones on Wed, 25 Feb 2009 20:16 | #

If this, from MRWiki, is true,

The Polish army and independent [Jewish] Bolshevik units had been merrily slaughtering anything or anybody German since at least as early as April 1939, with smaller incidents stretching back to the close of WW I. Germany had protesting in writing to the League of Nations literally dozens of times with no results (Hitler’s speech). Germany was eventually forced to invade Poland after the Polish and Russian NKVD Jews, confident that Poland would quickly defeat Germany and expecting to take possession of German farms and businesses, stepped up their slaughter of Germans in the Danzig corridor. An estimated 58,000 German civilians lost their lives in the massacres carried out prior to the 1939 German invasion of Poland.

then the answer to this,

Were Polish villagers the racial enemies of Hamburg shopkeepers?

is “yes”.

Whether NS is useless to “us” is another question. However, to classify it as a perversion, under those circumstances, is deceitful, pure and simple.

Posted by Captainchaos on Wed, 25 Feb 2009 22:20 | #

Desmond Jones: “Whether NS is useless to “us” is another question. However, to classify it as a perversion, under those circumstances, is deceitful, pure and simple.”

Desmond, do you admire the Nazis?

Posted by Desmond Jones on Wed, 25 Feb 2009 23:29 | #

It is admirable to defend your people against ethnic cleansing.

Posted by Guessedworker on Wed, 25 Feb 2009 23:55 | #

Desmond, CC,

Are political gangsterism, military aggression, the theft of others’ lands, and the murder and enslavement of their populations perverse?  Of course - it’s not an issue worth debating - look at the propaganda it has handed our enemies today.  But German-American nationalists exhibit a strong will to debate it.

I can understand the desire to remove the abominable stain from the German national character.  But some of that stain cannot be removed.

The pity is that intelligent and otherwise honourable men do not stop in their defence of NS at the economic and social gains for Germany’s own people, but instead throw in their lot with the two million men who crossed the Polish border in Case White.  The only useful question is: can the economic and social gains be manufactured without the perversity, and of course they can.

Posted by Guessedworker on Thu, 26 Feb 2009 00:24 | #

Gudmund,

Apologies for the hair-trigger mentality.

Armor,

Apart from de Benoist, Carl Schmitt and possibly also Richard Walther Darre and Ernst Juenger, whom I need to research, I am disinterested in the stream of broadly nationalist/anti-liberal thought which flowed through the late 19th and 20th centuries.  I should add Martin Heidegger who I am now just beginning to discover - to a degree rediscovering - at the prompting of (our) Dasein.

So not only Evola but Francis Parker Yockey, Savitri Devi, Niekisch, Moeller van den Bruck, the Strassers, Serrano, Jean-Francois Thiriart, Rene Guenon and Frithjof Schuon are all lost on me.

Posted by Desmond Jones on Thu, 26 Feb 2009 00:48 | #

Of course alleged perversity is irrelevant. It is not the reason the English waged war upon Germany. If it had been, they would not have left their beloved Polish compatriots to the mercy of the NS ‘beast’ with nary a shot fired. It is a retrospective view masquerading as the prospective. The ineradicable abominable stain, the death of nationalism in Europe, America and the white Dominions, is not solely Germany’s.

Posted by Captainchaos on Thu, 26 Feb 2009 00:53 | #

GW,

What reliable evidence can you cite that there actually was a Generalplan Ost?  Colin Laney and Desmond Jones deny that such a thing existed.

The veracity or not of Generalplan Ost decides the virtue of Nazism and the Nazis for me.

Posted by Guessedworker on Thu, 26 Feb 2009 01:19 | #

CC: The veracity or not of Generalplan Ost decides the virtue of Nazism and the Nazis for me.

Why?  A man is judged primarily by his actions, not by his plans.

Posted by Guessedworker on Thu, 26 Feb 2009 01:30 | #

Desmond,

1. You began by stating that the claim of perversity was deceitful, pure and simple.  I then asked a question: Are political gangsterism, military aggression, the theft of others’ lands, and the murder and enslavement of their populations perverse?

Despite the apparent simplicity of the task, you have yet to demonstrate that the aforementioned murderous National Socialist delights were not perverse but, on the contrary, just and fair.

I am waiting.

2. The question as to why Britain and France sought to limit German expansionism is not material to the political and philosophical meaning of German actions in the east (ie, they were perverse).  Let’s keep this on the island.

Posted by Captainchaos on Thu, 26 Feb 2009 02:01 | #

GW: “Why?  A man is judged primarily by his actions, not by his plans.”

The truth about Nazism matters because European nationalism is effectively bludgeoned with the accusation of “Nazi”. 

And if it is actions that matter, and not plans, it seems to me, that the Allies actually carried out in many ways against Germans what it is alleged that Germans intended to carry out against Slavs.  Where is the inexpungible guilt of the Allies, or is that best swept under the rug? 

If Generalplan Ost is a lie, do “Krauts” deserve to be smeared with it?  If the wanton destruction of Dresden did happen, what collective guilt do “Limeys” rightly assume?

Posted by Desmond Jones on Thu, 26 Feb 2009 08:40 | #

CC,

It’s not about “the inexpugnable guilt of the Allies,” it’s about how you shake loose your nationalism from the Nazi moniker. It’s about English moral supremacy. If you can assure your potential converts that your nationalist goals are moral and not perverse, like the Nazis, then Bob’s your uncle. First it starts with “We were not ignoble to our Jews”. However, worshiping at the Church of Holocaustianity is a non-starter, especially in the WN world. So what’s a good nationalist to do? Worship at the Church of Slavocaustianity, of course. It plays well with white nationalists. It’s an easy convert because the whole propaganda machine is already there. Eliding retrospective and prospective is fairly easy. The duplicitous nature of the phony commitment to the Poles is little known. It matters not that the English dropped pamphlets instead of bombs or the French ran like a bear in a brier batch when the fighting started. It matters little that there was a complicit cover-up of Soviet war crimes against the Poles. It matters not that Polish women were abandoned to Ivan’s rapacious Asiatic hordes. It matters not that Stalin’s Jews furthered the persecution of Polish nationalists after the war, because the Germans were just so much more evil, the epitome of moral debasement.

Moreover, what happens if the whole house of cards tumbles down? What happens if the grand plan for the mass messianic murder of Slavs never existed? What happens if the message posted on MRwiki, that the Germans invaded Poland not to steal land, or murder and enslave populations, but simply to protect their own, is true? You are faced with the overwhelming realization that the English, and their loyal colonials (who never really attempted to dissuade them) are the perpetrators, whether they realized it or not, of the worst crime ever served on Euroman. Not a happy thought.

Posted by Guessedworker on Thu, 26 Feb 2009 09:32 | #

CC,

You too need to keep this on the island.  The question is not whether one bad deed excuses another, or whether “saving” Nazi Germany from the art of black propaganda, Allied or post-war Jewish, will make the advocacy for our peoples rights and interests acceptable today.  The question is whether NS has any ideological value in a nationalism of our time.  It doesn’t because it was shockingly perverse, licensing genuine crimes against humanity not even in the exigency of war but straight out of the ideas which formed it.  As such, it is rendered unusable for us.  Our nationalism cannot be National Socialism, and we are not, and can never be, Nazis regardless of the Pavlovian reflexes of any damn fool anti-racist or Jew.  Our rejection of it, in other words, is moral and not driven before the lash of Jewish name-calling.

The way to deal with NS is to parse it as defensive + aggressive ethno-nationalism, and then set aside the social and economic aspects for later consideration.  The rest you put in the dustbin of history, and there is a lot of the rest.

Posted by Guessedworker on Thu, 26 Feb 2009 10:17 | #

Desmond,

Do you want to mistreat Canada’s Jews?  Personally.  In your brown shirt on New Crystal Night.  As a Canadian Army grunt loading them onto trains, and on guard duty at a slave-labour camp?  Is that where you are coming from?

Look, in this game when you are dealt a really crappy moral hand you have two options.  You bluff or you fold.  Right now you are bluffing, trying to switch the argument into something else, trying to avoid the mess you are in.  So I have called you:-

Are political gangsterism, military aggression, the theft of others’ lands, and the murder and enslavement of their populations perverse?

Let’s see your cards.

(MR is not one man’s band, and the Wiki is not my project, btw.  JR wants to direct that in a very specific way, namely he documents “scholarly information on some politically sensitive issues that deserve to be better known” to stir up debate and challenge orthodoxy.  He describes the approach perfectly clearly on the front page.  The overall aim is laudable, and he has my support for that reason).

Posted by Idealist on Thu, 26 Feb 2009 11:18 | #

GW: Are political gangsterism, military aggression, the theft of others’ lands, and the murder and enslavement of their populations perverse?

Throughout history Jews have practiced political gangsterism, military aggression, the theft of others’ lands, and the murder and economic enslavement of their populations far worse than many other peoples.

Thus the Nazi response to these various Jewish aggressions was an entirely appropriate response.

Posted by danielj on Thu, 26 Feb 2009 11:30 | #

Thus the Nazi response to these various Jewish aggressions was an entirely appropriate response.

So we are simply live-by-our-belly reactionaries?

Who is really in control then? Obviously not us if that is the type of behavior we are willing to engage in over some financial and political chicanery.

Something equivalent to the Nuremberg Laws would be acceptable but that is all it would take.

Posted by Gudmund on Thu, 26 Feb 2009 11:35 | #

Desmond Jones,

Stalin was not a Jew and did not serve Jewish interests; in fact he harbored anti-semitic beliefs himself.  He served his own interests.  In his first show trial he had the high-profile Judeo-Bolsheviks Kamenev and Zinoviev executed.  Actually WWII began a trend of Russian nationalism in the USSR that would continue unabated until the collapse - after all, Russians would not fight for Bolshevism but they would fight for Russian blood and soil.  After that many USSR state apparati became Russian nationalist and the Judeo-Bolshevik influence receded.

Posted by Guessedworker on Thu, 26 Feb 2009 12:01 | #

Idealist,

Not Jews.  They had no lands in Europe.  Europeans.

Posted by Silver Supporter on Thu, 26 Feb 2009 14:11 | #

“Are political gangsterism, military aggression, the theft of others’ lands, and the murder and enslavement of their populations perverse?”

Egypt. Akkad. Assyria. Persia. Greece. Carthage. Rome. Islam. The Mongols. The Aztec Empire. The Inca Empire. English/Spanish/French colonialism. Zionism. On and on and on and on.

Is history perverse, GW?

Often, when reading one of your hysterical discourses on “moralism” and the like, I wonder just what peoples have ever passed your bizarre test for “goodness”. I can only think of Aborigines and the Khoisan and such.

Posted by Loriver on Thu, 26 Feb 2009 14:43 | #

Are political gangsterism, military aggression, the theft of others’ lands, and the murder and enslavement of their populations perverse?

Only insofar as they conflict with our genetic interests - surely?

Nazism clearly wasn’t fit for the purpose of furthering German racial interests, in fact it was positively destructive to German and wider European interests, hence it was perverse.

But the theft of the Americas and Australia, that was not perverse. Not unless you think that this led, much further down the line, to our problems now.

If Mr. Guessedworker you consider the answer to this question to be yes, then are you not injecting an arbitrary degree of moralism into our thought? After all, the next question would surely be ‘Is the deportation of individuals born in our country, whose parents were legally allowed to settle here, perverse?’

Posted by Guessedworker on Thu, 26 Feb 2009 15:30 | #

Silver Supporter (perhaps not a supporter of Silver so much as the initials you have Secretly Selected),

The behaviour of elites usually is deeply perverse.  We all understand that, and the rough examples you have provided will, if they are refined and examined closely, very likely turn out to be the crimes of ambitious men - you know, “Yond Cassius has a lean and hungry look”.

But nationalist leaders in a nationalist milieu - a very great rarity - lay claim to a rootedness in the people that no others can or do.  Does that rootedness call forth a certain moral standard, or at least a loyalty to the interests of the people? 

You see, if you accept that nationalism is “for the good of the people” - and you must, really - you are already pitched into a moral debate that includes the dysgenesis and costly entangement of war, the reigning in of elite interests, the place of individual freedom, and so on.  One great and wise English monarch who understood the position in respect to his people was Henry VII.  He avoided the aforementioned costly entanglements, he reigned in the warring barony, and he freed the merchant class to prosper and enrich his coffers and the pockets of lesser men, and all this he did in an age of monarchical absolutism.  If a king can do this in such an age, how much greater is the demand upon the elected in a democratic age.

The meaning of post-war politics in the West can, from our point of view, be reduced to the divorce between politics and the popular good, and nationalism can be reduced to a revolt against, and corrective of, the affront to the natural order and to human justice that flows from that.  Morality cannot be separated from this process.  We cannot say, “the ends justify the means” and commit what crimes we like.  We must be moral so that the foundation we hope to build will be a good and strong one, for ultimately its goodness and strength lives in the hearts of the people who must value and preserve it.

Posted by Desmond Jones on Fri, 27 Feb 2009 00:00 | #

Gudmund,

All three communist leaders who dominated Poland between 1948 and 1956, Jakub Berman, Boleslaw Bierut, and Hilary Minc, were Jews.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boles?aw_Bierut

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

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

Posted by Desmond Jones on Fri, 27 Feb 2009 00:21 | #

The Armia Krajowa (the Home Army, literally translated as the Country’s Army), abbreviated “AK”, was the dominant Polish resistance movement in World War II German-occupied Poland.

Future General Secretary of PZPR, W?adys?aw Gomu?ka, is quoted as saying: “Soldiers of AK are a hostile element which must be removed without mercy”. Another prominent Polish communist, Roman Zambrowski, said that AK had to be “exterminated”.

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

The persecution of AK was only part of the repressions under Stalinism in Poland. In the period of 1944-1956, approximately 2 million people were arrested,[19] over 20,000, including the hero of Auschwitz, Witold Pilecki, were executed or murdered in communist prisons,[19] and 6 million Polish citizens (i.e. every third adult Pole) were classified as a reactionary or criminal element and subject to invigilation by state agencies.[19] In 1956 an amnesty released 35,000 former AK soldiers from prisons: for the crime of fighting for their homeland they had spent sometimes over 10 years in prisons. Even at this time however, some partisans remained in the countryside, unwilling or simply unable to rejoin the community; they became known as the cursed soldiers. Stanis?aw Marchewka “Ryba” was killed in 1957, and the last AK partisan, Józef Franczak “Lalek”, was killed in 1963[19] – almost 2 decades after the Second World War ended. It was only four years later, in 1967, that Adam Boryczka, a soldier of AK and a member of the elite, Britain-trained Cichociemny (“The Silent and Hidden”) intelligence and support group, was released from prison. Until the end of the People’s Republic of Poland AK soldiers remained under investigation by the secret police, and it was only in 1989, after the fall of communism, that the sentences of AK soldiers were finally declared invalid and annulled by the Polish courts.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Home_Army#Post-war

Posted by Captainchaos on Fri, 27 Feb 2009 01:38 | #

If we are to take it all back, all of our lands previously held by our race,  we will need a tribal will to power.  After victory is won, our people will write the history; just as our enemies do now.

Posted by Colin Laney on Fri, 27 Feb 2009 08:54 | #

Moreover, what happens if the whole house of cards tumbles down? What happens if the grand plan for the mass messianic murder of Slavs never existed? What happens if the message posted on MRwiki, that the Germans invaded Poland not to steal land, or murder and enslave populations, but simply to protect their own, is true? You are faced with the overwhelming realization that the English, and their loyal colonials (who never really attempted to dissuade them) are the perpetrators, whether they realized it or not, of the worst crime ever served on Euroman. Not a happy thought.

Desmond,

This is very well and very bravely said on your part. Besides any other comments I may make here, I simply wanted to acknowledge your honesty and your courage. Moroever, your tone is respectful of the profundity of this question. It does not bully its readers or even agitate for a conclusion, but simply states the case plainly. The sole amendment I would make to it would be to say that the US did not simply follow Britain’s lead on the road to war: the decisive nature of America’s intervention in WWI made Roosevelt’s support a major factor in calculations by all parties involved. There are some excerpts up at IHR from David L. Hoggan’s book, The Forced War: The Origins and Originators of WWII which covers each step on the road to the war over Poland: http://www.ihr.org/jhr/v04/v04p205_Hoggan.html

Chamberlain complained to American Ambassador Kennedy after the outbreak of World War II “that America and the world Jews had forced England into the war.” Kennedy himself was convinced that “neither the French nor the British would have made Poland a cause of war if it had not been for the constant needling from Washington.” Kennedy in 1939 was subjected to constant pressure from the American Ambassador at Paris, and he placed primary emphasis on “Bullitt’s urging on Roosevelt in the summer of 1939 that the Germans must be faced down about Poland.” Kennedy was instructed by President Roosevelt on the telephone “to put some iron up Chamberlain’s backside,” a gratuitous instruction because Chamberlain had abdicated control over British policy to Lord Halifax in October 1938. Kennedy, Bullitt, and Roosevelt never succeeded in understanding this situation. They were neither well-informed, nor astute about discovering facts for themselves, and Halifax never chose to confide in them. The subsequent sting of conscience which caused Chamberlain to complain to Kennedy about America and the Jews was an attempt to shift the blame rather than a full confession. He was merely saying in different words that he and his friends might have found the courage to challenge Halifax had not the latter enjoyed the support of President Roosevelt. This was undoubtedly a defensive rationalization, because none of them ever displayed the slightest inclination to oppose Halifax. Furthermore, Halifax had decided upon a policy of war with Germany long before the German occupation of Prague, and before Roosevelt attempted to exert any considerable bellicose pressure on the British leaders. Halifax had stirred Roosevelt against the Germans before Hitler went to Prague, rather than the other way around. Roosevelt was a novice in international affairs compared to Halifax, and it was inconceivable that he could exert a decisive influence on the British Foreign Secretary.

Chamberain’s references to World Jewry’s role in the road to war are recorded at greater length in James Forrestal’s diary: http://userwww.sfsu.edu/~epf/1998/defraga.html

Played golf today with Joe Kennedy. I asked him about his conversations with Roosevelt and Neville Chamberlain from 1938 on. He said Chamberlain’s position in 1938 was that England had nothing with which to fight and that she could not risk going to war with Hitler. Kennedy’s view: That Hitler would have fought Russia without any later conflict with England if it had not been for Bullitt’s urging on Roosevelt in the summer of 1939 that the Germans must be faced down about Poland; neither the French not the British would have made Poland a cause of war if it had not been for the constant needling from Washington… Chamberlain, he says, stated that America and the world Jews had forced England into the war. .. Wha t Kennedy told me in this conversation jibes substantially with the remarks Clarence Dillon had made to me already, to the general effect that Roosevelt had asked him in some manner to communicate privately with the British to the end that Chamberlain sho uld have greater firmness in his dealings with Germany. Dillon told me that at Roosevelt’s request he had talked with Lord Lothian in the same general sense as Kennedy reported Roosevelt having urged him to do with Chamberlain. Lothian presumably was to communicate to Chamberlain the gist of his conversation with Dillon.

So we are at the very least dealing with a Anglo-American operation here, not merely and English one.

Numerous Axis attempts at a peaceful resolution to Danzig question were decisively rejected by the Polish or the British: http://www.codoh.com/trials/trintglt.html

On October 23, 1938, Ribbentrop made an offer to the Poles which the British ambassador, Sir Neville Henderson, admitted was reasonable, calling it a “pure League of Nations proposal”: Ribbentrop asked for a plebiscite in the Polish corridor; the return of Danzig (a 100% German city) to the Reich, and the construction of an extra-territorial double-track railway and highway across the Corridor to East Prussia, which had previously been separated from the rest of Germany and could only be reached by sea, in defiance of all common sense, that is, a land bridge to East Prussia (X 260-269 <<295-304>>; 280-281 <<317-318>>; 367-369 <<416-417>>).

  In return, the Poles were to receive an advantageous financial settlement: a guarantee of port facilities and outlet for Polish goods through the port of Danzig. The future of the Corridor was to be decided according to the principle of self-determination, the Poles would receive an outlet to the sea, and the German-Polish Friendship Pact (signed by Hitler in 1934 in the face of bitter German opposition), would be renewed for an additional period (XIX 362-368 <<399-406>>. For the prosecution version of these same events, see III 209-229 <<237-260)).

  This was the “Nazi Plan to conquer the world” which served as a pretext for the entire war, including, eventually, Pearl Harbor, Hiroshima, and Yalta.

From Ramsey, The Nameless War: http://www.sweetliberty.org/issues/wars/nameless/21.shtml

The generous offer for a settlement along these line, liquidating all friction between the two countries, was reiterated when Foreign Minister von Ribbentrop paid a state visit to Warsaw (January 23rd to 17th, 1939). On that occasion von Ribbentrop again offered a guaranty of the Polish-German boundaries and a final all-inclusive settlement of German-Polish relations.

Under the circumstances it is absurd to allege that Poland was “surprised” by the German proposal of March 21st, and subsequent developments. It is possible that Poland may have concealed Germany’s friendly and conciliatory offers from Paris and London. With or without British promptings, Poland prepared the stage for a melodramatic scene, in which the German villain brutally threatened her sovereignty and her independence.

In spite of Polish intransigence, culminating in threats of war, Chancellor Hitler made one more desperate attempt to prevent the conflict. He called for a Polish plenipotentiary to discuss the solution presented in Document 15 of the German White book. This solution envisaged the return of Danzig to the Reich, the protection of Polish and German minorities, a plebiscite in the Corridor under neutral auspices, safeguarding, irrespective of the result, Poland’s unimpeded exterritorial access to the sea.

The British are please to describe this reasonable document as an “ultimatum”. This is a complete distortion of the facts. The German government, it is true, had set a time-limit (August 30th) for the acceptance of its proposal, but it waited twenty-four hours after its expiration before concluding that the possibilities of diplomatic negotiations had been exhausted. There was ample opportunity for England and Poland to act within those twenty-four hours.

[. .  .]

The British take the position that Germany’s demands were not known either in Warsaw or London.  That pretense is demolished by the British Blue Book itself, for we find here a dispatch from Sir Nevile Henderson, the British Ambassador to Berlin, which leaves no doubt that he relayed the German proposal to London after his midnight conference with von Ribbentrop on August 30th, and that he understood the essential points of the German proposal. Henderson even transmitted to the British Government Chancellor Hitler’s assurance that the Polish negotiator would be received as a matter of course on terms of complete equality with the courtesy and consideration due to the emissary of a sovereign state.

Henderson sent his night message not only to Downing Street, but also to the British Embassy in Warsaw. There is evidence, which has recently come into the possession of the German Foreign Office that, in spite of all its protestations of ignorance and helplessness, the British Cabinet communicated the substance of Henderson’s midnight conversation with the German Foreign Minister directly to the Polish Government. The London Daily Telegraph, in a late edition of August 31st, printed the following statement:

“At the Cabinet Meeting yesterday, at which the terms of the British Note were approved, it was decided to send a massage to Warsaw, indicating the extent of the latest demands from Berlin for the annexation of territory”.

    This item appeared only in a few issues. It was suppressed in later editions.

    Germany’s demands were so reasonable that no sane Polish Government would have dared to reject them. They certainly would have been accepted if England had advised moderation. There was one more chance to preserve peace on September 2nd. It was offered by a message from Premier Mussolini (Document 20). The Italian suggestion was acceptable to Germany and France (Document 21). but was rejected by Great Britain (Document 22).

Hoggan goes to outline Britain’s disastrous interventions at the last moments during which peace might have been preserved:

On the morning of September 1st, German troops attack Poland. Hitler announces the invasion before the Reichstag, stating that the brutal suppression of the ethnic German minority and the lack of freedom and self-determination for Danzig necessitated military action. Mussolini makes last-minute pleas for a grand peace conference dealing with all causes of European conflict, to meet on September 5th, on the precondition that Danzig is returned to Germany in advance. Hitler and, initially, France, are agreeable. Britain is not, and goads France into joining with Britain in insisting on a precondition that fighting must stop in Poland. The conference plan fails. On the night of September 2nd, British ministers led by Halifax virtually demand of Chamberlain that an ultimatum be issued to Germany. It is presented the next morning, demanding not only that the fighting cease but that all German troops withdraw from Poland. With the expiration of the ultimatum at 11 a.m., Britain declares war on Germany. A French ultimatum follows, somewhat reluctantly. With its expiration at 5 p.m., France declares war on Germany. World War II begins.

Posted by Colin Laney on Fri, 27 Feb 2009 09:02 | #

(cont.)

I would also direct interested readers to Patrick Buchanan’s Churchill, Hitler, and ‘The Unnecessary War’: How Britain lost its Empire and the West Lost the World for a full account of the frequency and seriousness of German peace offers to Poland, and how all were ultimately undermined by the forces named in Hitler’s “Unifying Danzig” speech. These claims are well documented and attested to by major figures of Anglo American history and foreign policy, most notably George Kennan and A.J.P. Taylor. Buchanan’s book details German plans to enlist Poland in the anti-Comintern alliance, which were repeatedly rebuffed by the Poles. Porter discusses the geopolitical and economic considerations here:

To sum up: Hitler never made any territorial demands on Poland: on the contrary, he offered to guarantee the 1919 borders with Poland. The Poles replied that this was “insult to their honour and a threat to their independence”. Danzig was never a part of Poland, and was not part of Poland in 1939: it was a so-called “free city” under the nominal control of the League of Nations. Poland owes its existence as a modern independent state to the Treaty of Bresk-Litovsk, signed between the Germans and the Soviets in March 1918. was considered to be in the German interests to create, or permit the existence, of a series of independent buffer states between itself and the Soviet Union. Hitler shared this view, stating that if the Poles did not defend their eastern borders, then the Germans would have to do it. In this sense, Hitler was pro-Polish, and desired a strong, independent, anti-Communist Poland. Germany and Poland should have been natural allies, forming a bulwark against bolshevism in Europe, and should have been ideal trading partners. Both countries were anti-Jewish (the Poles far more so than the National Socialists); Poland was in the depths of a depression, a producer of raw materials and agricultural goods needed by Germany, while Germany was a producer of finished goods badly needed by the Poles. To reach an agreement with the Poles, Hitler abandoned ALL CLAIM to huge areas of Poland which were 65-85% German, areas of inestimable economic value.

Hitler appealed to Pilsudski, a figure he tremendously admired, for a German-Polish anti-Soviet alliance, but was rebuffed: http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/460674/Jozef-Pilsudski/5721/Later-years

Later, Hitler repeatedly suggested a German-Polish alliance against the USSR, but Pilsudski took no notice of the proposal; he also declined to meet with Hitler.

It should be also be recalled that Germany showed great generosity towards Poland at Munich by ceding them the Tesin region:

The Encyclopedia reports: “As Article 1 of the [Munich] agreement put it, ‘when the question of the Polish and Hungarian minorities in Czechoslovakia has been settled, Germany and Italy will each give a similar guarantee to Czechoslovakia’. Poland had been first to share in the spoils. After an ultimatum from Warsaw on September 27, 1938, Czechoslovakia had ceded to Poland the district of Tesin (Teschen) — an area of some 625 square miles with a population of 230,000 people.”

Posted by Colin Laney on Fri, 27 Feb 2009 09:34 | #

We come finally to the question of Polish agression against Germans minorities.

Hoggan confirms these:

Polish provocation of Germany after March 31, 1939, was frequent and extreme, and Hitler soon had more than a sufficient justification to go to war with Poland on the basis of traditional practices among the nations. Nevertheless, Hitler could not justify German action, unless he believed that he was prepared to meet the consequences. He hoped to avoid war with Great Britain, and he knew that he would run a grave risk of an AngloGerman war if he invaded Poland. It was for this reason that German-Polish relations became progressively worse over a long period before they produced a conflict. Hitler, who was usually very prompt and decisive in conducting German policy, showed considerable indecision before he finally decided to act, and to face the consequences. He did not abandon his hope for a negotiated settlement with Poland until he realized that the outlook for such a settlement was completely hopeless.

Ribbentrop also confirms a consistent pattern of both oppression and atrocity against Germans under Polish rule: http://www.codoh.com/trials/trintglt.html

Von Ribbentrop was hanged for signing the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact, which preceeded and made possible the attack on Poland.

Ribbentrop defended his actions on the grounds that one million Germans had been expelled from Polish territory over a 20-year period, accompanied by numerous atrocities, and that complaints to the World Court in The Hague and the League of Nations in Geneva had been ignored for just as long. These were ethnic Germans with Polish citizenship living in lands given to the new Polish state under the Versailles Treaty.

C.W. Porter details the pattern of Polish atrocities over the years: http://www.cwporter.com/letter13.htm

The mistreatment of ethnic Germans in Poland, in violation of all their international treaties, was not limited to mere massacres and death-marches (usually with relatively small numbers of victims), but included firing them from their jobs without unemployment benefits; depriving them of apprenticeships; shutting their schools and newspapers; imprisoning them on minor pretexts; and confiscating their property. 80% of all land confiscated in Polish “agrarian reforms” was owned by ethnic Germans, most of whom were small farmers and artisans. By 1939, ethic Germans were forbidden to own land in two thirds of the country. All of this legislation is a matter of record. They also expelled hundreds of thousands of Jews, depriving them of their citizenship. When the Germans attempted to deport them back, they were met at the border by Polish soldiers with fixed bayonets, so that every town on the German-Polish border was filled with penniless refugees, both German and Jewish. That the Poles were more “anti-Semitic” than the National Socialists didn’t bother the world’s “democratic” leaders at all, because there was no danger of anyone imitating the Polish “system” (if it can be called that).

Hitler’s own description of the reasons for the war in Poland, and his account of the war itself,  are given in his Uniting Danzig speech: http://www.jrbooksonline.com/HTML-docs/Uniting_Danzig.htm

Simultaneously a veritable martyrdom began for our German brothers in Poland. Tens of thousands of them were brutally driven away, maltreated or put to death in the cruelest manner; sadistic maniacs gave way to their perverse instincts, and the pious democratic world looked on calmly without raising a finger.

[. . . ]

By September the situation had become untenable. You are familiar with the developments of those days in August. I still believe that without the British guarantee and the agitation of the war-mongers it would have been possible during last August to arrive at an understanding. There was a certain moment when England herself tried to arrange for direct discussions between ourselves and Poland, for which I was quite prepared; the Poles, however, failed to turn up. For two whole days I and my Government waited in vain in Berlin. In the meantime I had worked out a new proposition, which is known to you. On the evening of the first day I had it communicated to the British Ambassador in Berlin, to whom it was read sentence for sentence, additional comment being given by my Foreign Minister. The next day came and nothing happened, except for the Polish general mobilization, fresh acts of terror and countless attacks upon Reich territory.

In the life of peoples, too, patience should not always be mistaken for weakness. With unbounded patience I have for years and years watched these continuous provocations. Only few people can really judge of what I suffered during this long time, when hardly a month passed, nay, hardly a week, during which not one or the other deputation came to me from these territories, describing to me the unbearable situation of the Germans and imploring me again and again to intervene. I have always asked them to try just once more. This went on year after year. But in recent times I occasionally expressed a warning to the effect that some day an end must be put to this state of affairs; and now after months and months of waiting and ever fresh proposals, I finally decided—as I already said before the Reichstag—to talk to Poland in exactly the same language in which the Poles considered themselves entitled to talk to us, that is to say, the only language which they, apparently, are able to understand.

Even at that moment peace might still once more have been saved. Our friend Italy, that is to say the Duce, intervened and made a proposal for the adjustment of the questions at issue. France agreed, and I, too, expressed my consent. Great Britain again rejected this proposal and instead believed herself entitled to present the German Reich with an ultimatum limited to two hours and containing an impossible demand. The British were laboring under one great misapprehension: in November 1918 there was a German Government “kept” by them, and they are mistaking the present German regime for the one “kept” by them, and the present German nation with the then misled and deluded German people. Present-day Germany refuses to be offered any ultimatums, of which we would have London take notice!

During the last six years we had to put up with unheard-of things from States like Poland, yet I never sent any ultimatums. I know that Poland, in choosing war, did so because others instigated her to start a war, that is to say, those others who believed that they might use this war to carry through their biggest world-political and financial transaction. It will not only not be their biggest business transaction, but also their greatest disappointment!

Poland has sown war and reaped war. She has light-heartedly thrown [down] the gauntlet because certain Western statesmen had assured her that they possessed exact information regarding the inefficiency of the German army, the inferiority of its equipment, the poor morale of our troops, the defeatist fooling among the population of the Reich, and the discrepancy alleged to prevail between the German people and their leaders. The Poles had been talked into the belief that it would be an easy matter for them not only to resist but also to repulse our armies. And it was upon such advice given to Poland by Western General Staff members that she made her plans for her military operations!

[. . .]

At this moment, approximately 300,000 Polish soldiers have been taken prisoner; almost 2,000 officers and many generals share the same fate.

But I must also mention that side by side with the acknowledged bravery of many Polish units stand the most loathsome deeds which perhaps have occurred anywhere during the last centuries. Things have happened which I as a soldier in the World War, who only fought on the Western front, never had an opportunity of experiencing.

I am thinking of the thousands of slaughtered Germans, of the bestially butchered women, girls and children, of the countless German soldiers and officers who, when wounded, fell into the hands of the enemy. They were massacred, their eyes were torn out, they were brutally mutilated. And worst of all: the Polish Governor openly admitted by its own broadcasts that airmen who parachuted to the ground were murdered. There were really moments when the question arose whether under these circumstances it was possible to refrain from taking retaliatory action. I have not learnt that a single democratic statesman went to the trouble of protesting against this barbarity. I gave orders to the German air force to wage this war humanely, that is to say, to attack only fighting troops. The Polish Government and supreme command ordered their civilian population to carry on this war as snipers firing from hiding-places. It was very hard not to lose one’s self-control. But I should like to emphasize here: Let no one in the democratic States imagine that this state of affairs must needs continue forever. If they want a change of methods they can have it. Here, too, my patience may come to an end.

It should be said that the failure to secure a negotiated peace in the case of Poland weighted heavily on Hitler. Hitler felt so strongly about the points raised above that they form a substantial portion of his Final Political Testament, a short statement given just hours before his suicide.

It is untrue that I or anyone else in Germany wanted the war in 1939. It was desired and instigated exclusively by those international statesmen who were either of Jewish descent or worked for Jewish interests. I have made too many offers for the control and limitation of armaments, which posterity will not for all time be able to disregard for the responsibility for the outbreak of this war to be laid on me. I have further never wished that after the first fatal world war a second against England, or even against America, should break out. Centuries will pass away, but out of the ruins of our towns and monuments the hatred against those finally responsible whom we have to thank for everything, international Jewry and its helpers, will grow.

Three days before the outbreak of the German-Polish war I again proposed to the British ambassador in Berlin a solution to the German-Polish problem—similar to that in the case of the Saar district, under international control. This offer also cannot be denied. It was only rejected because the leading circles in English politics wanted the war, partly on account of the business hoped for and partly under influence of propaganda organized by international Jewry.

To people rolling their eyes at yet another mention of ‘the joooooos’, I feel bound to point out that Hitler’s claims about the origins of WWII conform perfectly to the reasons given by Chamerlain and Kennedy, above, as recorded in Forrestal’s diary.

People inclined to take Hitler at his word will in this testament see evidence of his patience and good will in dealing with the Poles. People mired in Anglo-American war propaganda - still being pumped out 24/7, btw - will find only evidence of a tenacious liar, who even in the face of death and the total obliteration of his hopes for European peoples and civilization, demonically held to the same lies the Germans had always lived by regarding their neighbors. In either case, we see consistency in Hitler’s view of himself as a political actor, true or false.

For my part, I see prophecy:

“Centuries will pass away, but out of the ruins of our towns and monuments the hatred against those finally responsible whom we have to thank for everything, international Jewry and its helpers, will grow . . .  From the sacrifice of our soldiers and from my own unity with them unto death, will in any case spring up in the history of Germany, the seed of a radiant renaissance of the National-Socialist movement and thus of the realization of a true community of nations.”

At the risk of sounding tedious, Hitler - hours away from his own encounter with his Maker, in which he very much believed - affirmed that he did not seek war with Poland, France or Britain in 1939, and he also affirms that National Socialism is oriented towards a community of nations, not the racially and culturally homogenized global barbarism planned for us by Oceania, the seat of world press and financial power, and not toward German control of the whole earth, as representatives of Oceania would have us believe.

Do Buchanan, Hoggan, Porter, Ramsey, Ribbentrop and Hitler give accounts that have internal coherence and which conform to the facts which can be discerned through a careful examination of the historical record?

And if so, does this account fit the facts better than the narrative which emerged from Nuremburg?

If the latter, then the reader must decide for himself what the discrepancy between the facts of this case and current world opinion portend.

Posted by the Narrator... on Fri, 27 Feb 2009 11:03 | #

2. The question as to why Britain and France sought to limit German expansionism is not material to the political and philosophical meaning of German actions in the east (ie, they were perverse).  Let’s keep this on the island.

Guessedworker

Actually it is, if you want to make the morality (and the perversions there of) of political and philosophical generated movements an issue.

If you were an educated German official in 1939, you’d look towards your east at the Soviet Empire (which has not been coy about its lust for expansion) where millions of eastern Europeans are in the process of being mass murdered and/or starved to death.

Then you’d look towards the west to countries like Britain, America and France and notice that they not only keeping silent about these mass killings of Europeans for the most part, but (knowing how governments and media are symbiotic) are actively working to hide or downplay the facts about those mass killings and thus giving their stamp of approval to them.

At this point you’d remember the attempts of these subversives to take power in your own nation just twenty years prior.

You would notice that Britian and France (two nations that had graciously and humbly excepted the warm invitations from Africans, Asians and Indians to come to their continents and teach them about Cricket, Tea and so forth)  had accepted the existence of the Soviet Empire as a second party in the “Balance of Power” on planet earth.

At this point you’d realize that your nation, Germany, was caught between two forces; an ever expanding empire that carried out systematic mass murder to your east. And their equally power hungry apologists to your west.

Making matters worse is that both sides seemed equally content being the puppets of an insidious gang of international thugs.

Considering the above you would now have to ask yourself, “Are political gangsterism, military aggression, the theft of others’ lands, and the murder and enslavement of their populations perverse?”

If you were an educated person you would actually answer no, they are not perverse. Perversions are aberrations of a typical (normal) behavior. And as political gangsterism, military aggression, the theft of others’ lands, and the murder and enslavement of their populations are par for the course through out human history, you could hardly call them perverse.
Inconvenient for those in there path, Yes.
Perverse, no.

In turn, fighting back against such patterns has been the norm down through time.
Thus not fighting back could appropriately be described as perverse.

And therein may be why, in time to come, our generation’s actions may described as perverse rather than the Nazis.

They, at least, fought back.

.
.
.
We should neither deify nor demonize Nazi Germany.
As I said before, we shouldn’t speak of it as though it were something “other” within Western Civilization.

...

Posted by Guessedworker on Fri, 27 Feb 2009 12:37 | #

Narrator,

You are making the same false presumption as Silver Supporter, namely that “European people” aggress militaristically upon the persons and homelands of other “European people”.  They do not.  There have been no popular wars of aggression in European history since the Crusades, and they were probably too sectional to be considered popular.  It is elites who war in this way.

Nationalism should be the politics of true pacifism.  Aggression is perverse within the context of European popular interests.

It should be understood that “populist” is not the same thing as “popular”.  Nazism was a populist movement.  It garnered huge support.  But it was never of the people, never expressive of their natural interests.  Its ruling clique required criminality and gangsterism to seize and maintain power, exercised totalitarian control, abused/murdered dissenters, militarised the people, and sold them a myth of themselves.

You can certainly argue that criminality of this sort is not at all out of the ordinary in the political history of Europe.  I would not disagree.  But nationalism exists to put an end to all that.  It is a perverted nationalism that seeks to do otherwise.

Posted by the Narrator... on Fri, 27 Feb 2009 13:16 | #

Guessedworker,

You missed my point.

The Soviet Empire (a European Power) came into existence and swallowed up/mass murdered other European peoples -with their actions being (essentially) green-lighted by Britain and France- BEFORE the NS came to power.

From a German point of view in 1939 there would have appeared to be only two options; fight back or be destroyed. Because by that point it was rather clear that Germany was surrounded by European powers (Britain, France and the Soviet Union) who had rejected nationalism.

And that’s kinda obvious when you look at the current condition of the victorious Allies today.

It was the Allied nations that first rejected nationalism and then continued (right up to the present day) to fight against it.

...

Posted by Lurker on Fri, 27 Feb 2009 14:26 | #

US, Britain and France all sent military forces into Russia, though they did little to fight the Reds, I’m not sure that I could go as far as saying that was greenlighting the revolution.

Posted by the Narrator... on Fri, 27 Feb 2009 14:52 | #

US, Britain and France all sent military forces into Russia, though they did little to fight the Reds, I’m not sure that I could go as far as saying that was greenlighting the revolution.

Posted by Lurker on February 27, 2009, 01:26 PM

I was referring more to the post-revolutionary period when many mass murders and the Ukrainian Famine took place.

For decades western powers not only turned a blind eye to what was happening in eastern Europe, but even partnered with those mass murderers against the only people to stand up against them, the Germans.

And if that wasn’t bad enough Britain, France and America handed over even more NATIONS to the Soviets to oppress and murder after those “evil” Nazis were defeated.

My point was that if you want to criticize the Germans for their attacks on other nations, fine. Just don’t single it out as though it were unique….

Posted by Lurker on Fri, 27 Feb 2009 18:12 | #

Narrator - fair enough sir. Perhaps I was focusing too narrowly.

Posted by Guessedworker on Fri, 27 Feb 2009 19:16 | #

Narrator,

Well, regardless of what merit your historical perspective has, neither it nor Colin Laney’s has any application to the only important question: the form of nationalism which will bear our weight today.

It is worth considering the possibility that those who feel obliged to save Hitler for future generations of Germans are not, in fact, nationalists, or nationalist material at all.  It is interesting that the saving of Hitler’s reputation and the exposition of the Single Jewish Cause always go together, and are invariably accompanied by denounciation of a more holistic approach.  For their part, the holists do not deny the JQ, indeed incorporate it in their thinking.  But the Germanists are dismissive of any other broader analysis than the one that NSDAP introduced to the German people eight decades ago.

That suggests to me that Germanists are engaged on a totally different project, and are, in essence, free-riding on the back of European nationalism generally.  I tell you this.  If that is true, our enemies will be anxious for the Germanists to dominate, because they know how to deal with them.  They cannot lay a glove on thinking nationalism, however.

Posted by the Narrator... on Fri, 27 Feb 2009 20:20 | #

It is interesting that the saving of Hitler’s reputation

Posted by Guessedworker on February 27, 2009, 06:16 PM

It has nothing to do with saving Hitler’s reputation. In fact he needn’t necessarily even be brought into the discussion.

As I said above, there is no justification for treating National Socialism as something other than European. It’s one thing to disagree with aspects of it, but it is quite another to try and separate from European identity as something that is a “perversion” of that identity.

I realize the proximity in time (being not to far removed from 2009) makes it a contentious subject for some, but in truth discussing Nazi Germany in a general way should be no different than discussing the Norman Conquest or the Thirty Years Wars.

It is interesting that the saving of Hitler’s reputation and the exposition of the Single Jewish Cause always go together, and are invariably accompanied by denounciation of a more holistic approach.  For their part, the holists do not deny the JQ, indeed incorporate it in their thinking.  But the Germanists are dismissive of any other broader analysis than the one that NSDAP introduced to the German people eight decades ago.

Posted by Guessedworker on February 27, 2009, 06:16 PM

I think if you’ll re-read my posts you’ll see that I lay a considerable amount of blame/cause at the feet of various parties….Britain, France and America among them.

I guess the opposite of those who appeal to the “Single Jewish Cause” are those who appeal to the “Single German Cause”.

neither it nor Colin Laney’s has any application to the only important question: the form of nationalism which will bear our weight today.

Posted by Guessedworker on February 27, 2009, 06:16 PM

I guess that could be said of the entire discussion. But every political movement has points of merit that can be discussed as well as points of contention that should be rejected.

If there was a European leader whose example and actions should be blacklisted from the current discourse as inherently harmful to our cause it would either be Alexander or Napoleon.  Two men whose aspirations and ideals were infinitely more harmful than anything Hitler proposed.
Still, I wouldn’t advocate the blacklisting or demonizing of them either.

I’ll put all this another way. There isn’t one part or moment of European history that we should single out to demonize.
I will and have offered up an apologetic defense of various controversial aspects of Western history. I personally believe that is important. 
I may not overtly justify every action they’ve taken and will admit mistakes they’ve made, but I will attempt a defense of everything from the Crusades to Colonialism. From the Confederacy to National Socialists.

There are things about the American Revolution I dislike, but I’d never go so far as to accuse the Founding Father of “perverting” Western Traditions. The same goes for the Confederacy.

Our entire civilization and its collective history are on trial in the minds of our fellow travelers. The last thing we should do is offer public testimony on behalf of the prosecution.

We can point out their (our ancestors) mistakes, their short-sightedness, hubris etc…. but we shouldn’t demonize any of them.

They are, after all, us!

...

Posted by Desmond Jones on Fri, 27 Feb 2009 21:19 | #

Thanks Colin for the kind words and thank you for the eloquent defence of Tan at Age of Reason. And last, but by no means least, thank you to our most gracious host, GW, who allows us to scribble messages on the walls of his cyber-home even though most of those comments piss him off royally.

Hoggan’s is a great book. It’s available as a pdf document on line for those interested.

http://jrbooksonline.com/PDF_Books/David Hoggan-The Forced War.pdf

It’s also interesting to read Hoggan’s bio, even if it is wiki. He was a graduate of Reed College and Harvard University. Interesting because of the mention of Reed College in JB’s earlier post. Hoggan was, of course, subject to an unrelenting attack by the usual suspects.

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

Posted by Jupiter on Fri, 27 Feb 2009 21:50 | #

Narrator

It is obvious in retrospect that the Nazis hated Eurpean people-not just the slavs-but the German people also. The Nazis aided and abetted the Japanese. Eventually, the Japanese would have conquered Australia and New Zealand. Thousands of European men would have been murdered. The European female population of these two nations would hav been turned into sex slaves. Chinese hatred of the Japanese is justified.

The Nazis used the Bosinas muslims to attack the Orhtodox Chritian Serbs. Himmler was very pro-muslim.

You will get neat clean answers from history. This is why I think it is pointless to refight WW2 and the American Civil War.

Posted by Guessedworker on Fri, 27 Feb 2009 22:51 | #

Narrator,

Jupitor is correct about the absence of clean answers in history.  It is interesting to debate history, but it is not foundational to our struggle.

To answer you directly ...

NS is certainly not part of European identity (bad word, let’s call it “European being”).  It was a perversion of the nationalist impulse - indeed, in my view all palingenetic dreamery tends to perversity for the simple reason that it is predicated on one or more falsehoods.  The only relevance of NS to us today, in our search for a workable expression of our natural rights and interests (which are part of “European being”), is the marking out of practical boundaries for us to observe.

As to the saving of Hitler’s and Germany’s reputation, I can assure you that the argument goes that releasing Germany releases all Europe and all Europeans.  But, in my view, that isn’t why the Germanists strive to release Germany.  They have their own atavistic agenda, and they may not even care what is the shortest and most direct route to a true European Reclamation.

The opposite of the SJC is an holistic analysis.

Posted by skeptical on Fri, 27 Feb 2009 23:30 | #

Guessedworker,

But, in my view, that isn’t why the Germanists strive to release Germany.  They have their own atavistic agenda, and they may not even care what is the shortest and most direct route to a true European Reclamation.

Bingo!

Anyone who follows these discussions long enough starts to figure out that there are a few of us who would rather live in a private fantasy world of their own making, preferably along an alternative historical timeline, instead of the one we physically inhabit (i.e. the one where a nationalist Germany gets defeated).

Posted by skeptical on Fri, 27 Feb 2009 23:35 | #

The Nazis used the Bosinas muslims to attack the Orhtodox Chritian Serbs. Himmler was very pro-muslim.

I don’t know about Himmler being “pro-muslim”, but I have read historical records indicating that he actually searched for wisdom in the Bhagavad Gita, which has practically no organic connection to Germanics or any European people for that matter.

Posted by Jupiter on Fri, 27 Feb 2009 23:40 | #

Think of all the beautifull German woman who were never born because of Hitler.  It is very depressing to think about this. Instead we get sluts such as “Brazilian” super model Giselle Buchend-very likely the grand daughter of a member of the SS-who before she married Tom Brady-yesterday-spead her Teutonic legs for a billionaire Sihk “American” NYC real estate developer.

Posted by Desmond Jones on Fri, 27 Feb 2009 23:45 | #

Jupiter,

It serves to re-affirm the position that “whites” generally hold little interest between them, ethnically and even on a class basis. Such is the nature of evolution. The British used aboriginals against the French, with extremely brutal results. Negros were used against the American colonials. Aboriginals were used against the Americans by the British/Canadians. Sub-cons were used against Europeans in both WWI and WWII. The North used Negros against their Southern brethren. The Americans used Negros and Japanese against their European brethren. The alliances of the Germans is hardly out of character with European behaviour.

Nationalism, in it’s ethnic sense, is currently not separable from NS, except possibly in this very tiny remnant gathered in cyberspace. It is present in the ‘real’ world in every aspect, right down to the kosher tax you pay on your Grape Nut cereal. Currently, it cannot be challenged on any level, alleged natural rights or not.

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

Posted by Jupiter on Fri, 27 Feb 2009 23:55 | #

The alternative to Mr.H was of course the Patriotic   and socially conservative Prussian officers such as Von Shoflenberg-how ever you spell his name. When they were young university men they came under the influence of a socially conservative Prussian University Professor who wanted to create an alternative to Mr. H and Mr.H(or as terry jones refered to him in a monty python skit Mr. “Bimmler”

Posted by Desmond Jones on Sat, 28 Feb 2009 00:04 | #

A hypothetical question; if an heroic chimera arose, a splendid ignis fatuus, and freed the naturalistic nationalists, would they accept it or reject it because it was perverse?

Posted by Jupiter on Sat, 28 Feb 2009 00:12 | #

Desmond Jones

I don’t want to take orders from a flatulent -he must had problems breaking down improperly cooked lentils-Austrian and a pencil-geek of a chicken farmer named Mr. Bimmler

Posted by Guessedworker on Sat, 28 Feb 2009 00:25 | #

Desmond: Nationalism, in it’s ethnic sense, is currently not separable from NS

Is this a restatement of the symmetry between NS and Jewish supremacism, or are you saying that all identitarian movements are NS?

if an heroic chimera arose, a splendid ignis fatuus, and freed the naturalistic nationalists, would they accept it or reject it because it was perverse?

In most of the southern Slav states they would certainly follow him.  In Germany and Italy, they may follow him.  In the lowlands, France and Britain, no.

Posted by Desmond Jones on Sat, 28 Feb 2009 03:26 | #

GW: I’m saying that all identifiable/nationalistic movements, my people sovereign and free in their homeland, like their forefathers, is identified/labeled as NS. Vlaams Belang are Nazis. The BNP are Nazis. The Austrian Freedom Party are Nazis. The Swedish Democrats are Nazis. Geert Wilders is linked to neo-Nazi groups. Italian politicians urge Nazi policies for immigrants. There is no separation.

If a neo-Nazi group came to power in Germany, a palingenetic perversity by definition, and offered French nationalists freedom from their oppressor, a return of free speech and association; an end to immigration and an expulsion of all non-French, the French nationalists will say no thank you? We prefer enslavement, replacement and miscegenation. Is that correct?

Posted by Desmond Jones on Sat, 28 Feb 2009 07:19 | #

The Canadian Army grunt or his equivalent did load (not Jews, funny how a conversation about a plan for the mass murder of Slavs, returns to the JQ) Europeans and Asians onto trains to be transported to labour camps in the frozen North. Their property was confiscated (stolen?) and some did die.

An estimated 80,000 Ukrainians were forced to carry identity documents and report regularly to the police.  Although there was no evidence of any wrongdoing or disloyalty on their part, these men, women and children were subjected to State-sanctioned censures including the confiscation of their wealth, restriction on their freedoms of association, movement and speech, denial of access to the courts, and disenfranchisement.  Many were coerced into forced labour in 24 concentration camps and work sites across Canada, to the benefit of the federal government and various private concerns.

Nearly 9,000 men, women and children were interned in 24 concentration camps across the country.  The internees also suffered economic losses which included:

  * confiscation of what little wealth they had; and
  * lost earnings as a result of their internment.

The action of Canadian liberalism appears to differ from NS only in the alleged size of the internment. It was perverse, directed away from what is right and good. In turn, for this perversion, we lost our freedom. We lost our country. Justice, it appears, was served.

Posted by Silver Supporter on Sat, 28 Feb 2009 23:18 | #

“Silver Supporter (perhaps not a supporter of Silver so much as the initials you have Secretly Selected)”

LOL. This line is so fantastically and typically British/Guessed Worker. Anyone who points out the speciousness of bombastic Anglo political assertions must be a…gasp…Nazi!

Once I was told, by an English lad I was knocking about Africa with, that the Orcs in Tolkien’s books were meant to be Germans. This statement, to me, summarized more than a century of British thought.

I chose “Silver Supporter” because I commented here on a few occasions some time back using that handle.  I supported MR’s sometime commentator Silver.

Posted by Guessedworker on Sun, 01 Mar 2009 00:05 | #

SS,

The problem with your fascination with mid-20th Century British attitudes towards the Germans (replicated, btw, towards, and returned, by the French, and the Spanish, and the Italians - it’s how real Europeans behave) is that it enables you to pursue German Rehabilitation without ever having to address the perversity of NS.  If you look at Desmond’s efforts to assist you on this thread, what you find is an attempt first to deny perversity and then to spread it to everyone and everything.  What is never attempted is a direct defence of NS, ie an explanation why its little foibles - the gangsterism, the militerisation and totalisation of society, the land-theft, the slavery, and so on - were “good” and “just” in their own rights.

If you could pull back from the confrontational posture you are now holding far enough to ask yourself whether said foibles are desirable as nationalist forms today, we could have a serious conversation.  The fact that you prefer to attack me, as a symbol of arrogant British dismissal of “honest” national Socialism, tells me precisely where your interest in nationalism really lies.  You are not interested in nationalism.  You are interested in the reputation of Germany.

If a German Rehabilitationist is all you are, admit as much and disguise yourself no more as a serious nationalist.

Posted by Silver Supporter on Sun, 01 Mar 2009 04:25 | #

“...we could have a serious conversation.”

Impossible. You’re old. You formed your thinking as part of the status quo in post-war England. You will not change. I do not expect you to. I assign no value to this.

Your political views are undeveloped. You are confronted with massive factual evidence on a myriad of topics and yet you still stick with your ossified, reactionary, utopian and redundant opinions. You seem to have no grasp of human nature. You are a product of transcendism, which is what bad guy Heidegger disciple Ernst Nolte described as the peculiarly white phenomenon NS attempted to counter. You use emotionally-laden words that have no validity in the struggle between peoples for survival on this earth. You refuse to view history objectively. You palaver over a certain subset of Slavic peoples, ignoring the actions and beliefs of countless others. You bear an overt antipathy toward “the Hun”, regardless of your endless and confused narratives on “nationalism for all peoples”. You boringly erect straw men as a matter of course. You seem to think that only Germans can view the devastation wrought by WWII as a tragedy. You neatly write off people who disagree with you as somehow lacking something, as though you were the complete man. Where the Jews would have opposition labeled mentally ill, you classify your ideological foes as somewhere beneath you on some imaginary “moral” spectrum.

Your type, the conservative, is beneficial only as far as there’s a state to conserve. When the vicissitudes of fortune play their hand, and force peoples into the position of overcoming their current lot, of overcoming slavery and degradation, conservatives are useless. You would be fine, currently, in Israel, China or Korea. For my kin and tribe, however, you are a detriment, no matter the rebellious posture you attempt to present.

“We can do better intellectually,” you stated on this thread. I say good luck to you. Only the most susceptible care about the ephemera of intellectualism. “The deed is everything,” said the Kraut Goethe. He is correct. It is, in the end, the difference between the makers of history and those who simply want to have “serious conversations”.

Posted by s.e. on Sun, 01 Mar 2009 12:42 | #

Silver Supporter:

You’re my hero. <3<3<3

Posted by s.e. on Sun, 01 Mar 2009 12:52 | #

What is never attempted is a direct defence of NS, ie an explanation why its little foibles - the gangsterism, the militerisation and totalisation of society, the land-theft, the slavery, and so on - were “good” and “just” in their own rights.

Unfortunately, GW is not wrong in the least about NS, except perhaps calling its foibles “little”. What this opposition boils down is different modes of “fixation” in the psychiatric sense; no productive discussion is possible between them, just as none is possible between Jews and white nationalists. The gulf is no smaller despite being fundamentally agreed on one thing: opposition to the Jewish metanarrative. Beyond that lay the irreconcilables of individual pathology, the real “metapolitics” — which vitiates GW’s postmodernish insistence on “serious discussion”.

Posted by s.e. on Sun, 01 Mar 2009 13:23 | #

I bet the Arawaks thought the same thing and look where they are. People often don’t want to believe the shocking and horrific truth that is right in front of their eyes….

And there you have the precise origin of all white nationalism. From frank acknowledgement of the problem to protracted denial, ingroup role-play, and wish-fulfilment fantasies / belief system.

I bet there were a few Arawaks who got together and believed tomorrow belonged to them, too.

Posted by s.e. on Sun, 01 Mar 2009 13:42 | #

Are you aware that Brazilian ‘whites’ for the most part have large amounts of non-European ancestry?

What can I say? Go to Brazil. You’ll see tons of Aryanz. Don’t trust those PDFs about trace genes from the natives. They’re intended to make you think Brazilian whites are impure. The same deracinating force is at work in their society as in ours. Denying race. Denying whiteness. Playing up the myth of a completely mongrelized Brazil. I’m sorry, it doesn’t exist — except in the culture.

Rather, we are (or at least I am) concerned with maximising genetic representation in future generations, which means that any degree of mass immigration/replacement is harmful.

I’m just pointing out that the facts uncovered and promoted by white nationalism don’t result only in the collectivist mania of the average white nationalist. Some of us don’t want to role-play as saviors, revolutionaries, or highbrow strategists and armchair sociologues. We think you shouldn’t, either, but you provide good comic relief and case studies, reminding us of the folly of all collectivism.

Posted by Guessedworker on Sun, 01 Mar 2009 14:36 | #

SS,

What is loosely described as the nationalist fringe has very little internal cohesion.  There are those who might be characterised as conservatives, radical libertarians, race-realists, White Nationalists, European nativists (including Italian fascists), pan-Europeanists, New Rightists, national anarchists, futurologists of various types, SJCers, western civilisationists (including, of course, Jewish ones), costume Nazis, government agents, and German-American rehabilitationists.  In my view only the costume poseurs, the Jewish western civists, the government agents and the rehabs have an entirely fixed worldview.  That’s because all of them are in it for their own purposes.  And all except the agents are free-riding on those whose focus is set, however imperfectly, upon the rights and interests of European Man.

The disparateness of the latter is to be expected given that they/we have no ideological core.  And that’s because we have no coherent nationalist philosophy.  You mention Nolte (who might be interesting, btw).  A quick check reveals that he correctly predicates fascism and its derivatives as reactions to modernity - and, specifically, to the rival liberalisms of Marxism-Leninism and American neoliberalism.  This not only marks fascism out as a separate stream from the national identity encouraged by the French revolutionaries as a replacement for fealty to the Crown, it marks it out from the strictly ontological nationalism that MR has a chance of explicating, and which some of us believe to be the true and by no means purely reactionary nationalism.

You, of course, will have none of it.  Fair enough, but don’t try to pretend that your interest in rehab is also ours.  You are not our friend.  You are a potentially dangerous diversion.  We do well to mark you out and reject your deceptive advice.

Posted by Captainchaos on Sun, 01 Mar 2009 14:57 | #

s.e.: “You’re my hero.”

Silver Supporter professes his adherence to National Socialism, which is inimical to what you would have Whites do, in what way does that make him your “hero”?  I do not see in what way Silver Supporter can be a genuine supporter of silver if he is a genuine supporter of National Socialism, which is inimical to what silver would have Whites do.

“What this opposition boils down is different modes of “fixation” in the psychiatric sense; no productive discussion is possible between them, just as none is possible between Jews and white nationalists.”

No discussion between those whose genetic interests demand they subvert White racial consciousness with pseudo-psychological pathologization and White Nationalists is possible.  Jews have a genetic compulsion to subvert their host societies as they strive for dominance; you are right, no discussion is ultimately possible - apart from agreeing to terms for separation.

“The gulf is no smaller despite being fundamentally agreed on one thing: opposition to the Jewish metanarrative.”

So long as Jews exercise decisive control of media and finance their narrative cannot be displaced; to displace the narrative you must displace the Jews, in some form.  You would never support such an action, therefore you have no serious interest in opposing a Judaized zeitgeist.

“...which vitiates GW’s postmodernish insistence on ‘serious discussion’.”

The only thing you are interested in discussing is an anesthetized decline of the White race.  Non-White filth.

“And there you have the precise origin of all white nationalism. From frank acknowledgement of the problem to protracted denial, ingroup role-play, and wish-fulfilment fantasies / belief system.”

What role is it you are playing?

“Some of us don’t want to role-play as saviors, revolutionaries, or highbrow strategists and armchair sociologues.”

No, you just pretend that you are White, that you are one of us, to lower our defenses to your subversion.

Posted by the Narrator... on Sun, 01 Mar 2009 17:18 | #

NS is certainly not part of European identity (bad word, let’s call it “European being”). 

Posted by Guessedworker on February 27, 2009, 09:51 PM |

Well your certainly entitled to your opinion.
I think though that too many people are making a mountain out of a mole hill. I guess maybe it is a question of geography. Maybe in England the subject is more urgent, for lack of a better word. You seem to be treating the subject as though NS were an actual competitive threat to your own philosophy.
It ain’t.

As I said, discussing Nazi Germany should cause no more perplexity than discussing Victorian England.

But, in my view, that isn’t why the Germanists strive to release Germany.  They have their own atavistic agenda

Posted by Guessedworker on February 27, 2009, 09:51 PM

I wasn’t speaking on behalf of “Germanists”. I don’t know any “Germanists”. Never subscribed to their newsletters, etc…

We don’t have to redeem Nazi Germany. We don’t have to redeem Colonial America. We don’t have to redeem Victorian England.
We don’t need to demonize them either.
Nor should we feel the need to distance ourselves from them anymore than we should feel the need to distance ourselves from the Goths who sacked Rome.

Like I said maybe it’s a European thing, but I just don’t get the hysterics over Nazi Germany one way or the other.

they may not even care what is the shortest and most direct route to a true European
Reclamation.

Posted by Guessedworker on February 27, 2009, 09:51 PM

Considering the crashing birthrates and continuing immigration, Europe has about 20 short years before it passes the point of no return.

It might be wise not to burn any of those old “maps” just yet….
.

Posted by Gudmund on Sun, 01 Mar 2009 18:04 | #

I know that many here do not care for anecdotal evidence and deem it “insignificant” (as if the human aspect of this thing of ours can be cast away so indiscriminately! - for God’s sake there were debates before statistics existed!) but I believe that some positive anecdotes can uplift the spirits as well as, God forbid, even suggest that the cloud isn’t as black as many of you claim.

So here goes:  Racial consciousness is at an all-time high on the internet.  Not anywhere else, mind you.  But the internet is crawling with disaffected White people who are either racially aware or well on their way to being so.  I cannot disregard a phenomenon like that.  Anti-Jewish sentiment is also on the rise from all angles courtesy of this last year’s spectacular amount of Jewish destructiveness, which is a net benefit for us as well.

So lemmings elected a black for President; so the other half of voting Whites went for a senile, Israel-first warmonger.  How many Whites in America didn’t vote?  How many of those were people with views similar to ours?  Who will prove that at least 10% of American Whites do not hold racialist views and that this number will not rise as Whites are further disaffected?  Who will prove that, in the event of a USA Balkanization, Whites will not choose to organize on a racial basis? - hell they already do (“White Flight”). 

Because of the urgency of our civilization’s crisis, it can be hard to urge patience.  But we need more time to see how things play out.  Just a few years ago we thought the Zionists (via the Neocons) had an unshakable grasp on America!  I prefer patience to despair and despondency; sometimes it even yields results.

“Optimism of the will, pessimism of the intellect” should be our watchword - for God’s sake don’t give up hope prematurely.  This fight is far from fixed.

Posted by Jew Multicult Propaganda on Sun, 01 Mar 2009 18:28 | #

The only heat generated by Joe’s appearance last night came when a young man named Jabari Zakiya recounted great moments in American racism (slavery, annihilation of Native Americans, segregation, etc.) and asked Wurzelbacher if the “hegemony” of the white man in America is “doomed” now that five states and the District of Columbia have majority minority populations.

Joe replied that he believes “our American heritage is being torn apart” by flag burners, critics of the military, and those who mock Christian values. He expressed his admiration for patriotic immigrants, and said he dislikes terms like African American and Asian American (“We’re all Americans,” he said). For some reason, he concluded by saying, “America has always been a kick-butt, take-names kind of country.” - http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/02/26/AR2009022600005.html

Posted by danielj on Sun, 01 Mar 2009 18:30 | #

And there you have the precise origin of all white nationalism. From frank acknowledgement of the problem to protracted denial, ingroup role-play, and wish-fulfilment fantasies / belief system.

I bet there were a few Arawaks who got together and believed tomorrow belonged to them, too.

I bet there were more than a few who sat despondent and dejected in their tents, staring sullenly into their fires contemplating collaboration with the Spaniards or just imaging their brutal endings at the hands of their oppressors.

I didn’t say I was an optimist and neither did I say we would be successful in any of our endeavors. Hope is an expensive commodity and I can afford precious little of it but your brand of psuedo-enlightened pessimism is a cheap knock off of the Stoics.

The ‘tomorrow’ thing is half jest, a throwback to “Next year in Jerusalem!”

If you are really excited about the prospect of social upheaval, why not beat the rush and just engage in the associated behavior now? Blow something up. Kill a congressman. They way you make us out to be, you’ll have plenty of socially maladroit, disenfranchised copycats to follow your example. I think you suffer Requentin’s nausea. You come out of a bout of paralysis and lash out and the closest thing to you which happens to be the people that inhabit the MR galleria.

Posted by the Narrator... on Sun, 01 Mar 2009 19:03 | #

The only heat generated by Joe’s appearance last night came when a young man named Jabari Zakiya recounted great moments in American racism (slavery, annihilation of Native Americans, segregation, etc.) and asked Wurzelbacher if the “hegemony” of the white man in America is “doomed” now that five states and the District of Columbia have majority minority populations.

Joe replied that he believes “our American heritage is being torn apart” by flag burners, critics of the military, and those who mock Christian values. He expressed his admiration for patriotic immigrants, and said he dislikes terms like African American and Asian American (“We’re all Americans,” he said). For some reason, he concluded by saying, “America has always been a kick-butt, take-names kind of country.” - http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/02/26/AR2009022600005.html

Posted by Jew Multicult Propaganda on March 01, 2009, 05:28 PM

Now THAT is American Exceptionalism to the letter. While the barbarians are on a path of destruction and salivating over our imminent demise, ‘Joe the Plumber’ types are still worrying about flag burning hippies.
I’m just surprised ol Joe didn’t throw in a, “lets get er done” for good measure.

...

Posted by Captainchaos on Sun, 01 Mar 2009 19:26 | #

Even if NS is the best solution - it would certainly be the most thorough solution - to combating the genocide of the White race, I’m fairly certain it just doesn’t have ‘legs’.  Our people are far too bourgeois these days to go for it.  Besides, Western Europeans really have had the tar knocked out of them by the two World Wars.

P.S.  Joe the Plumber is the quintessential lemming.

Posted by Armor on Sun, 01 Mar 2009 20:35 | #

@ CC

Maybe you could write him an open letter to explain that he doesn’t have his priorities straight.
And it can serve later as a model to write to other celebrities.

P.S.  Don’t tell him he is the quintessential lemming !

Posted by Armor on Sun, 01 Mar 2009 20:41 | #

” Even if NS is the best solution “

If there really a precisely defined method called NS ?
I don’t suppose so.
Maybe what you mean is simply an openly pro-white agenda, and the use of force to expel immigrants and remove traitors from public office?

Posted by Armor on Sun, 01 Mar 2009 20:44 | #

We don’t have to redeem Nazi Germany. We don’t have to redeem Colonial America. We don’t have to redeem Victorian England. We don’t need to demonize them either. Nor should we feel the need to distance ourselves from them anymore than we should feel the need to distance ourselves from the Goths who sacked Rome. (—the Narrator…)

I agree. When we remember what happened in previous times, it should be natural to feel some sympathy for our predecessors, whatever they did in their lives. But many left-wing/university historians (at least in Brittany) say what is needed is not sympathy, but a neutral point of view. (What is the point of reading a history book with a neutral point of view?) Practically, they see themselves as judges and like to conjecture whether our ancestors were good or bad, whether they were racist —or an even more fundamental question: whether they were antisemitic! It can only be a result of the domination of public life by the holocaust ideology, which tends to kill intellectual life and infantilize debate.

A drawback of talking about nazi Germany is that it takes time away from other discussions. But it is useful to realize that we have been accepting too much garbage on that subject. We criticize the dishonesty of Jewish and leftist nazi hunters, but keep accepting much of the garbage they serve us. In France, an “infamous motto” used by the French government during the nazi occupation was: “travail, famille, patrie” (work, family, fatherland). I can’t see what is infamous there, but it is usually presented as a telling example of nazi/fascist ideology. We tend to accept there was something wrong with the nazi movement, but we should draw distinctions between actions and ideology, what happened accidentally or not, the different aspects of ideology, some of them good, the differences in opinion among right-wing thinkers of the time, etc. It is obvious that much of what was written at the time consists of common sense opinions that we share, for example: the idea that we have a right to exist. Today, anyone who says that white people have a right to exist will be condemned as a nazi by the media. At the same time, I agree that we should not dwell too much on the subject of nazi Germany.

Posted by Fred Scrooby on Sun, 01 Mar 2009 22:25 | #

I would say it’s a safe bet that whenever a Euro government or organization (school system, company, NGO, Church denomination, university faculty, etc.) starts fretting about “racism, xenophobia, and anti-Semitism” it has come under the strong influence of (or outright control of) Jews.  Left to themselves, Euros simply don’t go around fretting a lot about that particular combination of “isms.”

When you see organizations starting to spout that stuff, specifically that combination:  “racism, xenophobia, anti-Semitism,” you can immediately conclude that organization, that outfit, or that government is to at least that extent (to the extent that it spouts it, assigns priority to “the need to deal with it,” makes it any kind of central issue) — you can immediately conclude the outfit or government spouting that and making some kind of major issue of it is now under the control of Jews.  Jews are obsessed with those three things, obsessed with “eradicating them among Euros,” and any obsessions about them on the part of organizations come from Jews controlling or heavily influencing those organizations.

I don’t believe there’s going to be any significant number of exceptions to the “rule of thumb” that obsession with those three “isms” is exclusively Jewish.  That includes the U.S., British, and French governments, the E.U., and the Vatican:  to the extent they start spouting off about “racism, xenophobia, and anti-Semitism” being any kind of central issue for Eurofolk to be concerned about, they’ve come under the strong influence, often the outright control, of Jews.  “Racism, xenophobia, and anti-Semitism” are essentially or literally negligible as “problems” for Eurofolk, Euro communities, Euro nations, and the Eurosphere.  The expression of strong concern about those particular things — “racism, xenophobia, and anti-Semitism” — by Euro groups or governments is ALWAYS artificially imposed by (fill in the blank) _______ .

Posted by Captainchaos on Sun, 01 Mar 2009 23:40 | #

Armor: “Maybe what you mean is simply an openly pro-white agenda, and the use of force to expel immigrants and remove traitors from public office?”

For it to mirror the historic incarnation of NS there would need to be a charismatic leader to whom followers pledged their blind obedience unto death - as Desmond Jones adumbrates above.  And yes, all non-Whites would be expelled and race traitors, I suppose if they would not step aside and shut up, would be put up against the wall. 

But who, now, would the charismatic leader who could galvanize such a following be?  Horst Mahler?  Maybe if he were forty years younger.

If the demographic situation becomes too desperate I don’t see that there will be any other choice than something like NS.

Posted by Desmond Jones on Sun, 01 Mar 2009 23:42 | #

What is never attempted is a direct defence of NS, ie an explanation why its little foibles - the gangsterism, the militerisation and totalisation of society, the land-theft, the slavery, and so on - were “good” and “just” in their own rights.

Why is there an expectation to defend that which never existed? The proof of a major plan to enslave, murder and steal the land of Europeans (i.e. Slavs) doesn’t exist. What is the point of engaging fantasy?

Posted by weston on Mon, 02 Mar 2009 00:48 | #

No, you just pretend that you are White, that you are one of us, to lower our defenses to your subversion.

  s.e. is practicing psy-ops.  The “we’re hopelessly fucked” defeatism is intended to lower morale and discourage any effort on our parts.  Ignore the non-white filth.

Posted by danielj on Mon, 02 Mar 2009 01:03 | #

s.e. is practicing psy-ops.  The “we’re hopelessly fucked” defeatism is intended to lower morale and discourage any effort on our parts.  Ignore the non-white filth.

It is ridiculous because it doesn’t take any real effort for me to post on the internet. There is no way to discourage me from doing it because it doesn’t have any real associated costs.

Posted by Guessedworker on Mon, 02 Mar 2009 01:27 | #

Desmond,

Are you claiming that “the gangsterism, the militerisation and totalisation of society, the land-theft, the slavery” did not exist? 

Are you claiming that The Night of the Long Knives, for instance, was all a fiction?

Are you claiming that German society was not militarised ... in short, that it was not subjected to masses of military images from the propaganda machine, and that the young, in particular, were not regularly put in uniform and trained to think in martial terms, all in the pursuit of an eventual war in the east?  Are you claiming that Goering never said:-

“Every German, man or woman, between 65 and 14 must have his mobilisation order in his pocket, must know where to go.”

... in a speech in November 1938?

Are you claiming that the total control over the state, the use of the law to ban and imprison opposition politicians, the extra-legal violence of the SA, the systematic persection and surveillance of the state secret police, the censorship of the media and the production of public opinion ... are you claiming that none of this existed?

Are you claiming that Hitler himself did not write in Mein Kampf of the need for living space in the east, or that he somehow did absolutely nothing about this ambition - first as plans were laid for Barbarossa, then as the invasion was executed?

Are you claiming that forced labour was not a large-scale enterprise within the German wartime economy, involving millions of people abducted from the civilian populations of at least a score of countries?

Posted by Desmond Jones on Mon, 02 Mar 2009 07:29 | #

GW:

Are you claiming that Rohm et al were not notorious murders and sadistic ruffians? Are you claiming the SA presented no threat of insurrection? Are you suggesting Rohm was bent on pursuing democratic means to achieve his goal? Are you denying that Hindenburg pronounced his “profoundly felt gratitude” to Hitler.

“You saved the German people from grave evil” wired Hindenburg.

Are you saying that after the Reichstag fire trial that Hitler might have confidence in the “German” judges of the judiciary to bring a charge of treason against Rohm? Are you claiming the martial law imposed by Hindenburg was the action of a fellow mobster?

Are you saying that Wilhelmine Germany was not militarised? Will you show how both groups differed and how one and not the other is perverse? Are you saying that there was no threat from the Soviet hooligans? Are you saying the pervading threat of Bolshevismus was fabricated? Are you saying the Holodomor was fabricated? Are you saying there was no persecution of ethnic Germans in the Danzig corridor?

Are you saying there was no suppression, censorship and imprisonment during the Weimar period? Even Jews concede that position.

Mark Steyn: Isn’t it obvious that in the case of Adolf Hitler, “hateful words” led to “unspeakable crimes”? This argument is offered routinely: if only there’d been “reasonable limits on the expression of hatred” 70 years ago, the Holocaust might have been prevented.

There’s just one teensy-weensy problem with it: pre-Nazi Germany had such “reasonable limits.” Indeed, the Weimar Republic was a veritable proto-Trudeaupia. As Alan Borovoy, Canada’s leading civil libertarian, put it:

“Remarkably, pre-Hitler Germany had laws very much like the Canadian anti-hate law. Moreover, those laws were enforced with some vigour. During the 15 years before Hitler came to power, there were more than 200 prosecutions based on anti-Semitic speech. And, in the opinion of the leading Jewish organization of that era, no more than 10 per cent of the cases were mishandled by the authorities.

Are you claiming that Lebensraum did not exist before Mein Kampf was written? The evidence was already presented, however, there never has been an attempt to rebut it, simply constant reiteration.

http://majorityrights.com/index.php/weblog/comments/nationalism_and_the_environment/#c65948

Are you re-claiming the existence of Generalplan Ost? If so some evidence, rather than just a practice of continual reiteration, would be helpful.

Posted by Guessedworker on Mon, 02 Mar 2009 10:04 | #

Desmond,

I am merely pointing out that National Socialism was a deeply perverted nationalist ideology which gave rise to some profoundly evil events and policies.  Prior events do not excuse NS.  Nothing excuses NS.

On the charge of gangsterism, for example, all manner of political opponents were disposed of in Hummingbird in addition to SA leadership.  But you make my point for me.  The SA was also Nazism - it was the paramilitary arm of NSDAP.  One gangster decided to eliminate others.

Facts from the dreaded Wikipedia:-

The fact that no plot by Röhm to overthrow the regime ever existed did not prevent Hitler from denouncing the leadership of the SA.[36] Arriving back at party headquarters in Munich, Hitler addressed the assembled crowd. Consumed with rage, Hitler denounced “the worst treachery in world history”. Hitler told the crowd that “undisciplined and disobedient characters, and asocial or diseased elements” would be annihilated. The crowd, which included party members and many SA members fortunate enough to escape arrest, shouted its approval. Hess, present among the assembled, even volunteered to shoot the “traitors” himself.[37] Goebbels, who had been with Hitler at Bad Wiessee, set the final phase of the plan in motion. Upon returning to Berlin, he telephoned Göring with the codeword Kolibri to let loose the execution squads on the rest of their unsuspecting victims.

The regime did not limit itself to a purge of the SA, however. Having earlier imprisoned or exiled prominent Social Democrats and Communists, Hitler used the occasion to move against conservatives he considered unreliable. This included Vice-Chancellor Papen and those in his immediate circle. In Berlin, on Göring’s personal orders, an armed SS unit stormed the Vice-Chancellery. Gestapo officers attached to the SS unit shot Papen’s secretary Herbert von Bose without bothering to arrest him first. The Gestapo arrested and later executed Papen’s close associate Edgar Jung, the author of Papen’s Marburg speech; they disposed of his body by dumping it in a ditch.[38] The Gestapo also murdered Erich Klausener, the leader of Catholic Action, and a close Papen associate.[33] The vice-chancellor himself was unceremoniously arrested at the vice-chancellery, despite his insistent protests that he could not be arrested. Although Hitler ordered him released days later, Papen would no longer dare to criticize the regime.[39]

Hitler, Göring, and Himmler unleashed the Gestapo against old enemies as well. Both Kurt von Schleicher, Hitler’s predecessor as chancellor, and his wife were murdered at their home. Others killed included Gregor Strasser, a former Nazi who had angered Hitler by resigning from the party in 1932, and Gustav Ritter von Kahr, the former Bavarian state commissioner who crushed the Beer Hall Putsch in 1923.[40] Kahr’s fate was especially gruesome. His body was found in a wood outside Munich; he had been hacked to death, apparently by pickaxes. The murdered included at least one accidental victim: Willi Schmid, the music critic of the Münchner Neuste Nachrichten, a Munich newspaper. The Gestapo mistook him for Ludwig Schmitt, a past supporter of Otto Strasser, the brother of Gregor.

You see, this isn’t how nationalists behave.  This is not what we want for ourselves, is it?  We would have to be mentally deranged to consider this ruthless and rampant hatred a part of nationalism as we would understand it.

In fact, this so obviously displays perversion, I cannot imagine any reason why you, an otherwise sane man, would wish to make such a dogged defence for NS.

Posted by Desmond Jones on Tue, 03 Mar 2009 00:34 | #

Yet this is exactly how Weimar came to be, extra-judicious state sanctioned murder.

Freikorps

However, the meaning of the word changed over time. After 1918, the term was used for the paramilitary organizations that sprang up around Germany as soldiers returned in defeat from World War I. They were the key Weimar paramilitary groups active during that time. Many German veterans felt disconnected from civilian life, and joined a Freikorps in search of stability within a military structure. Others, angry at their sudden, apparently inexplicable defeat, joined up in an effort to put down Communist uprisings or exact some form of revenge (see Dolchstoßlegende). They received considerable support from Minister of Defense Gustav Noske, a member of the Social Democratic Party of Germany, who used them to crush the German Revolution and the Marxist Spartacist League, including the murder of Karl Liebknecht and Rosa Luxemburg on 15 January 1919. They were also used to defeat the Bavarian Soviet Republic in 1919.[1]

On 5 May 1919 twelve workers (most of them members of the Social Democratic Party, SPD) were arrested and killed by members of Freikorps Lützow in Perlach near Munich based on a tip from a local cleric saying they were communists. A memorial on Pfanzeltplatz in Munich today commemorates this atrocity.[2][3][4]

The question is not whether it’s what nationalists wish today, but whether, in the context of the time it was perverse. Was it deranged and insane not to allow Germany to fall under the spell of the Marxists Sparticist League? If state sanctioned extra-legal killings are universally perverse, then you need look no further than your own government, and the MI5 funding of IRA weapons purchases to kill British police and soldiers, for examples. You continue to present a retrospective view as prospective. In those circumstances, facing a pending insurrection by the Communists or the deviance of the SA, with your parliament buildings recently burnt down and martial law enacted, what does a German nationalist do? Succumb to the rampage of deviance because to act otherwise is perverse? Condemnation by hindsight is so intellectually dishonest.

Posted by Guessedworker on Tue, 03 Mar 2009 00:58 | #

Desmond,

Well, thanks for agreeing that the Nazis were political gangsters.  But you fall into your usual habit of claiming that everyone was a political gangster, so that’s alright then!  IMO, you need to consider what you are really saying with this little tactic, because it places you in some moral hazard.  Were such a view to prevail it would place us all in said hazard.

We do have to make moral choices.  We are, in our little way, engaged in shaping discourse about a future revolutionary zeitgeist.  We need to draw bold, confident lines through history and through the European psyche, redacting everything down to the European being.  A failure to do that will be a terrible failure in the future, not least because a 21st century recrudescence of even some of the more unsavoury characteristics of NS would trigger the final destruction of everything we seek to protect.

If state sanctioned extra-legal killings are universally perverse, then you need look no further than your own government, and the MI5 funding of IRA weapons purchases to kill British police and soldiers, for examples.

Erm, you must mean this:-

A FORMER British Army mole in the IRA has claimed that MI5 arranged a weapons-buying trip to America in which he obtained detonators, later used by terrorists to murder soldiers and police officers.

In a book to be published next month, the spy, who uses the pseudonym Kevin Fulton, describes in detail how British intelligence co-operated with the FBI to ensure his trip to New York in the 1990s went ahead without incident so that his cover would not be blown ...

Posted by Captainchaos on Tue, 03 Mar 2009 01:10 | #

GW: “...a 21st century recrudescence of even some of the more unsavoury characteristics of NS would trigger the final destruction of everything we seek to protect.”

Why would it result in final destruction?

Posted by Guessedworker on Tue, 03 Mar 2009 01:26 | #

Because, CC, it would grant moral supremacy at the critical moment to the ideological forces that are destroying us.  It is absolutely necessary that nationalism, growing as it must out of our nature, also grows out of our moral nature.  That isn’t it to say that it would be weak.  It is to say that it would be truer of us than was NS.

Posted by Armor on Tue, 03 Mar 2009 06:16 | #

“... NS ... ”

I think most people have become too self-conscious to make good nazis, or to keep a straight face while they play at being nazis. Even in the 1930s, the English had a lot of fun watching the Germans and the Italians parade. Today, no one with all his marbles would seriously consider nazism as a model. We should also avoid any solemn rejection of nazism, because it makes us sound as if we were interested in the first place. But I think a historical interest in that period is all right. I think the desire to expose some of the false accusations about nazi Germany is natural too. It is a shame that judicial/psychological terrorism has killed the possibility of a normal discussion about that period.

GW: “Well, thanks for agreeing that the Nazis were political gangsters”

Don’t say that. Today, WW2 is supposed to boil down to the Jewish question. If you blame the nazis for their gangsterism instead of demonizing racially aware white people for the holocaust, you will be called an antisemite.

My position is that the British style of government was morally superior to the nazi regime, and the nazis were wrong to send Jews to concentration camps. But even so, mass immigration makes me think that our future would probably be brighter today if the nazis had won the war.

Posted by Desmond Jones on Tue, 03 Mar 2009 08:35 | #

Still, you avoid the question. The Weimar political leaders sanctioned extra-legal murder by the Freikorp (a criminal gang by your definition. They collected protection money from German landowners and businesses to fend off communist attacks.) Instead of dragging the Marxists to court on charges of treason, they were summarily and brutally executed. This action ensured the survival of the democratic state. Was it perverse?

If the Nazis were political gangsters why the approval from Hindenburg? Was Weimar Germany simply a gang of warlords?  If the court is controlled by the oppressor what other options do you suggest? You’re a man who prides himself on original thought. Should German nationalists have succumbed to the rampage of deviance because to act otherwise was perverse?

Again, what does a German nationalist do?

No matter how far or fast you run nationalist are forever branded with the mark of NS by the enemy. No matter how hard you rub it will not disappear.

Posted by silver (himself) on Tue, 03 Mar 2009 12:25 | #

I do not see in what way Silver Supporter can be a genuine supporter of silver if he is a genuine supporter of National Socialism, which is inimical to what silver would have Whites do.

I don’t have a problem with NS.  I have a problem with neo-nutzi screamers with whom essentially no discussion about anything is possible, and who seem to only succeed in pissing people off and having their own people redouble their efforts to “build bridges.” 

NS itself doesn’t seem any worse than the competing ideologies of its day (and it has to be placed in its day, otherwise certain aspects of it can appear a bit whatever-sticks-in-GWs-craw).  To Monday morning QB them, I think there was a lot they did wrong, much of it probably a result of the almost religious reverence they seem to have held for themselves.  I wouldn’t have been pleased to see my country overrun by them, but you have to play the cards you’re dealt, so I probably would have collaborated and excused it as “anti-communism”; if the Germans provided a workable socioeconomic order, it would have been worth it, I reckon. 

As for rehabilitating Germany, well, in one sense, setting the record straight is just the right thing to do.  Everything I’ve read in revisionism (the sort of stuff Colin Laney cites, ie not just HR) makes a great deal of sense.  At the same time, it’s quite understandable to me why the liberal (“court”) historians were able to shout them down—you can’t engage in a conflict of such magnitude and then the very next thing tell everyone we got it all wrong.  For me, so much good, unprecedented good, came out of the post-war peace that it pains me to have to admit so much of it rests on a bedrock of deceit.  But then that’s life eh. 

As a political strategy, “historianism” seems almost DOA.  Even when it works it seems to create a “hit me like a ton of bricks” effect which takes a man years to recover from, if he ever can, during which time his effectiveness is severely diminished.  Maybe we’re so steeped in deceit that to mitigate the lies would be easier than exposing them. 

(What does “Silver Supporter” support? I’ve said a lot of things on here, a lot of it bullshit, I guess—but then that’s what happens when you have to fend off implicit accusations of being a useless piece of shit greaseball scarcely worthy of the air he breathes every time you open your mouth to say something.  If you ever wonder why traffic’s low, this might clue you in.)

no discussion is ultimately possible - apart from agreeing to terms for separation.

And that’s my only interest in discussing anything with your side.  I’m concerned with what you do up until the point of separation, not with how you govern yourselves afterwards.  “Constitutionalism”, NS, libertarianism, “agrarianism” (I confess I haven’t a clue what it entails)—it’s of little concern to me.  Friendly political relations, on the other hand, are.  Which is why I try to stress that hardly any of this needs to be based on your rage—like my good friend Scrooby, who seems to think only once everyone gets as hopping mad as he is, then watch, magic’s gonna happen.  Well, maybe.  But I have my doubts. 

As for whether any separation takes place on your soil or we all just piss off home, to me that’s immaterial.  I propose partition on your soil simply because I think that would the easiest way to go about it (doing it piecemeal would be quite straightforward) and it would thus garner the most support.  From your perspective, if you’re intent on “winning it all back” (‘cos God knows life would be unlivable without it haw haw), then it just makes strategic sense to establish a redoubt first.

(Be a chum and publish this comment GW, there’s a good fellow.)

Posted by Guessedworker on Tue, 03 Mar 2009 15:42 | #

Armor,

Very sensible, as always.  I am frequently called an anti-Semite, of course, as is anyone who is not 110% judaised.

Desmond,

In case it has escaped your notice, I am concerned with the antecedents of nationalism in the universal sense, and only with that.  The antecedents of German social democracy are another matter.  If German social democrats found themselves, in the aftermath of defeat in a European War, resorting to street violence to put down down a communist revolt because there was no state machinery to do it ...

On January 8, the KPD left the Revolution Committee after USPD representatives had invited Friedrich Ebert for talks. While these took place, the workers found out about a flyer published by Vorwärts titled “Die Stunde der Abrechnung naht!” (The hour of vengeance is coming soon!) and about the Freikorps (anti-Republican paramilitary organizations, who fought the Weimar Republic and the November Revolution), whom the SPD administration had hired to suppress the workers. Ebert had ordered defense minister Gustav Noske, also a member of the SPD, to do so on January 6. Then the Revolution Committee stopped talks with the SPD. The Spartacist League then called for its members to take part in armed combat.

On the same day, Ebert ordered the Freikorps to attack the workers. The former soldiers still had weapons and military equipment from World War I, which gave them a formidable advantage. They quickly re-conquered the blocked streets and buildings; many of the workers surrendered, which did not prevent the soldiers from shooting hundreds of them. An unknown number of civilians also died during the fighting. Liebknecht and Luxemburg were captured by Freikorps and murdered.

... that is no concern of mine.

In any case, that’s not what should be plain to all to be “political gangsterism”, and it in no way excuses the real gangsterism that took place 15 years later, between June 30 and July 2 1934.

Why on earth are you so keen to prevent the intellectual marginalisation of a travesty of nationalism that sunk its lights in a violent, anti-human cult of personality?  What good it had in it - ie, its volkishness and its opposition to a judeo-liberal modernity - it destroyed because it had evil in it too.  Truly, we can do very much better.

Posted by skeptical on Tue, 03 Mar 2009 17:41 | #

Guessedworker,

Why on earth are you so keen to prevent the intellectual marginalisation of a travesty of nationalism that sunk its lights in a violent, anti-human cult of personality?  What good it had in it - ie, its volkishness and its opposition to a judeo-liberal modernity - it destroyed because it had evil in it too.  Truly, we can do very much better.

What a great question.  And although I know that you’re not interacting with my thoughts here, I’ll go ahead anyway.

The transition from unawareness to awareness on these matters does not come without a certain measure of psychic pain.  To realize that one’s whole worldview was once nothing more than manufactured lies, refined and then propagated for the purposes of cannabilizing one’s own society and its folk, sould render most anyoner quite bitter.  And, in some sense, what could be a more intellectually defiant act than to reinterpret national socialist Germany, sympathetically?!  Here, I think, is the answer to your riddle; the reason why otherwise intelligent people who have passed into a state of awareness (even on force of intellect) start excusing certain monstrosities.  It is the outward manifestion that some choose to express the utter rebellion that has taken place within their mind and spirit.

Posted by Guessedworker on Tue, 03 Mar 2009 18:38 | #

skeptical,

Very perceptive.  You could easily be right.  On that basis the subject would look upon, say, my interest in getting beyond NS as a sign of residual captivity.  That could certainly explain the dismissive demeanour of Silver Supporter (who I take to be AA/anonymous).  I would be a bit disappointed if Desmond, complicated fellow that he is, can be explained quite so easily.  But perhaps he will offer his own explanation.

Posted by Desmond Jones on Tue, 03 Mar 2009 22:50 | #

No one asked if it was a concern of yours. The question is quite simple really. Was it perverse?

It is amusing to watch the deployment of all sort of legerdemain to avoid answering a simple question. Argumentum ad populum, redefinition and finally more fantasy. Now we are told that NS was destroyed because it was evil, not because it opposed judeo-liberal modernity.  Thank you for the chuckle.

The last word is yours.

Posted by Guessedworker on Tue, 03 Mar 2009 23:01 | #

Desmond: Was it perverse?

As an executive order to fight the revolutionaries no, of course not.  There may be words with which to criticise it, should one have a need to do so (which I don’t).  But perversity, which I reserve for when the politics of kinship and love are twisted into the politics of terror, is not one of them.

Posted by Guessedworker on Tue, 03 Mar 2009 23:07 | #

Desmond: Now we are told that NS was destroyed because it was evil

NS destroyed itself.  Germany could have continued its internal social and economic revolution, and resolved the Jewish Question within its borders.  Britain and France would not have declared war because Germany - or Italy - had taken a different path, and America would not have been drawn-in in ‘42.

Posted by Frederick Brown on Fri, 05 Jun 2009 22:31 | #

Damn, it feels good to be a gangsta!!

Hitler was the least evil man in history, Gussedworker.

The British world - through the intermarrying of Aryan people with the subhuman ogrish natives - ushered in this Age of Strife that threatens to destroy all of humanity, plus a large chunk of the global ecosystem.

The most heinous crime was that of Britons in lofty positions granting Jews monumental financial leverage, while working together to pursue avaricious imperialist aims. It all went tits up from New Imperialism onwards.

Do you have any idea of what the ancient Romans thought about the natives in the interior of this Island? They were disgusted, to say the least, and had never encountered a more idiotic people.

This ogrish heritage is malevolent, obstructive and unstable.

If you haven’t noticed, it is Britain and the wider British world that is spiraling downward into depravity with a spring in its step.