|
|
|
Majority Rights: For Those Who Will See The Obvious..
That Hitler and the Nazis were not White/European nationalists, nor can they represent the interests of White/European peoples. I would like to clear the way further for Majority Rights as a place of sanity for White interests. Indeed, if a former head of state where I am from had the attitude toward Germans and Germany that Hitler had, for example, toward Slavs and Eastern Europe, frankly, I would not boast of this man, but would be eager to leave him in the past as an embarrassing expression of overcompensation. I am frankly surprised that this is not the default position of every self-identifying White nationalist. Hitler’s was a position which could only have led to inter-European fighting and diversion from our proper organization. On the other hand, the Germans I meet in my travels, by sharp contrast, are very fine people; I am eager to help them, as I might, to ensure the flourishing of their particular native European form and ways; as well as to unburden them of undue guilt and foreign impositions. This generation had nothing to do with World War II, for better or worse. I am sure that there are sufficient many of them who see fit to participate in our mutual and discreet survivals as European nations and peoples. I was ready to dive right-in with this frame of mind years, in fact decades, ago. One of the crucial issues obstructing this has been, and is, the absurd position of some self-proclaimed White Nationalists that we somehow need Hitler or to redeem Hitler. We need nothing of the kind. We need Europeans deeper and wiser. Let there be no mistake, those who insist upon Hitler and Nazism are Not White Nationalists. That sort of harrowing, dog-eat-dog elitism, narrow imperialism, is not only bound to scare people away, but rightfully so, as it is dangerous ignorance of the broadest, most basic, most important levels of human relations. It does not represent Whites, but only a narrow and creepy few. Nevertheless, those with some pointed skills, technical perhaps, still keeping their nose above water, satisfied that they have not been made redundant as they can do things that Negroes cannot, might remain blind for the need of Whites to also do things that Negroes are capable of doing. These White rats clinging to the suddenly jutting, upraised bow just prior to its precipitous submersion, are quite sure they should be leading, that the ship going down proves they were right, all along. Hitler must have been right.
But really what you are seeing is what happens in effect when we confuse White leftist control for Jewish prescribed liberalism for Whites. It would be difficult for Nazi right-wingers to accept that their heroes were the massive screw-ups (being kind with my words) that they were; it is hard for them to acknowledge that they gained popularity under color of the left, as they gained power through assimilation of the moral high ground which they would betray. But for reasons of demographics; viz., those among peoples not in the historical path of the Nazi wrath; e.g. some demographics in the U.S; and for reasons of forcible and analytically crisp personalities, e.g. Dr. William Pierce, many have gotten their rightful indignation misdirected into a false notion that Hitler and Nazism provide a platform for something other than that particular and narrow imperialist hubris - or that that hubris is somehow the necessary answer. For them, this provides the easy and compelling emotional recourse. How else to explain the gifts that they’ve bestowed with their technology and legal skills, of being able to watch women who should be our wives being sodomized by Negroes? It must be legitimate, under their control, as it is sanctioned by their constitution, smelling as it does, like their own toilet paper; just as participation in their war machine is obligatory, for surely war and struggle is the first law of nature and they are the winner? Obviously not. But we, the White left, know that they have put their nose to the grindstone unappreciated, betrayed in fact. That is our point. The stress, uncaring or blindness of certain individuals to the fact that it is not necessary to adopt or excuse the malice that Hitler held for other European peoples; that rejecting Hitler’s worldview does not entail including Jews in our category of European people; emphatically does no mean rejecting Germans; or a particular idea here or there, simply as Hitler may have thought of the same thing or that, absurdly, we are beholden to Hitler if he held a similar idea; nor again, most especially, does it mean that we have to adopt a stupid idea, simply because it is what Hitler believed. Better, we can think for ourselves - we may conceive of a worldview in which Europeans function symbiotically. We will be more wise and successful, as White/Native Europeans, in achieving our sovereignty from Jewish and other non-native European imposition. What makes this all so stupid, of course, is that White nationalists are not and never have been against Germans or German nationalism - but Nazis ARE against other White European folk. With that, rather than being able to devote attention to our mutual enemy, we have to brace for the rhetorical and literal attacks against us, as Whites, by this right-wing.
This is to provide one answer, anyway, to GW’s question of what we are missing: a non-Hitleresque position, that welcomes participation of White people without raising the specter that right-wing elitism is going to exploit and extinguish them. You see, the White Left, while it is so speculative as to believe in the parameters of biological race, is following Kant’s advice of keeping a principle, in fact our race and its compartments as a principle, since it is easier to correct sensible oversights than to reconstruct that principle, as we have found. Wittgenstein, because he was a Jew, sought to turn Kant on his head: We are talking about the real Wittgenstein now, who destroyed lives with his advice to look at, and do, what ordinary people are doing in everyday (popular) situations, and then merely, pragmatically, non-reflectively, follow suit concretely, to be “cured the psychopathology of philosophizing.” To be cured the concept of our people and the union thereof. Hence, why the White left. As in Kant’s advice that a principle is more difficult to maintain whereas you can always apply sensible correction. In a word, the right, including the Christian right, with all of its confused text, self flagellating and obsequious devotion to the other, does not have the moral high ground. We all know its golden rule is unreasonable - it is toxic. It is prescription number one to scab the union of Whites. The Left, a White left, taking measure of the full scope of European people, history, temporal breadth and future, holds accountability – it begs the question of re-definition, “what do you mean? ‘The White left’? Are you going to take my private property and deserved wealth away?” No. “Does it mean that my incisive analysis and special contributions, my excellence will be unrewarded, indistinguished and unappreciated?” Of course not, just the opposite, its relevance will enhance its appreciation. Then again what is ordinary and necessary will not be punished, unrewarded and without incentive either. “Does it mean opening borders to non-natives of a White nation and treating THEM as OUR MARGINALS, the marginals of OUR UNION as the Jews would have it?” The answer is of course The White Class is none of those negative things that the right and Jewish liberal left would like to have attributed to leftism per se. Whereas the right attempts to base its warrants on narrow, objective criteria only, which are easily exploited and out-maneuvered by Jewish interests, if not causing right wingers to shoot themselves in the foot - although it is being a bit kind to them to suggest that they are unaware of what they are doing, hurting themselves by the cowardly selling-out of their constituent pattern of Whites. Rather, as a White left, a White Class, we may keep a bead on those who can do us most harm, the elitists who mislead and betray us, the masses who follow them and scab us. Hence the emotionalism with regard to race and immigration in these past 45 years may have to do with rational criteria, topoi of classifications, postulating extended patterns of peoplehood, being prohibited by the right as “leftist, exogenous chimera” as much as with Jewish liberal leftism prohibiting these taxonomies of protracted, human biological systems as “racist.” Comments:2
Posted by DanielS on Mon, 21 Apr 2014 05:06 | # His towering was stilted, his having been “imperfect” a vast understatement, his being preferable to other leadership a false either/or. Happy Birthday to Hitler, played on Stalin’s organ: 3
Posted by Guessedworker on Mon, 21 Apr 2014 07:10 | # Personality cult is a very large missing of the point. History is change. The human agent of change is only something or somebody remembered along the way. It is not a cause in itself. Championing it as such never rises above the utilitarian. It’s not enough to base one’s effort on the character or contribution of a single personality. To grasp after some supposed advantage to be got from rehabilitating Adolf Hitler, or even restoring him to the position of moshiach (because, yes, National Socialism was formatively Judaic), is to make oneself a philosophical and historical illiterate. All men, from the most exalted to the humblest, serve ideas about the human good:
It is there, in those ideas and the causes which they spawn, that we may truly judge Man as a destining creature, and even the truest part of history’s leading personalities themselves. We may also be judged - and judge - ourselves: http://majorityrights.com/weblog/comments/on_prescriptive_ontologies_part_two_homo_heroicas 4
Posted by Morgoth on Mon, 21 Apr 2014 13:29 | # It’s not so much that awakened White men are into the finer points of National Socialism it is a deeper problem that we have that I have myself had to grapple with. The problem is that on your mental journey you discover that more and more of the culture and the world around you hates you and is designed to destroy you, what Nazism, or rather the image and aesthetics of Nazism represent is an alternative, they were the ultimate rebels. Lets just take a young man who is angry about the Muslims and wants to know why they are in his country and why they are being protected. From that starting point if, he continues, he is going to see that the women who he should be wooing are being brainwashed to go with Blacks, he is going to understand that he is made a laughing stock, he can’t escape into a nerd universe because he knows that the Jews have created it, he can occupy himself with sports but there is the Black man once again, he can find some inoffensive hobby but that is a cop out and pricks the conscience because the system needs to be destroyed. So what is the cure?. I recently came across this band, they are part of a growing sub genre called ‘‘Martial Industrial’’ and if you listen to this you will recognize why and what this kind of thing has to offer to these young men. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m2ANBXPsQMw I have to admit it is powerful stuff, it is jam packed with strength, Wagnerian heroism, defiance and a sense of a coming clash that will set things right, where the enemy will be totally and utterly annihilated. The problem, then, is what else is there for White men who totally reject the modern world? As an aside when I was listening to this my girlfriend, who is usually on board with the whole cause, pointed out that that music is going to lead to killings when it is combined with the awareness of what is happening. 5
Posted by DanielS on Mon, 21 Apr 2014 15:11 | # . Agreed, and as I have been arguing, from some demographic positions, it appears as the obvious recourse for identitarian rebellion, but then there is an awful lot of rigid, corny and perfunctory conformity to Nazism (not to mention putting some of the hottest babes there are - Slavic women - in the enemy camp). Along with establishing that we are not averse to overlapping some ideas they may have held, we also need to indicate our distinction in other ways, as not being the same, but more radically loyal still, in our native European kinds. It seems a whole lot cooler to be on the side of all Whites (people of native European extraction), to be on the side of their nations and to be able to advocate one another. To make this known, it seems, identity creation is necessary, in terms of imagery, marketing, music and these clarifying memes.. The 14 Words are a good start - minus the 88, of course. While the Nazis did have some cool imagery, the swastika and the SS lightning bolts, their identity also carries necessary stigma. I have tried for an alternative image with a 14 logo: http://majorityrights.com/weblog/comments/distinguishing_majority_rights I suppose it could be better (I can imagine it not working for women). Whatever, we are talking about something like creation of identity markers and marketing. It is a problem but can be an enjoyable problem for the creative. Input is most welcome. While we might hold some positions similar as the N.S. Germany, e.g. the issuance of national or local currency, safeguards on usury, disenfranchising Jews and other non-Whites from proposed, reconstructed White nation(s), there are also content matters to address in clear terms, to distinguish our radical position from the Nazis. It will help our cause that, of course, we are not against Germans and it should help them to drop the obligation to have European enemies. 6
Posted by Tyler on Mon, 21 Apr 2014 15:52 | # Hmmmm I beg to differ. Over the years, as a (former) liberal looking for truth, nobility and a just, healthy and happy society, I came to the conclusion that only National Socialism can save us from being annihilated. Save us from being annihilated not only as a race, but also as civilisation, as a society. You of course first need to see that everything you were told about Hitler and NS is a complete lie. You need to understand why NS was born, what its 25 program points are and why. Look them up for yourself, not what the propaganda machine wants you to believe. NS was succesful and had the support of the vast majority of the people, because it was a pure, honest answer to the precarious situation Germany found itself in. Only by embracing principles of National Socialism, adjusted to the new modern world (National Socialism was specific for the situation of Germany at that time) can we turn the tide and be in a position and have the soundness and strength of ideology to beat our enemies and their destructive concepts that keep us divided, weak and on a path to self destruction. Once you understand and find out for yourself that almost everything we have been told about NS and Hitler are utter lies, gross exaggerations, and devious propaganda spread by our currrent enemies (the same ones as those Germany faced at that time), the picture will be complete, everything will make sense and you will be and feel completely liberated. You have then reached the end of the rabbithole of lies and unmasked the truth. Our enemy knows this and this is why, 70 years after Hitlers death, so much daily effort, money and propaganda is put into demonising National Socialism and Hitler. We live in an Orwellian world, where the lie is the norm, where the good is portrayed as evil and vice versa. As long as you believe or accept the lies of the enemy (in this case NS and Hitler), you are going to lose the battle as your ideology is weak and will bear achilles heels which will be exploited. Besides, consider Hitler as being a litmus test. Those who fail the test will not be there to drag you into faillure, you will not be destroyed from within, once you are engaged into battle with the enemy. Think about it. I admit that the propaganda of our enemies has so far worked very well. Hitler and NS have been ingrained in the human psyche as pure evil and that will be very hard to turn around. But it is fair to say, that we currently see a strong awakening to the truth, thanks to the internet. Once critical mass is reached it can very quickly turn into our favour. But you need a solid ideology to be in a position to turn the tide. What other ideology do you have? Just another remark: you can try and develop a strategy, ideology away from Hitler and NS and deny NS and H. Yet, you will nonetheless be associated with NS, Hitler and ‘‘fascism’’ anyhow by the same enemy for any actions you undertake. Better then is to face the honest truth re NS, accept it, and defend it with vigour. It will be easier in the end, because it is the truth for which no one has to apologise. As for the embarrassing rednecks, skinheads that might give a bad name to NS and WN (my guess is, that this is your real problem with NS). Let’s face it first of all: they are not at all what was envisaged as exemplary national socialists, quite to the contrary, so this is your initial rebuttal. But they are also the victims of the current model of multiculturalism and liberalism and this is why they behave like this. All they need is to feel accepted by the group. Give these guys a clear role in the whole (and their surely is a valuable role for them to play in the whole), strong exemplary leadership, a sense of belonging and the problem will be solved. 7
Posted by DanielS on Mon, 21 Apr 2014 16:46 | # “only National Socialism” There is an absurdly disingenuous unanimity with which Nazi advocates argue that is quite similar as the way Jews argue. First of all, there is a disingenuous non-distinction that I have been confronted with when I assert that I am against Hitler and Nazism, which is that I am against national socialism in any of its ideas (but as if they are the only ones who could think). There is a distinction there to be importantly teased apart. Next, not everything that I have heard about Hitler in a negative sense is a complete lie: I became perfectly satisfied of that upon going through Mein Kampf and Table Talk. But there is much more that modest or thorough investigation reveals negative about Hitler, his program - not complete lies. I did not say that he did not have and implement some good ideas, particularly in domestic policy. He also had some disastrous ideas. Plainly, not lies. I’ll be polite Tyler, and tell you that I have carefully read your comment and do not buy it whatsoever. Again, you want to take the position that only Hitler was capable of thinking and that his program was flawless, let alone having the serious flaws that it did. It is not propaganda, I’ve seen/heard the material, though all you really have to do is look at the actions of Nazi Germany with regard to its neighbors. Tyler, it is insistence on pure Hitler ideology that is going to keep us divided. There are many self respecting and deeper European thinkers than Hitler who will never accept him and his platform as something beholden. Being against the reality of Hitler and Nazism in the negative of what ideas they held and enacted, is not the same as being against all ideas that NS held. Lets not disingenuously blend the two issues: rejection of Hitler/rejection of any idea he might have implemented.
Danzig became a neutral city and Germans were perfectly entitled to live there: Here they are “suffering” during the 1930’s under its League of Nations neutrality: Posen was retaken by the Poles after WWI under the claim that it should be theirs on historical grounds. It is a legitimate claim. That leaves only Bromberg and Thorn as the cities most contestable as a grievance of outright loss to Germany. Brilliant Hitler, just brilliant.
8
Posted by Ereignis on Mon, 21 Apr 2014 18:47 | # Hitler and the Nazis were German nationalists. Germans are White/European. Therefore Hitler and the Nazis were White/European nationalists. Seems pretty obvious to me. It’s a basic syllogism. 9
Posted by DanielS on Mon, 21 Apr 2014 19:06 | # They were not German nationalists, they were German imperialists - which might not be so bad, were it not directed at the expense of other Europeans. 10
Posted by Tyler on Mon, 21 Apr 2014 20:02 | # I’ll be polite Tyler, and tell you that I have carefully read your comment and do not buy it whatsoever. Many thanks for having read it. And no offense taken. I wasn’t out to misrepresent the points you made in your article either. I just shared my opinion. And, NS is not a conditio sine qua non for me. But I repeat, I just fail to see any viable alternatives at this moment in time that will be strong enough to confront the destructive forces. The comprehensive framework is there. It just needs small adaptation to the current day’s situation. And it is getting late. Awfully late. But I won’t let NS divide us. I am ready for alternatives. Intellectuals? Too many intellectuals we have and nothing gets done. Intellectuals don’t make good leaders and seem too absorbed into their egos and personal advancement, being victims of the liberal individualistic paradigm in which we live today. You need something / somebody / language that cuts trough the BS and appeals to the masses. It is up to our intellectuals to make their complex musings into something that appeals to the masses. Constant showing off of knowledge doesn’t do the job. Mistakes? I guess we can fall into longwinded intellectual discussions about the mistakes that were made by NS and Hitler, without ever reaching an agreement on that. There is no point, I’m sure we can all agree on that. Our current masters make terrible mistakes too and we seem to take it. It all depends on what the narrative is. One mistake we all certainly made was believe the propaganda of our own masters and fight the Germans for the wrong reasons. We know better now don’t we?? Unless you believe the propaganda of your enemy. IMHO, as long as we see NS and Hitler as an obstacle, a mistake, we are victims of the propaganda and lies of our enemy, we believe our enemy and thus we are powerless. We can rise above that. All it takes is uncover lies. 11
Posted by Tyler on Mon, 21 Apr 2014 20:28 | # @DanielS You say
I’m really surprised you say that. Com’on DanielS, this is/ was an allied pretext to motivate and approve the war. Besides, the brits had their own colonies and its vast imperium then, which was widely accepted. So… pot / kettle ??!! Churchill just didn’t want the germans to become too strong, but he needed them to buffer the communists. He lost his own empire declaring war to Germany, using Poland as a pretext. Germany and Hitler had never any intention to invade England, as is widely accepted. Hitler called the brits our brothers. He could have defeated them, but didn’t. That was his mistake. Besides, the british royal family was in favour of Hitler. We know Hess went to England with a comprehensive peace plan. But we are still not allowed to know from the British secret services what was really Hess’s proposal. It’s obvious why. In addition, Hitler fought soviet communism (and knew the communist threat was real in Germany.) The Brits used Hitler for buffering the communists, to saveguard themselves from becoming bordered by communists. The essence here is that Churchill caved in for the usual gangsters behind the screen, who declared war on Germany already before. White man got screwed and divided again, by the usual suspects.
12
Posted by Ereignis on Mon, 21 Apr 2014 20:34 | # Hitler and the Nazis were German nationalists. This is not in dispute. Nationalism is not necessarily inconsistent with imperialism, and you suggest this yourself. Furthermore, all nationalisms, past and present, have entailed at the least imperialism over the units below the nation, however defined. At the time, virtually all of the earth’s territory was under the control of European states. Doing anything could have been construed as being “at the expense of other Europeans.” 13
Posted by DanielS on Mon, 21 Apr 2014 21:04 | # / “One mistake we all certainly made was believe the propaganda of our own masters and fight the Germans for the wrong reasons. We know better now don’t we?? Unless you believe the propaganda of your enemy. IMHO, as long as we see NS and Hitler as an obstacle, a mistake, we are victims of the propaganda and lies of our enemy, we believe our enemy and thus we are powerless. We can rise above that. All it takes is uncover lies.” I repeat, Hitler had some things right and some things wrong - very wrong. Chief among his mistakes was the militarism/conflict that he placed at the basis of human existence, the imperialism that he placed in lieu of nationalism. And of that, there is not question, if not clear enough for you in Mein Kampf, then beyond doubt in Table Talk and confirmed in deed.
That is why I tacked-on belatedly to that comment the following: German imperialists - which might not be so bad, were it not directed at the expense of other Europeans.
I did not say that Hitler did not have a less antagonistic if still condescending disposition toward the brits. He was still an imperialist - but eastwardly. “In addition, Hitler fought soviet communism (and knew the communist threat was real in Germany.) The Brits used Hitler for buffering the communists, to saveguard themselves from becoming bordered by communists.” So too did the Poles, the Belarusians, the Ukrainians and more: but they had Nazi Germany’s stab in the back to contend with as well. We need to, and can unite in European defense, but you are going to have to understand it is not going to happen under Hitler’s worldview. 14
Posted by DanielS on Mon, 21 Apr 2014 21:11 | # Posted by Ereignis on April 21, 2014, 03:34 PM | # “Hitler and the Nazis were German nationalists. This is not in dispute.” Not only is in dispute, but it is clear that they were German imperialists. “Nationalism is not necessarily inconsistent with imperialism, and you suggest this yourself.” It is inconsistent with White nationalism when it is at imperialist war with other White nations.
Tribe against tribe is not conflict within the nationalist/imperialist paradigm “At the time, virtually all of the earth’s territory was under the control of European states. Doing anything could have been construed as being “at the expense of other Europeans.” That sentence says nothing, it is nonsense. We are not talking about fighting over colonies. 15
Posted by DanielS on Mon, 21 Apr 2014 21:39 | # Sometimes I feel like a proctologist. Or for another apt metaphor, talking to Nazi advocates is like shoveling shit. From Hitler’s table talk August 1-2, 1941 Context: Luftwaffe had been striking at Moscow for a week, the Wehrmacht pushed against Smolensk on the 28th of July. Hitler: “We are going to have a continent to rule. When that happens, the different positions of the sun will bar us from uniformity. In many places we shall have to control immense regions with a handful of men. Thus, the police there will have to be constantly on the alert ...what a chance for men from the party. We must pay the price for our experiences of course, mistakes are inevitable. But what difference does it make if in ten years I can be told that Danzig, Alsace and Lorraine are now German. What will it matter then if it can be added that three or four mistakes that have been made at Colmar and five or six at other places; lets take the responsibility for these mistakes and save the provinces; in ten years we will have formed an elite of whom we know that we can count on them whenever there are new difficulties to master. We will produce from it all a new breed of man, a race of rulers; a breed of Viceroys. Of course there will be no question of using men like that in the West. World History knows three battles of annihilation: Cannae, Sedan and Tannenberg We can be proud that two of them were fought by German armies. Today we can add to them our battles in Poland and the West and those which we are now fighting in the East All others were battles of pursuit.”
On March 15, 1940 Himmler stated: “All Polish specialists will be exploited in our military-industrial complex. Later, all Poles will disappear from this world. It is imperative that the great German nation considers the elimination of all Polish people as its chief task.” At the end of 1940, Hitler confirmed his pronouncement demanding liquidation of “all leading elements in Poland”
‘Our strength is our quickness and our brutality. Genghis Khan had millions of women and children hunted down and killed, deliberately and with a gay heart. History sees in him only the great founder of States. What the weak Western European civilization alleges about me, does not matter. I have given the order – and will have everyone shot who utters but one word of criticism – that the aim of this war does not consist in reaching certain designated [geographical] lines, but in the enemies’ physical elimination. Thus, for the time being only in the east, I put ready my Death’s Head units, with the order to kill without pity or mercy all men, women, and children of the Polish race or language. Only thus will we gain the living space that we need. Who still talks nowadays of the extermination of the Armenians?” - Hitler 16
Posted by Guessedworker on Mon, 21 Apr 2014 21:59 | # So, let’s look at the key elements of National Socialism - those which are not purely economic, at least - and determine what role, if any, they could have today. Ayran supremacism (die Herrenrasse) Today we are seeking to represent our people’s natural right to life and land. Supremacism is completely off-target. Slave-labour Ditto. Lebensraum Ditto. The cult of the Führer The English, Scots, and Welsh, anyway, are simply too worldly and cynical to love up the leader to the required volume. Sorry. Can’t be done. The total state Well, in significant respects the version of democracy we have now is not too far from totalitarianism. But I think the voting public might be quite interested in more democracy rather than less, or in genuine democracy rather than an abuse of it. State terrorism Who in their right mind ... Eugenics, racial hygiene All we really need is some awareness of self ... some honesty ... and the important aspects of racial life will take care of themselves. Won’t they? The militarisation of society And so we arrive at the chief attraction, indeed, the only real attraction for many. The Schutzstaffel elite ... the Hitlerjugend ... a prescribed set of actions and horizons for the lost souls of urban Postmodernia. But is there any evidence from WW2, say, that this is the only foundation on which peoples can be called to their own defence? Really? 17
Posted by Goybbels on Mon, 21 Apr 2014 22:44 | # On August 22, 1939, just before the invasion of Poland, Hitler gave explicit permission to his commanders to kill “without pity or mercy, all men, women, and children of Polish descent or language.” -that gave me a good laughter. but to be seriously for a moment, who believes in this crap Mr. Sienkiewicz? Polish Patriotards/stooges of the late british empire back then and US lackeys nowadays like you? how is it anti-white if the polish government has been and still is a Puppet under jewish Hegemony via US as a proxy? It fascinates me that someone like you can get space to write something like this on a supposedly pro white platform. I’m waiting for more anti-german drivel, I’m really enjoying your whining. 18
Posted by Tyler on Mon, 21 Apr 2014 22:53 | # Shoveling shit? He was a product of that time and the very particular circumstances: Versailles and the threat of being consumed by Communism. We musn’t forget that. We musn’t judge him now by today’s selective liberal standards. He was a visionary. A superb leader. He understood the pig picture, geopolitics and saw all threats correctly. He was extremely intelligent, very well read and cultivated. He was courageous and just, did what had to be done for the good of the state and the people. Albeit not a good military leader. But above all, he loved his people and country and worked relentlessly and selflessly for the betterment thereof. He managed to get Germany out of the sh*t and bring the nation together as one whole, including the industrialists, working class and different political fractions inside NS. I refuse to shit on that. My own ancestors did fight against him, but they didn’t know that the current state of things is the outcome. I’m sure they would not approve. They thought they were fighting evil, because they were told lies. The german people of then can be all of us Europeans today. Slavs are our brothers. Just as the north europeans and south europeans are, with different mentalities. We know exactly who are NOT our brothers, even if they are white. No more brother wars, that we agree on. We must unite and we therefore must focus on core elements, not details which will divide us. Call it what you want, but we are today under liberal extremist threat. Sweden has just now as I type approved a bill which makes criticising immigration a criminal offense. That is liberal ‘‘fascism’‘. We all know this is fact now. How do you think you can tackle these developments? You need a comprehensive, strong ideology to address this onslaught, not some new loose idea by a few warped or lost liberals who are only worried about race. We are entering live or death conditions as a people, so we need a comprehensive solution. Think about it. Imperialist? Look, we live today under pax americana (pax judaica) and liberal extremism. We can all see where that is leading to now. It could have been a pax germanica. I am not so sure if that would have been worse, quite to the contrary. And if you were not an enemy / subversive of the state, you had a good life. Many non-germans went to fight for NS Germany. Look at how the Ukrainians are still siding with the Germans. Same goes for the Baltic States…
19
Posted by Septimius Severus on Mon, 21 Apr 2014 23:02 | # “The president of Poland is a fraudstuh in the pacckets of the Jewish lobby.” 20
Posted by Simo Häyhä on Mon, 21 Apr 2014 23:23 | # I noticed someone is spouting the typical “genocidal, Slav/Polack-hating German” nonsense, so allow me to intervene. http://www.holocaustianity.com/german-silesia.html https://www.hawaii.edu/powerkills/SOD.CHAP7.ADDENDA.HTM#S4 http://uncensoredhistory.blogspot.com.br/2012/12/ethnic-cleansing-of-germans-after-ww2.html 21
Posted by Simo Häyhä on Mon, 21 Apr 2014 23:28 | # Oh, not to mention the complete and utter fucking ABSURDITY (and hilariousness) of watching an American trying to define what Hitler and NS stood for, or if they’re “useful” (LOL) for Europeans today. But of course, ‘MURICA speaks for the whole white race; as it is the center of the world, right? Or maybe this is just a case of a polack being a polack. 22
Posted by DanielS on Tue, 22 Apr 2014 00:14 | # .............. But then they came shoveling the shit, in droves: 17, 18, 19, 20, 21.
That’s the short version, now let me commence shoveling: First, number 17
On August 22, 1939, just before the invasion of Poland, Hitler gave explicit permission to his commanders to kill “without pity or mercy, all men, women, and children of Polish descent or language.” “-that gave me a good laughter.” Did that give you a laugh, Goybbels? You know the thing of it is, I could just as well leave out that example and point to a myriad of misdeeds.
Oh yeah, its all a lie. Nice try dirtbag. There is plenty more crap that your god, Hitler, has spewed.
Because there were then and there are now Poles and other eastern Europeans who are nationalists and want their sovereignty. “since poland got her lebensraum in the west (sadly not enough, like berlin for example)” And you talk about lying propaganda? As if Poland had designs to take over Berlin.
Actually, Slavs were there first, but no, nobody in recent history sought to deprive Germans of Berlin. “arrived or the anti white Prussians ,right?” Well the Prussians were inclined to be anti-some-Whites.
No, the real wonder is that someone like you, so determined to provoke inter-European conflict, has a voice that has not been dissuaded by now. “I’m waiting for more anti-german drivel, I’m really enjoying your whining.” Whining, right. “Whining and Yammering” (stock phrase of Dr. Pierce). You are waiting for something anti-German because that is what you are about, that is what you want, inter European fighting and pseudo justifications for Hitler’s disastrous worldview. 23
Posted by DanielS on Tue, 22 Apr 2014 00:38 | # Now 18
“Shoveling shit? He was a product of that time and the very particular circumstances: Versailles and the threat of being consumed by Communism. We musn’t forget that. We musn’t judge him now by today’s selective liberal standards.” I didn’t say there were not causes and circumstances that went into his configuration. He was a visionary. A superb leader. For whatever good ideas he may have had, in sum, he blew it, catastrophically. “He understood the pig picture, “ Exactly. He understood the PIG picture. “geopolitics and saw all threats correctly.” Obviously not. “He was extremely intelligent, very well read and cultivated.” He was intelligent in some ways, of course, but deeply flawed. Absolutely not just.
He only cared about Germans, and in the end, didn’t even care enough about them. “He managed to get Germany out of the sh*t and bring the nation together as one whole, including the industrialists, working class and different political fractions inside NS.” That is a consequence of logic that comes together when you conceptualize the people as a whole. I refuse to shit on that. But you also refuse to understand that he is not the only one who conceived or is able to conceive of something like that (minus the garbage that comes along with him). “My own ancestors did fight against him, but they didn’t know that the current state of things is the outcome. I’m sure they would not approve. They thought they were fighting evil, because they were told lies.” It was in Hitler’s power to not fight that war. He is far - FAR - far more to blame than your ancestors. It is you who is falling for propaganda. “The german people of then can be all of us Europeans today. Slavs are our brothers. Just as the north europeans and south europeans are, with different mentalities. We know exactly who are NOT our brothers, even if they are white. No more brother wars, that we agree on. We must unite and we therefore must focus on core elements, not details which will divide us.” Well, fine, unless you try to say that Hitler is going to unite us, because it is not going to happen.
Indeed, enforcing liberalism upon us is the policy of our enemies. We are thinking about it, you are not paying attention. You just want to tell people that they should be following Hitler verbatim. “Imperialist?” Yes, Hitler was an imperialist. ..modeled after Friedrich the “Great” “Look, we live today under pax americana (pax judaica) and liberal extremism. We can all see where that is leading to now. It could have been a pax germanica.” No thanks to any of that. They looked upon the Nazis as help against the Soviets. Those Ukrainians who become familiar with Table Talk will see what Hitler had in mind for them and for Ukraine. 24
Posted by DanielS on Tue, 22 Apr 2014 00:56 | # .... “The president of Poland is a fraudstuh in the pacckets of the Jewish lobby.” Septimius, he probably is, as virtually all western leaders are now, a legacy thanks in large part to Nazi Germany’s inability to cooperate with other European nations.
“I noticed someone is spouting the typical “genocidal, Slav/Polack-hating German” nonsense, so allow me to intervene.” I assume you meant to say that I am German-hating, and I am not. And I have the opposite intention from genociding them, I seek to help them achieve sovereignty and to thrive right along with all European peoples.
“Oh, not to mention the complete and utter fucking ABSURDITY (and hilariousness) of watching an American trying to define what Hitler and NS stood for, or if they’re “useful” (LOL) for Europeans today. But of course, ‘MURICA speaks for the whole white race; as it is the center of the world, right? Or maybe this is just a case of a polack being a polack.” Hm, seems more like a projection of a Nazi-kraut being a Nazi kraut. But again, I am half Italian and half Polish American. I’ve looked into the pro’s and cons of NS Germany: they did some things right and some things very wrong (Take a look at GW’s list above, it’s quite good). I know something of the nations adjacent to Germany and they are nothing like they have been characterized by the Nazis or even by American media over the years. 25
Posted by Arch Hades on Tue, 22 Apr 2014 01:12 | # I’m pretty sure Hitler’s biggest mistake was not bombing Britain into oblivion when he had the chance and having a delusional and misguided fantasy that the British were on par with the Germans in terms of racial character, when in fact they’re very different. Britain has chosen it’s glorious anti Nazi path, Autism, Muslim riots, and race mixing with Negroes. 26
Posted by Lurker on Tue, 22 Apr 2014 01:36 | #
I see what you are saying but Hitler never had the chance to do that. It simply wasnt an option - whether he wanted it of not. No matter how thorough Britain’s defeat on mainland Europe, defeat and invasion of the British Isles was never possible at any point up to or during 1939-45. D-Day was regarded as a risky operation. Yet an invasion of Britain in 1940 would have been conducted without full air superiority, without full naval superiority, without any of the specialised amphibious equipment, preparation and training seen on D-Day and other allied invasions.
I just dont think thats true, he maybe held back before Dunkirk, allowing the British Army to get away, to a degree. Maybe the air war wasn’t pursued as hard as it might have been etc but even so the Germans fell way short of inflicting defeat or opening the way for invasion. Germany didn’t invade Britain not just because Hitler didn’t want to but because it wasnt physically/militarily/logistically possible either. We know Hitler didnt want that but it wasnt an option anyway. He merely wanted Britain to stop fighting. Thats getting off the point I know… 27
Posted by Carolus on Tue, 22 Apr 2014 01:44 | #
This is just a caricature - a bad one at that. If you like caricatures, here’s one that’s at least good:
28
Posted by Guessedworker on Tue, 22 Apr 2014 09:08 | # Carolus, National Socialism was a construct of Nietzschean morality, Judaism, and Fascism. Besides anti-Jewish action, what is there in its social dispensation I have missed, and which you approve of? 29
Posted by Leon Haller on Tue, 22 Apr 2014 13:04 | # I wish I had the time at the moment to engage this discussion at length. Great to see some new blood brought out. Tyler: When you speak of the present, are you saying we should try to rehabilitate NS, or that we should try to develop a contemporary movement like it? I think that’s a key issue. I tend to think contemporary advocacy of Hitlerism (even shorn of the Germano-supremacism, which really seems to rankle DanielS) is an irredeemable loser, if only for PR reasons. Ditto the Left’s rehabilitation of communism. Neither is going to happen. The present Left is still viciously marxisant , but they understand that the old Leninist revolutionary rhetoric (“dictatorship of the proletariat”, “revolutionary vanguard”, “state ownership of the means of production”, etc) no longer resonates (at least outside of small circles of hardcore a@@holes). Why would you suppose that WNs could ever overcome the massive anti-NS indoctrination to which you allude (not to mention its illegality across much of Europe)? OTOH, if what you are really advocating is some type of ethnofascism - or, even closer to the original spirit of NS, pan-European racial fascism ... that is, a white preservationism allied to ideological extreme authoritarianism and revolutionary street militancy ... then we are in agreement. Europe will NOT be saved except through revolutionary violence. No one at MR should be under the slightest illusion on this point. GW had what I thought was a good name for an English ethnonationalist successor party to the (I gather) increasingly defunct BNP: Our Land [whatever became of that idea/proposal?]. Even if Our Land Party starts to gain traction, does anyone imagine that it will be able to achieve its ultimate racial objective - the removal of all nonwhite citizens from British soil - through normal democratic politics? Spare me. At best, an absolutely vital renewed English ethnonationalism, operating within the political system, might grow strong enough to halt future immigration. But I see no possibility that an English majority will actually vote for forcible repatriation. [Do any Englishmen disagree with me?] So, to truly restore England, we must recognize from the outset that a non-democratic politics will ultimately be required. (Certainly, a lot of ‘tosh’ about ontology isn’t going to get the mosques shuttered and the black bodies removed!) But should this ultimate necessity for a period of authoritarian rule be acknowledged upfront, or should we recognize at the outset that our goals require a sequential process of gradually increasing political radicalization?
I think an English ethnonationalism rigorously shorn of distractive NS attachments is the correct path, at least in the early phases of the indigenous reconquest of the UK.
30
Posted by Graham_Lister on Tue, 22 Apr 2014 14:58 | # Not this utter crap again. I think the topic has been dealt with here by someone else (cough, cough). http://majorityrights.com/weblog/comments/the_ghosts_of_the_past “In the stygian murkiness, reckless and despairing forces multiplied. Munich was their favoured venue. . .” Now perhaps those without antinomian tendencies and a meta-political IQ above room-temperature can be left in peace? There are many site in cyber-space devoted 24/7 to ‘costume politics’ – please, please go to them. Enjoy you’re fractal wrongness, but not where non-idiots hope to gather – thanks. 31
Posted by Thorn on Tue, 22 Apr 2014 17:32 | # The SPLC and the ADL are all too happy to hear Hitler and Nazi appologetics. It legitimizes their claims in the minds of the gullable masses; hence, given the fear factor that it generates, it results in a steady stream of contributions. Enter the Genn Miller rampage. That alone will probably cause an avalanch of contributions to those anti-white Jewish activist hate groups. Not only is Danny essentially right about Hitler… but as a practicle matter, it’s counterproductive to try to keep legitimising him. 32
Posted by DanielS on Tue, 22 Apr 2014 19:00 | # Graham, I appreciate your explicit rejection of Hitler/Nazism, and I realize that you are probably not following what is going on in “White Nationalism” but the fact is that there are some vocal adherents to Hitler who are establishing popular sites and podcasts. At the same time, they are trying to engraft, if not equate, Hitlerism with “true” White nationalism, which is hugely false, misleading to the possibility of establishing solid grounds and to making headway among normal and intelligent people. Though we can agree that their premises are terribly unsound, they do not always cooperate by being entirely bereft of intellectual skill; nor do they lack social appeal, especially under the circumstances. Incredibly, some of them accuse others of lacking character (moral and otherwise) and threatening to give WN a bad name. I understand and share your frustration, but it emerges a matter that requires an occasional house cleaning as they are purveyors of some compelling arguments. After all, Hitler would not have gained such popularity by being lexically empty. Hence the importance, but also the opportunity, to underscore MR’s distinction from Hitler redemption - I knew that his birthday would bring celebration and laudatory articles about him on those popular sites, therefore I took occasion to mark what really is an important distinction here. I still find your pending thoughts on fratricide and paternal intervention looming important. GW, all of your comments are excellent. Thank you very much. Thorn, the kind words are noted. 33
Posted by Carolus on Tue, 22 Apr 2014 19:07 | # Guessedworker, National Socialism was not a construct of “Nietzschean morality” or Judaism. Not only is it incorrect, it’s a really lazy critique. Why don’t you just say that they were “racist” and “big meanies” or something? 34
Posted by Tyler on Tue, 22 Apr 2014 19:53 | # @ Leon, Besides, look at the successes of Golden Dawn and how they deal with the negative associations and pressures from extremist liberal groups. They cope with it and do so very well without betrayals and without squirming. They have strength of ideology and appeal to the masses without complexes nor lies and because of steadfastness. (this point also is a response to @Thorn and his last comment).
What I also find remarkable is your saying in the article:
@DanielS and Thorn Fraternal regards.
35
Posted by Desmond Jones on Tue, 22 Apr 2014 21:26 | #
Israel might be considered as one example of applying the above traits in some degree to assert a people’s natural right to life and land. 36
Posted by DanielS on Tue, 22 Apr 2014 22:43 | # .....
Absolute nonsense. Nobody could EVER make me cop to being a Nazi or to admiration for Hitler. I am not alone, quite to the contrary. You will find, sooner or later, that those who do try to embrace Hitler will be confronted with the reality of why it is not a good idea, with a rude awakening of the people that they are betraying in one way or another as such; those who take the angle of loyalty to Hitler will never be popular and respected for it, and they should not be. They will be confronted with a fury, and they should be. Reality will show you why..the answer to your next statement should provide a further clue.. You say
Let me tell you, Tyler, your saying you will not turn your back on Hitler is tantamount to saying that it is ok with you to invade Eastern nations, take their countries and kill any of their people who try to resist and fight back. That’s not the half of it. As I have previously noted, one of the reasons why a pro-Hitler position can gain audience in America is due to its largely German and Irish demographic - the largest White demographics there. These groups, most saliently, but among others, were not in a path empathic to the butt-end of the Nazi wrath… there would rather be some inclination to see the Nazis as “the good guys” and to exclude all contrary information. That is, it is you Tyler, who is falling for propaganda and lies. I remember the first times I saw Poland and Russia. The rage I’d felt to see these places and people. To realize that American media and culture had lied to me all of my life, had degraded these people.. growing up in America, I would not reveal my Polish side to people, because I knew it would automatically mean a Polish joke about stupid people.. But when I saw Poland and Poles, it was shocking, I found that on average, that Polish people were better specimens than Americans: the rage I felt at having been made ashamed of these people… I suppose the reason for the stereotype was because America is a largely Germanic population headed by a Jewish media…hence, Poles were a convenient mark.. ..we had another stereotype about Russian women being ugly (weight lifters with mustaches), can you imagine? I don’t know if you are American, but my point is that Americans, for example, have not known the truth of eastern Europe…the number crunchers do not tell the story either..but certainly, certainly Nazi propagandists will not tell you the truth of the history and the present reality. No Tyler, it is you who is believing lies. To say that we may as well embrace Hitler bespeaks one who needs a bit of time yet. Check out GW’s comments, he is correct: “National Socialism was a construct of Nietzschean morality, Judaism, and Fascism.” 37
Posted by Guessedworker on Tue, 22 Apr 2014 23:12 | # Leon, For your info, I floated the Our Land idea a few times during the period when people were expecting Andrew Brons to launch a successor party to the BNP. One or two folk noted the name. But those who actually decide these things seemed to want to stick to the usual mix of “National”, “Democrat”, “British” and “Party”. Anyway, it made no difference. Nothing meaningful happened. Brons feared adding to the long list of micro-parties, and the opportunity was lost. Paul Weston’s Liberty GB seems to be the only party really gaining any attention. 38
Posted by Guessedworker on Tue, 22 Apr 2014 23:18 | # Carolus, I asked a question: Besides anti-Jewish action, what is there in its social dispensation I have missed, and which you approve of? You replied without actually answering it. Fancy a shot at it? 39
Posted by Tyler on Wed, 23 Apr 2014 21:46 | # @ DanielS, Please leave the lecturing and self righteous attitude behind. I treated you with respect and intellectual honesty so far, but I see very very little reciprocity. So I will adapt a bit to your style from now on, if I may.
2. You spit on NS, on Hitler and ridicule those who do with poor rebuttals. You use the language of the liberal system, of our enemies, (use of ‘‘nazi’‘, ‘‘normal’’ people do not approve of Hitler’’ etc). You make ridiculous and false associations and thus play in the hands of our enemies. Fine. Yet you DO link to so many websites that do glorify NS and Hitler. What is the point of that? Cause more confusion and division?? I now asked you several times, what ideology do YOU suggest that we use, as someone that proclaims to speak for WN? Point me and us in the right direction please. I have shown above that we ARE interested to compromise, I am myself not even a ‘‘Nazi’‘, but I most definitely won’t fall for pseudo intellectual rubbish, silly experiments nor shills. 3. Back to propaganda: Good propaganda doesn’t have to lie. Goebels was right in that respect. Looks like your mind has already been lost to master of deception Bernays who rules in your homecountry. You have been studying history I understand, that says it all. Try a bit of historic revisionism instead. If you think you are the only one with a degree and some life experience, you are seriously mistaken. I won’t even mention maturity and age. 4. It appears that your grudge against NS and Hitler are purely anecdotal, seen from your perspective as an indoctrinated historian but above all, as a beaten slav. I do regret that your people were victims, but so were my people. It doesn’t mean I have to condemn NS, an ideology. It was war for christ’s sake. If you want to play a leading role in the WN movement and SPEAK for us all, it would make sense to put yourself above these anecdotal things and look at the big picture. There are always 2 sides and narratives to those historic events, which I hope you will admit if you are an intellectual. I can wipe the floor with your people and show their role in our demise, but I will refrain from it.
40
Posted by DanielS on Thu, 24 Apr 2014 08:01 | # Tyler: Posted by Tyler on April 23, 2014, 04:46 PM | # @ DanielS, Please leave the lecturing and self righteous attitude behind. Ok, boss. I treated you with respect You may think that you have in suggesting that ‘the Nazis were perfectly truthful and righteous, now lets not let a little thing like Hitler and the Nazis come between us.’ “and intellectual honesty so far” Who is intellectually honest, you? We’ll see about that. “but I see very very little reciprocity. So I will adapt a bit to your style from now on, if I may.” If you insist. 1. I am a ‘‘victim of Hitler propaganda’’ grin . Yeah right. Yes, that’s right. Time will show that to be the case. Hitler propaganda is massively encouraged, top notch quality and is overwhelming these days, isn’t it?? Especially in Europe. The MSM probably is fairly spiffy in its anti Hitler propaganda, but I am not riveted to the mainstream media these days. Nor would I expect them to take the proper angle on behalf of European interests. Since you asked: I am dutch-belgian-french and your site records will show you where I live. I lost ancestors fighting him. You ought to be more appreciative of World War 1 then, or even Friedrich the Great’s imperialism, as the start of World War II, instead of ‘everybody ganged up on poor Hitler’.. Hitler propaganda in Core Europe these days… I am primarily following so called “WN” and consequently I hear a great deal of pro Hitler propaganda. do you have any idea what you are talking about ??? Yes. Do you know the laws in Europe?? Pretty much. This is the most laughable rebuttal from you which makes me wonder if you are intellectually capable at all Really? You seem to be quite familiar - “knowing what you are talking about” - regarding the Nazi propaganda coming out of so called “WN” for someone so deprived by European law. “let alone intellectually honest (which I already noticed to be a very close call).” Where have I been dishonest? “Especially so since you and some of your mates here claim to be so intellectual.” Can’t speak for their claims. “2. You spit on NS, on Hitler” It is disingenuous to marry all aspects of NS to Hitler. Hitler I spit on in good conscience, yes. There are some good ideas in NS, Hitler is not the only one capable of them. Show me which rebuttal you consider poor and I will try to improve it in your estimation. “You use the language of the liberal system, of our enemies, (use of ‘‘nazi’‘, ‘‘normal’’ people do not approve of Hitler’’ etc).” These terms are fine: I use “Nazi” to distinguish its actual applications from NS in its benign applications, also to distinguish the misdeeds of its regime, Hitler and his idolaters from Germans. Normal people are ones I designate as those who do not want inter-Euroepan war, do not buy the Nazi propaganda that Hitler was perfectly justified, do not respect Hitler’s policies with regard to neighboring European countries, especially to the east. “You make ridiculous and false associations” Show me “the ridiculous false associations” so that I can correct them or clarify my meaning for you. “and thus play in the hands of our enemies.” How am I playing into the hands of our enemies? By not being on the side of Hitler? He was on “our side” ? No, Tyler, it is you who is playing into the hands of the enemies with your insistence upon reverence of Hitler. I am on the side of all Europeans: Jews and other non-Whites are not a legitimate part of our nations. “Fine. Yet you DO link to so many websites that do glorify NS and Hitler. What is the point of that?” I haven’t established the links here. If a site is linked that does not mean everything is agreed upon by everybody here. I visit sites that I don’t generally agree with, don’t you? They are engaging material that concerns me as one concerned for European peoples. “Cause more confusion and division??” Again, I have not established the links, therefore it is difficult to go to motivation, but I have just indicated my disposition toward the links. I did recommend that Compulsory Diversity News (maybe another, have forgotten now) be put-up and Lurker kindly obliged. “I now asked you several times, what ideology do YOU suggest that we use” We’re still working it out, but I think you can begin to see some parameters of the ideology that I would propose in the following articles: http://majorityrights.com/weblog/comments/strongethnocracy_sortocracy_and_the_euro_dna_nation_strong http://majorityrights.com/weblog/comments/euro_dna_nation http://majorityrights.com/weblog/comments/leftism_as_a_code_word_part_1_the_white_left I haven’t gotten much cooperation in negotiating the details, but I have gotten quite a bit of vicious obstruction from Jesus freaks and Nazi wannabees. I speak as one interested in the well being of all Europeans, yes. (Hitler’s claim in that regard could be condescending, at best, and more honestly disingenuous) “Point me and us in the right direction please.” Well, have a look at those links above, and if you have any constructive advice it is welcome. “I have shown above that we ARE interested to compromise” Ok, we’ll see. “I am myself not even a ‘‘Nazi’‘, but I most definitely won’t fall for pseudo intellectual rubbish, silly experiments nor shills.” Alright. If you truly care for the well being of all European peoples and look for cooperative means to secure our existence and sovereignty from Jewish and other non native European imposition of our whole and discreet parts that is meaningful to me and I am sure will be to the normal others, as I call them. “3. Back to propaganda: Good propaganda doesn’t have to lie.” Well, I agree with that but… He might have been right in that statement, but that does not mean that he did not lie or edit the truth in a way that was all too convenient. “Looks like your mind has already been lost to master of deception Bernays” Oh come on! You have a high opinion of me not, but perhaps we can elevate your assessment of my worldview in days to come.. “who rules in your homecountry.” Jewish interests and objectivist-capitalist/corporatist interests rule in just about all countries inhabited by European peoples.
History is not my forte, I prefer dealing with the situation at hand and yet to come, but I have been forced into history a little more than I might like in order to address some of the inaccuracies being floated in so called WN. “Try a bit of historic revisionism instead.” That is some of what I have had to do - to revise the revisionists, particularly in terms of relevance, where they are exceptionally weak. “If you think you are the only one with a degree and some life experience, you are seriously mistaken. I won’t even mention maturity and age.” I guess I don’t think that, but I do know that Americans have not had the experience of Eastern Europe that I have, and that particular European demographic make-ups are not taken enough into account in the “history” that is floated in WN circles. “4. It appears that your grudge against NS and Hitler are purely anecdotal” I think not, though I do tend to try to make as quick a work as possible of leaving it behind as a whole ideology, as it is fairly obvious that it should not be the moniker under which we rally, nor even the ideology, certainly not in its entirety. Again, you blend Hitler with all aspects adopted by NS, which I will ask you not to do, as engrafting the two insists upon a false either/or of rejecting Hitler and all aspects adopted by NS. You might look at this article of mine “seen from your perspective as an indoctrinated historian but above all, as a beaten slav.” My concern is for all European peoples; I have a historical bias in favor of us all - not only Nazi Germany thank you very much. A beaten Slav? Hey, Nazi Germany lost the war - badly. The Slavics got their nations back as they should have. Let’s move on to saving Europe, particularly the west and the south, from its plight of Jewish/international corporatist imposition of non European peoples and interests upon us. “I do regret that your people were victims, but so were my people.” I regret all the victims. “It doesn’t mean I have to condemn NS, an ideology.” I believe that GW is more summarily against it than I am, though I do find his arguments and characterizations accurate. I will ask you once again, to not blend Hitler and the actual results of his policies with all aspects of NS. They adopted some good ideas. “It was war for christ’s sake.” It was, and its being in the past is why I make every effort to not lay guilt trips on people of today for whatever perspectives their ancestors held then. “If you want to play a leading role in the WN movement and SPEAK for us all” I don’t propose myself as a leader nor to speak for us all, but rather a colleague. “it would make sense to put yourself above these anecdotal things and look at the big picture.” The historical perspective and theory requires returning, circling back to concreta from time to time - hence, I may use anecdotal illustrations from time to time. But all we have been getting is the Nazi point of view, spoken with absurd and disingenuous unanimity “which I hope you will admit if you are an intellectual.” There is not only just one side, the Jewish side, as we’ve been given over the years, but there are not just two sides either - the Jewish and now the Nazi side that we are getting in a response of overcompensating unanimity among so called WN. “I can wipe the floor with your people and show their role in our demise, but I will refrain from it.” I don’t think so. But then, my people are those of native European descent. The traitorous and naive among us have played a significant role in our demise, yes - it can be shown. TT is particularly strong on that issue - we’ll be talking to him soon. Stay tuned. 41
Posted by wobbly on Tue, 29 Apr 2014 18:20 | #
ignoring the main argument as it’s so last century… The thing is though - and it is a bit counter-intuitive - by attacking the Soviet Union Hitler forced the Bolsheviks to loosen their choke hold on the Russians because they needed them to fight the Germans. So even though the Germans were defeated and did a lot of damage to both themselves and the Russians they did weaken the Jewish Bolsheviks enough to let Stalin and others gradually push the Jews out from the late 1930s onwards. What would the Bolsheviks have done in the east and maybe the west if the German invasion had never happened and they’d stayed solidly in power into the 1950s and 1960s? Just a what if. 42
Posted by wobbly on Tue, 29 Apr 2014 18:22 | # @Morgoth “Triarii” interesting. war music for a betrayed generation. 43
Posted by Guessedworker on Wed, 30 Apr 2014 07:45 | # Wobbly: “What if” Something very like this: http://majorityrights.com/weblog/comments/the_jewish_decade_in_post_war_poland All Jewish ethnic striving holds within the pattern set by Judaism itself for supremacy in perpetuity achieved through the assignment of undifferentiatedness to the gentile, in diaspora meaning the European gentile. 44
Posted by Leon Haller on Wed, 30 Apr 2014 19:38 | # Hey, did no one notice that not only was April 20 both Easter and Hitler’s birthday, it was also the 125th birthday of Hitler? A 125th date seems at least somewhat significant. I recall reading about various “concerns” in the MSM over the then impending 100th birthday back in 1989. Granted, a centennial is vastly more important than a century and a quarter, but still ... I’m surprised April 20, 2014 did not generate more notice and commentary, at least on the Racial Right. 45
Posted by DanielS on Wed, 30 Apr 2014 20:15 | # ............ The description of the way the Jews ran the show and abused their rogue power in post world war Poland must take into account that native Polish nationalism, along with its anti Soviet and anti Jewish positions, had been destroyed by both the Soviet and the Nazi regimes at once. As were the anti Soviet and anti Jewish nationalisms of Belarus and Ukraine. Thus, to say it would have looked the way it did when the Soviets took over is to treat the Nazis as if they were friends of Polish, Belarusian and Ukranian nationalism, which they clearly were not. Pilsudski had already proven not only his willingness to fight as a Polish nationalist, but to do so successfully in defeating the Soviets, who were otherwise on their way to Berlin. While he extended an unfortunate, pragmatic and civic hand of enfranchisement to Jews in Poland, Pilsudski was a Polish nationalist and thus his platform would have been forced to recognize Jews as hostile outsiders to Polish nationalism ultimately - perfectly illustrated by the fact that his arch enemy was Feliks Dzierżyński, the half Polish half Jewish Soviet mass murderer. However, further complicating the matter was the conflict over western Ukraine and his reluctance to grant Belarusian nationalism sovereignty to fight the Soviets for their own territorial motives. Nevertheless, these two nations were also highly anti Soviet and anti Jewish at the grassroots level. Moreover, Pilsudki’s chief Polish nationalist competitor, Roman Dmowski - who is considered ‘the father of true Polish nationalism’ - despised Jews as much as Hitler. A problem there, at least for Germans, was that he was more anti-German than Pilsudski, whereas Pilsudski, though more conciliatory toward Jews and Germany, was more anti-Russian. Nevertheless, Dmowski was a nationalist. While he would have disputed even more vigorously and did argue (as a Versailles negotiator) for more land to be ceded to Poland from Germany in the west, he was nevertheless not an imperialist - he was not looking to take over Germany. The bottom line is this, the three nationalisms between Russia and Germany were anti Soviet and significantly anti Jewish - enough to form a cooperation between honestly reasoning Belarusian, Ukrainian, Polish and German nationalism against Soviet and Jewish imposition if a perspicuous overview of nationalist cooperations could somehow have been realized. Would that have been impossible to negotiate through the bitter antecedent experiences of the times all around for these four nations? Yes, probably, and that is why what happened happened. But from our view now, we can see the Nazis were no liberators, they shunned and betrayed the nationalism of the three nations between, which were able and more than willing to fight the Soviets and ultimately the Jews, if afforded their national sovereignty unencumbered by the necessity of fighting two hostile juggernauts at once. 47
Posted by Al Ross on Thu, 01 May 2014 13:42 | # Today’s Germany is the subsidiary beneficiary of Hitler’s Judenfrei policies. As we used to be asked at St Andrews University, “compare and contrast” the Kike - ridden, NYC finance based economy of the US and the engineering/technology/science led economy of modern Germany. Does anyone really believe that if Germany’s economy today were as Jew - controlled as it was when Hitler took control and as alien - dominated as the US is now, these indigenous German achievements such as Bayer, BASF, Daimler, BMW, Siemens and a whole host of ‘Mittelstand’ family companies would be front and centre of the EU’s economy? 48
Posted by DanielS on Thu, 01 May 2014 16:57 | # Roman Dmowski In 1926 he attempted to emulate Italian fascism.[2] He remains the prototype of Polish right-wing nationalism[3] and has been called “the father of Polish nationalism”
49
Posted by Bob on Thu, 01 May 2014 21:42 | # Those who have so ardently rejected National Socialism (and denigrated Hitler’s efforts) obviously do so out of utter ignorance of real history and what National Socialism was all about. Put aside the decades of demonization by a the mass media and PTB and take a closer look at what National Socialism espoused and accomplished. The PTB want you to look at German activities during wartime. This hardly a reasonable way to judge a political philosophy. ALL political systems become totalitarian and engage in atrocities during wartime. Particularly when they are involved in a struggle for national survival. Contrary to popular mythology, the second world war was not caused nor started by Germany. We know this today beyond any doubt. We know that powerful banking interests were busily engineering a war against Germany to destroy National Socialism nearly from the moment they came to power in the early 1930’s…at least as early as 1934. The real cause of WWII is not much different than the cause of so many recent and ongoing conflicts today. Whenever a regime pops up in the world which threatens to undermine the financial power of the oligarchical banking interests, those regimes suddenly find themselves under attack by those forces, military and economic, which are under the control of those same banking interests. Germany under National Socialism had shown the world that by casting off the corrupt monetary system controlled by these banking interests and adopting a rational nationalistic monetary system, a nation could return to prosperity. Had National Socialism been left to run its course, the rest of Europe (as well as the USA) would have almost certainly followed it’s example…which would have led to the demise of the great banking interests and the re-establishment of sovereign nations. Some have alleged that NS was not nationalistic, but imperialistic. There is actually no evidence at all for this statement. National Socialism and Adolf Hitler are not one and the same. The former is a political philosophy and the latter was merely a proponent of that philosophy. Did Hitler have designs on resources and lands beyond historical Germany? Absolutely. All great powers have interests beyond their own territories, particularly when it involves natural resources. America is no different in that regard. Much has been made of Hitler’s negative views of Slav’s an Poles as “subhuman” and deduced that he was not a “European Nationalist”.....Well it is absolutely true that Hitler was NOT a “European Nationalist” and would have rejected the very notion. In fact he did reject this notion explicitly in his writings. Hitler saw German speaking peoples as a NATION. He saw the French as a NATION. He saw these different subgroups of Europeans as distinct nations, and he was absolutely correct in those views. Hitler clearly stated that National Socialism was designed specifically for the German people and that it was not his intention to export this to other nations. His belief was that other nations should adopt political institutions and philosophies which suited their particular national interests (excluding communism of course). In this too Hitler seems to have been spot on. My own view is that we should embrace those parts of National Socialism which suite our “national interests” and meld into a political philosophy that reflects our particular national character….and that our brethren in England, France, Germany, Russia, Australia, Canada, etc. all do the same. This notion that there is a single “white nation” is an unnatural one with no basis in reality. We ought not set out to build a future upon such a faulty foundation. As to the much touted “Slavs are subhuman” mantra attributed to Hitler and/or his government, this was quite obviously wartime propaganda pumped out in order to convince average Germans to make war on the Russians. Here in the USA our government put out EXACTLY THE SAME KIND OF PROPAGANDA against the Japanese. Again, wartime propaganda should be seen as just that….and not more. The most important thing we can learn from National Socialism is that THERE IS NO SUCH THING AS RIGHT AND LEFT when it comes to politics. These are terms which mean NOTHING in reality and are used as a semantic tool to support a binary political construct which suits the purposes of those who would oppress and exploit us. To refer to ourselves as the “White Left” or “White Right” is nonsensical and does nothing but confuse those whose support we seek as to our true positions. Declaring yourself to be “Leftist” automatically excludes all would be “conservatives” from even listening to what you have to offer. Declaring yourself a “Rightist” has the same effect on would be liberals. You cannot win a war fighting by the rules impose by your enemy. In that vane, I do not fall into either camp on this dispute about Hitler and National Socialism. I do not believe that we should go around wearing Nazi uniforms and extolling the virtues of Adolf Hitler (although I don’t believe that we should buy into the demonizing of him either). I do not believe that we should embrace National Socialism in the exact form as it existed in 1930’s Germany either. But I do believe that whatever we wish to call it, the principles laid down by National Socialism will inevitably form the core of any political construct which within which any modern industrial nation can resist the power of these international banking powers. In short, we have much to learn from National Socialism. Why else do you think TPTB have expended so much effort in demonizing National Socialism for over 70 years? Because they understand just how dangerous these ideas are to their hold on power. Anyone who flatly rejects the core principles behind National Socialism is either ignorant of what these are or is someone who sees their interests as being tied to the interests of these international banking interests and their system of control. 50
Posted by DanielS on Thu, 01 May 2014 22:58 | # Bob: Posted by Bob on May 01, 2014, 04:42 PM | # “Those who have so ardently rejected National Socialism (and denigrated Hitler’s efforts) obviously do so out of utter ignorance of real history and what National Socialism was all about.” Not true. This is a typical angle taken by pro-Nazis, i.e. that everything negative about the Nazis was spin and that everyone is oblivious to the fact that they adopted some good ideas. Hell, I’ve even heard liberals claim that Hitler had some great ideas. But you will not hear pro-Nazi folks giving any weight to their misdeeds. “ALL political systems become totalitarian and engage in atrocities during wartime. Particularly when they are involved in a struggle for national survival.” Nobody here is looking to blame the people of today for atrocities committed during the war, all you have said thus far demonstrates that you are oblivious to the post and to comments from the anti Nazi side. They had the power to not go into it. The fault is primarily theirs, though the overly punitive economic conditions of The Treaty of Versailles are a close second. Hitler went along with the German banker industrialists in order to fund his Friedrich the Great-like imperialist aspirations. That’s the real cause. “Had National Socialism been left to run its course, the rest of Europe (as well as the USA) would have almost certainly followed it’s example…which would have led to the demise of the great banking interests and the re-establishment of sovereign nations.” “Some have alleged that NS was not nationalistic, but imperialistic.” It is not an allegation regarding its manifestation through Hitler, it is a fact, intended in Mein Kampf, spoken of by Hitler in Table Talk and enacted indeed. Thus, you are not being honest. “National Socialism and Adolf Hitler are not one and the same.” If I’ve said that a thousand times.. that is why I use the term Nazi to indicate its pejorative aspects and manifestations. “The former is a political philosophy and the latter was merely a proponent of that philosophy. Did Hitler have designs on resources and lands beyond historical Germany? Absolutely.” Yes, and that is what we are calling “imperialism.” “All great powers have interests beyond their own territories, particularly when it involves natural resources. America is no different in that regard.” If America does something bad that means the Nazis were not bad – ridiculous. “Much has been made of Hitler’s negative views of Slav’s an Poles as “subhuman” and deduced that he was not a “European Nationalist”.....Well it is absolutely true that Hitler was NOT a “European Nationalist” and would have rejected the very notion. In fact he did reject this notion explicitly in his writings. Hitler saw German speaking peoples as a NATION. He saw the French as a NATION. He saw these different subgroups of Europeans as distinct nations, and he was absolutely correct in those views.” Was he absolutely correct in those views, Bob? Slavs and Poles were subhuman, etc? “Hitler clearly stated that National Socialism was designed specifically for the German people and that it was not his intention to export this to other nations. His belief was that other nations should adopt political institutions and philosophies which suited their particular national interests (excluding communism of course). In this too Hitler seems to have been spot on.” No doubt, he was kind to animals too. “My own view is that we should embrace those parts of National Socialism which suite our “national interests” and meld into a political philosophy that reflects our particular national character….and that our brethren in England, France, Germany, Russia, Australia, Canada, etc. all do the same. This notion that there is a single “white nation” is an unnatural one with no basis in reality. We ought not set out to build a future upon such a faulty foundation.” Well, you are not aware of what we are talking about here, because we are not proposing ONE White nationalism but White nationalisms, hopefully in cooperation, of course, but having different ways as need be. “As to the much touted “Slavs are subhuman” mantra attributed to Hitler and/or his government, this was quite obviously wartime propaganda pumped out in order to convince average Germans to make war on the Russians.” It was not only war time, he was chewing the cud of Friedrich the Great and other German chauvinist forbears for a long time. “ Here in the USA our government put out EXACTLY THE SAME KIND OF PROPAGANDA against the Japanese.” Again, the USA is bad therefore Nazi Germany was good - good argument. “ Again, wartime propaganda should be seen as just that….and not more.” Again, we have not limited our analysis to the war period. “The most important thing we can learn from National Socialism is that THERE IS NO SUCH THING AS RIGHT AND LEFT” Wrong. “when it comes to politics. These are terms which mean NOTHING in reality and are used as a semantic tool to support a binary political construct which suits the purposes of those who would oppress and exploit us.” Wrong again. 51
Posted by DanielS on Thu, 01 May 2014 23:02 | # .. Totally wrong. “Declaring yourself to be “Leftist” automatically excludes all would be “conservatives” Not true either, because I don’t declare myself a “leftist” but a White Leftist, which begs redefinition and is what true conservatives are aiming at unbeknownst. “from even listening to what you have to offer. Declaring yourself a “Rightist” has the same effect on would be liberals. You cannot win a war fighting by the rules impose by your enemy.” We are not adopting rules imposed by our enemies. You haven’t paid attention to what is being said.
“In short, we have much to learn from National Socialism. Why else do you think TPTB have expended so much effort in demonizing National Socialism for over 70 years?” Not because of what they did right in economic policies, but because of their crazed pseudo-justifications for killing people. “Because they understand just how dangerous these ideas are to their hold on power.” Dangerous indeed. Recklessly so.
Nobody here is flatly rejecting all principles that National Socialism adopted nor blindly following them across the board 52
Posted by Bob on Fri, 02 May 2014 00:28 | # Daniel, 1. Could you specifically name what particular principles of National Socialism you reject and why? Seriously this should be interesting…. 2. I agree that many of the principles espoused by the National Socialists were not “new”, but they were the first, and the last, to successfully put them into effect on a national scale in the modern western world in such a way as to free themselves from the power of these international banking interests (which are the real core source of Jewish power…yes Jewish power). 3. ““In short, we have much to learn from National Socialism. Why else do you think TPTB have expended so much effort in demonizing National Socialism for over 70 years?” “Not because of what they did right in economic policies, but because of their crazed justifications for killing people.” Your response here is just nonsense. Do you really think that the Jewish controlled media/government has continued this wartime propaganda against the Germans all these decades because the Germans killed people? There is a very long list of regimes who have rounded up, deported and/or killed Jews, and even longer list of regimes who have “killed people”, some in far greater numbers than Germany. What “crazed justifications” do you ascribe to German wartime activities? What atrocities can be honestly attributed to the Germans that do not have similar parallels in the actions of the other great powers? 4. Hitler’s views on the Slavs? His personal views are not particularly relevant, but clearly he saw Western Europeans as superior to the Slavic peoples, and Germans superior above all. So what? that has nothing to do with National Socialism as a political philosophy. There was no pre-war demonization of the Slavic peoples in National Socialist Germany. This propaganda campaign was in direct support of the war. Insofar as Hitler’s observation that Europe was a collection of individual and distinct national groups, he was indeed absolutely correct. This is the point I was making. 5. You seem to have a problem differentiating between Hitler and National Socialism. National Socialism was not essentially an imperialist ideology. You point to Hitler’s early writing (in Mein Kampf) about expanding into Eastern Europe. This desire on his part to expand eastwards stems from Germany’s inability to feed its own population during the first world war. He saw this as a vital interest which needed to be addressed. But this expansion into the east was not a core principle of National Socialism, even if Hitler did see this as a vital national interest. This was peculiar to the situation of Germany at the time and would have nothing to do with whether or not National Socialism, or at least some for thereof, is a viable or beneficial political philosophy for Americans today (or anyone else). It certainly does not make National Socialism inherently “imperialistic”. 6. You seem to take issue with my suggestion that the key to Germany’s rapid economic recovery was their rejection of Jewish financial control (as exerted by the international banking powers) and that the Germans actually continued to allow these international interests to control their currency. This is demonstrably untrue and if you were familiar with the actual history of the period you would know this. While there was an attempt by some of these bankers to co-opt the National Socialists, it was unsuccessful. The National Socialist government turned to printing their own “debt free” money and this was the secret of their economic miracle while the rest of the west, with their currencies under the control of these banking interests, wallowed in a great depression. That the rest of the western world would have followed the German example if National Socialism had been left to run its course is obviously true. How many more years would the populations of France and Britain been content to struggle under the weight of debt which kept them in a depression while nearby Germany was experiencing an economic boom? At some point the people were going to take to the streets and demand that their own governments also adopt sovereign debt free money. Such a move would have largely destroyed the power of these banking interests and with it the core of Jewish power. You don’t need to be a psychic or an Ivy League economist to understand that much. This is, as I stated, the real reason why this wartime propaganda against NS has continued unabated for over 70 years. As an example, each and every time a US president has successfully opposed these banking interests to issue debt free sovereign money in the USA, they have been subjected to assassination. Lincoln, Garfield, McKinley and Kennedy were the last 4 presidents to issue sovereign money and all four were assassinated. These just happen to be the only US presidents who were assassinated. Coincidence? No the power to create money and to control currencies is the ultimate power and those who have it will go to any lengths to protect it. If you do not understand what money is, where it comes from and how, then you cannot possibly understand history or politics. That is the simple truth.
What is the definition of “right” and what is the definition of “left” as political philosophies? I know, it’s an unfair question because there is no one definition of either term. They are empty terms with no real meaning. Neither represents a particular political philosophy and either could be used to describe any real political philosophy depending upon the context and perspective of the person using the term. Hence the term “White Leftist” means what exactly? If you do not think that the vast majority of would-be conservatives do not think “commie” and “socialist” when they see the term “Leftist” then you are deluding yourself. And would-be Liberals are not much different in the way they perceive the term “rightist” as being fascist or near fascist. This is why the terms “left” and “right” are not only meaningless, but are worse than useless in political discourse. They merely refer back to a binary trap which leads to a dead end, each and every time. 53
Posted by DanielS on Fri, 02 May 2014 01:33 | # ...... You have not read any of what has been said here nor priorly on the matter, and that is why you ask questions that can only be redundant in response. As you have not bothered to read anything that has gone before here, there is no hurry to shovel through now, if ever, this gigantic pile of yours.
As has question three, yes, Jews would try to discourage Nazism because it threatened to kill them. That is enough for them. It is also enough for me that they would threaten to displace Slavs from their lands. There could be other reasons as well for others, such as Jews not wanting to allow for independent banking systems, but that would not be “the sole explanation” nor the primary motive. Your fourth question is as absurd as you are, Hitler’s view on Slavs was profoundly relevant as one among other reasons not to treat him and his moniker as a guiding light of White Nationalism. You disingenuously shift the topic from Hitler’s attitude toward Slavs to Strasserist economics (which he began to betray when making deals with German industrialists and in the night of the long knives), forcing me only to repeat myself that the Nazis adopted (and betrayed) some good ideas. That is the “so what?”, not, “oh, we can’t let a little thing like Hitler’s massively destructive wars against other Europeans get in the way of thinking how wonderful he, his regime and system were.” Number 7 has been answered several times, the reasons for it, even the objection to it. Yes, idiots such as yourself may think “commie, socialist” that sort of thing, but intelligent people will understand the re-definition and see the reason for it. 54
Posted by Guessedworker on Fri, 02 May 2014 09:01 | # Bob, Let me call you to do the work you want others to do. At 16 above, I listed the social attributes of NS as it manifested in the period after 1933. You seem to be saying that there was another NS unstained by the Hitler leadership. What were its social attributes? 55
Posted by Guessedworker on Fri, 02 May 2014 09:24 | # Bob, On left and right, these are one pair of the axies of the liberal thought-system. As nationalists we think from within another (competing) system with its own axialities. To try to draw these together so that some mutually beneficial and informative exchange may take place is no easy matter. Left and right as such are usually assumed to correspond to bromides of, respectively, massifying and individualising imperatives. The political compass, based on the highly suspect work of Adorno and Reich, is usually assumed to look something like this:
... but a more accurate formulation might be this:
The caveat with the latter is that it attempts to place nationalism within the liberal Weltanschauung. Only the romantic, civic nationalisms which emerged from 1789 actually fit there (because they sure don’t fit on a nationalist compass). Nationalisms of the blood simply do not correspond. The designers of that compass have made the mistake, typical of the liberal mind, in seeing nationalism as a massifying, prescriptive ideology. They don’t understand, because they do not know that their thought-world expresses the Judaic view of the gentile. They cannot process the idea of a politics of human nature itself. 56
Posted by DanielS on Fri, 02 May 2014 10:16 | # GW, there needs to be still more talk about this left/right thing. I do not see your position as irreconcilable nor necessarily at odds with mine. After that.. I think part of why you have come to my rescue a bit is because I had screwed up the below response, being a bit tired (gee, I wonder why it made me tired). Bob was suggesting that I accused “NS” of being imperialistic, which is a typical trick of Hitler advocates, to shift terms, to say that you are attacking “NS” proper, when one is and has been addressing its manifestation through Hitler - hence the utility of using the word “Nazi” to distinguish the latter, its actual manifestation and Hitler in particular, and finally to put them together with NS so that this shell game does not go on. Hence, when Bob said, “Some have alleged that NS was not nationalistic, but imperialistic.” Not appreciating right away that the “someone” was not me, that he would be quite so oblivious, impervious to this distinction but was using this sleight of hand that I had even spoken of above as being typical, I went ahead and talked as if he was speaking of Nazism. I correct it here. (though it does not refute your position that NS and Hitler have become fused as Nazism for all practical purposes). I go on to revise the comment: It (imperialism) is not an allegation regarding its manifestation through Hitler, it is a fact, intended in Mein Kampf, spoken of by Hitler in Table Talk and enacted in deed. “There is actually no evidence at all for this statement.” Thus, you are not being honest. If I’ve said that a thousand times.. that is why I use the term Nazi to indicate its pejorative aspects and manifestations. “The former is a political philosophy and the latter was merely a proponent of that philosophy. Did Hitler have designs on resources and lands beyond historical Germany? Absolutely.” Yes, and that is what we are calling “imperialism.” (this is where I had made a wrong turn in fatigue over this disingenuous language game, now you see Hitler, now you don’t, now you see NS, now you don’t..) 57
Posted by Guessedworker on Fri, 02 May 2014 16:22 | # Daniel, I will leave you to your discussion with Bob, unless he answers my question at 54 (which I suspect he might not). On “left” and “right”, I’ve mentioned before that a few years ago a number of us here took the Political Compass test and found that we often mapped in an unpredictable, scatter-gun fashion inconsistent with our actual positions. The problem was that our responses to the set questions were not made according to the underlying assumptions of the test designers. We had our own, quite distinct imperatives and assumptions from which we worked, and these simply did not enter into the designers’ thinking (they would certainly never understand that individuality and groupishness are not conflicted as such, but become so in liberalism because the foundational Judaic model reserves differentiation at the level of the group for one group only. The rest travel steerage, bickering over their individual spaces. There is no doubt in my mind that “left” and “right” are labels we should use of ourselves only sparingly, if at all, and then without any real self-definitional intent. To speak accurately of our peoplehood and the imperatives that apply to it is to already situate oneself intellectually in that other thought-world, and to become quite mysterious and perhaps threatening to the denizens of the liberal polity about us. 58
Posted by DanielS on Fri, 02 May 2014 17:48 | # GW, I am all over the place on that political compass as well. Though I would have wholly expected that. Out of respect for your efforts to tease out an authentic and organic Weltanschauung of European nationalist behavior, self reconstructing for un-coerced motivation, I will try to temper my active promotion of my own reasoning for ascribing a “White left.” I’ve done quite a bit of that here already. Nevertheless, while respecting your reasoning for not wanting to speak in those terms, I continue to find them eminently useful as organizing terms, convinced that like so many other useful terms, that Jewish interests have usurped and perverted the definitions to their ends - diversity, multiculturalism, social constructionism, post modernism, marginals, ecology, incommensurability (qualitative difference as oppose to equality) - the Jews do not want ideas like this properly defined and especially not for White interests as they would be very beneficial - The White left is perhaps the key organizing idea that they do not want us to have - it is the one that undoes the Lockeatine technology of atomic individualism and reintroduces the interaction of social classification that he prohibited and ruptured as “illusion.” They know that our chances to organize and achieve coherence, accountability and warrant are greatly confused and reduced without it. But “civil individual rights”, they’ll give us that one right? wink. They have so successfully perverted the term and unionizing concept of “left” that they’ve got Whites fighting against their own corpus of people as rightists - Whites, so turned off by the Judaization of the term will give up and ascribe themselves “new right” “alternative right” just for a respite as they climb the Cartesian ladder reductio ad absurdem to avoid social interactive responsibility. Keith Preston will be called in to make a house call to re-institute the old liberal definition of THE left…anything, anything! even anarchism!.. just to relieve someone like Greg Johnson of accountability. Make no mistake, the organizing power of a White left is fearful. In your case, your concerns are better founded, as you explained in the interview with Metzger, “its more evolution than revolution*” and your description of “the they who do not have power regarding The EU” - an articulate analysis which was rather barged over there. But in the case of someone like Greg Johnson, and others admirers of Hitler, the motives may not be so good - i.e., they may want to keep us sufficiently confused until the Fuher, surrounded by a fascist-fag elite, can resume the position. I believe that how I am defining White left does jibe with your organic nationalism, though there is a thin queer margin at the frontiers of a nation which probably requires something of what Bowery terms the artificial selection of culture. But it is only a thin queer line, necessitated by the recognition of internal relation and the possibility of breaching. Accepting that, the agency and the accountability it entails corresponds with what is being called upon in the authentic, though it also requires not only accountability to our social breadth and history, but also to our natural being in its processes, evolutionary and life span - that is where I am particularly grateful for your perspective as it is an unfamiliar vigil to me. That said, I take for granted the social matrix - and I don’t doubt for a second that terrible movie was produced by Jews to discourage social thinking - “we’re mammals!”, said the goofy and evil White guy. I take for granted the ecological social matrix (not a liberal paradigm) as the prerequisite truth; and with that I do believe that we have a wish to preserve our distinct European kind(s); which can be re-parented, so to speak, not only with a psychological perspective of individually afforded evolution, but through the more speculative perspective of sociology - viz. on the group - to look at our chief threats, i.e., the need for accountability at the top, among elite, and through the masses of Whites who lack of incentive to be loyal - and perhaps ultimately to a communicological perspective where interaction is the unit of analysis and were we may put our authenticated nationalist ways into ongoing practice as should be. * I had dyslexically transposed “revolution with evolution” now corrected 59
Posted by Bob on Fri, 02 May 2014 19:31 | # For Guessedworker: The NS platform as originally espoused can be found at: When you remove the parts which pertain only to Germany and/or its situation at the time, what you have is a political program/philosophy which meets the needs of white peoples today. It is in fact a program designed to free the German people from the exploitation of Jewish power and it was wildly successful, even if in the end organized Jewry was able to muster the forces to militarily crush Germany. We face an existential threat today, and that threat has been planned, organized and put into effect largely by organized Jewry. The destruction of Jewish power (or at a minimum the removal of its ability to influence white nations) is a prerequisite for avoiding the utter destruction of our peoples and our culture(s). Given that National Socialism provides the only proven program for accomplishing this goal, it would seem obvious to me that rather than groping around in the dark for programs/ideologies/philosophies that “might” work, we should stop wasting time and seize upon the one program that we KNOW will work. National Socialism was from the very beginning seen as a solution to a particular problem and there was never proposed something permanent. It was assumed that once the people had accomplished the goals set out by NS, that there would be a further evolution of political philosophy to address the issues that a free Germany would face in the future. Hence this quote directly from the 1920 platform: “The Programme of the German Workers’ Party is designed to be of limited duration. The leaders have no intention, once the aims announced in it have been achieved, of establishing fresh ones, merely in order to increase, artificially, the discontent of the masses and so ensure the continued existence of the Party.”
As I stated before, whatever you want to call it, any successful program for regaining self determination fo whites is going to look very much like National Socialism. By running from the name “National Socialist” we merely give effect to the propaganda waged against resistance to Jewish power. It is far better that we can show people how and why this worked in the 1930’s. People feel helpless and powerless. They need to know that resistance is possible and National Socialism provides the only real example we have of successful resistance to this system. I would agree that running around with swastikas is counterproductive because it interferes with your ability to get people to listen….but once they are listening you have to be able to show them that your ideas can and will work. When you reject the example of NS you reject the only real example we have. 60
Posted by wobbly on Fri, 02 May 2014 21:10 | # @GW Maybe. I’m not NS inclined myself but I do think that if the communists had won in Germany and allied with the Bolsheviks then YKW would have wiped out Europeans already. Even if it is the case that NS stopped genocide attempt 1.0 that still roots them in a specific time and place separate from where we are now. Different tactics suit different times. 61
Posted by Guessedworker on Sat, 03 May 2014 00:04 | # Bob, Please suspend your belief for the moment, and ask yourself what is left of NS when one strips away the cult of the leader, racial supremacism, master morality, the total state, the militarisation of society, the dream of the perpetual potentate, etc. What is there, actually? I understand that you will pass over that criticism by gesturing towards the utilitarianism of NS. But why would a politics that proved utilitarian 90 years ago necessarily be so again now, when none of the principal components are remotely acceptable to Europe’s peoples? It’s just not possible. 62
Posted by Lurker on Sat, 03 May 2014 04:42 | # Just tried out the Political Compass. Apparently Im a left libertarian. I think Im second guessing (or third guessing?) when it comes to some of the questions. 63
Posted by Desmond Jones on Sat, 03 May 2014 09:24 | #
A fish may only view the world through the water in which he swims. 64
Posted by DanielS on Sat, 03 May 2014 12:54 | # It may be of further help in developing sound, terminological underpinnings, to take that communication perspective (interaction) a bit further regarding the example of “the left.” Keith Preston will be called upon by the New Rightists and Alternative Rightists, to re-assert the bogey man term, “the left.” Suiting his academic vanity and anarchist philosophy, he will oblige them by treating the left as if it is a found object, “out there” - “The Left” - detached from human interaction and negotiation. But of course it is not a found object, it is a concept negotiated and “made common” as in the root of the word communication. As such, with tweaking, shaping and crafting in re-negotiation as the prefix “White” readily suggests be done, to conform to our interests and concerns as Whites, it may be handily distinguished from the “Red” left as a “White” left. 65
Posted by Guessedworker on Sun, 04 May 2014 08:38 | # Desmond, The question, always, is: What is emergent from European nature, and what is prescribed for us? 66
Posted by goybbels on Sun, 04 May 2014 12:08 | # Shalom Pan Sienkiewiczgoldstein!
wouldn’t you say that german nationalism was a detriment to poland too? http://en.nop.org.pl/2014/02/25/wroclaw-serbian-kosovo-polish-silesia/
could you finally supply a source of that quote?
but doesn’t it works the other way around? what about the expulsion of germans, pro white? why does poland buy american F16 interceptor jets instead of, say typhoons, rafale or gripen fighters? very european, since they’re the main minions of the EU, thanks to german tax money. the EU works in favor of poland, since it is diminishing the economical disparities between germany and poland to the expense of germany.
well, i have some sources polish interestests including berlin greater poland, published on 26th of june, 1939 in the Dziennik Poznanski “the poznan daily”.
polish offensive plan in 1939
you don’t say???
his biggest misdeed was the annexetion of poland, right?
oy gevalt! it his fault, only his fault! he and his thugs killed all of them with their own hands! don’t forget the 6 Kosherzillion!i bet you buy that story since it generates a lot of MUH-Shekelim/Zloty.(tears running down)
AHA, so you’re a panslavinst! good, good…. but don’t forget to the reclaim the polish-lithuanian territories which the russians swallowed. that’s not much of a concern, since you got permanently pushed towards the west by the russians, eh?
the poles had neither the intention of annexing danzig nor postponing a solution of the danzig corridor?
it’s seems you have a Friedrich the Great Trauma, get a some psychological care czyży!czyży!
can you give me a quotation from mein kampf?
...is NS, since it’s a collectivist movement and therefore not right.
best answer thus far, but that’s how it goes if you run out of arguments Pan Sienkiewgoldbergsilbersteincz. bob seems to be very sincere, there is not a sprinkle of insults in his comments.
67
Posted by DanielS on Sun, 04 May 2014 13:25 | # Hello dick-head, Markus, I recognize you by your insane, Hitler worshiping rhetoric “Shalom Pan Sienkiewiczgoldstein!” Why do you say “Shalom” to me? Dick-head, I am not Jewish
Happy Birthday to Hitler, played on Stalin’s organ: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QEBXkbX0z3o https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0bWt81vhIyY
Really? Ask me if I care. You deserve such a serenade. Posted by DanielS on April 21, 2014, 02:06 PM | # “They were not German nationalists, they were German imperialists - which might not be so bad, were it not directed at the expense of other Europeans.” “wouldn’t you say that german nationalism was a detriment to poland too?” No. German imperialism and chauvinism was, not German nationalism. “what about silesia, which is the “the Kosovo” of Poland? sounds very pro-white, right?” Who said Silesia is “the Kosovo” of Poland, you? I might have a look at your propaganda footage later: for now it is enough to say that Silesia was in Germany’s hands before Hitler, asshole that he was, decided that he wanted still more. “On August 22, 1939, just before the invasion of Poland, Hitler gave explicit permission to his commanders to kill “without pity or mercy, all men, women, and children of Polish descent or language.” “could you finally supply a source of that quote?” I notice you ignored All the other quotes. Ok, forget that one. Would you like me to supply others, vonkrautwurst? “Nationalism is not necessarily inconsistent with imperialism, and you suggest this yourself.” It is inconsistent with White nationalism when it is at imperialist war with other White nations.
Listen Markus, these where the bounds that resulted of the second world war, started by your god, Hitler. If the asshole, Hitler, would have been a reasonable person – as he obviously was not – then the lands that Germans were expelled from after WWII, would have, in 95% of the cases, remained German and Germans would have been entitled to live there. But Hitler was a pig, just as Friedrich was a great pig, just as you are a pig. IF? No. This would have happened and happened better by cooperations with the nationalisms between Germany and Russia.
“why does poland buy american F16 interceptor jets instead of, say typhoons, rafale or gripen fighters? very european, since they’re the main minions of the EU, thanks to german tax money. the EU works in favor of poland, since it is diminishing the economical disparities between germany and poland to the expense of germany.”
Ok, now I know it is Markus talking. As if I am in control of the politics. I am supposed to apologize for this ..oh that’s right, I am supposed to give you the western third of Poland because that is where your imagination ends as the dog bred of Nazi eugenics that you are. Fuck off. “since poland got her lebensraum in the west (sadly not enough, like berlin for example)” And you talk about lying propaganda? As if Poland had designs to take over Berlin. well, i have some sources I do too. Berlin has only been German since the 1100’s an nobody wants/wanted to take it from Germans (not even Dmowski). On the contrary, would like to cooperate with normal Germans to restore its native population. Notice the dates that you’ve boldened. In other words, pre-emptive strikes may have been considered against the obvious threat of Nazi military aggression.
polish interestests including berlin greater poland, published on 26th of june, 1939 in the Dziennik Poznanski “the poznan daily”.
polish offensive plan in 1939 I’ll look at your Gobbels propaganda later. But this should suffice for your krautness: who was going to invade Hitler’s Germany unless for pre emptive reasons and with allied cooperation? Answer, nobody. Nobody with any warrant, nobody in their right mind as they would have been against not only Germany’s military might but also the warrant of western backing. Your argument is done Markus. Shut up. ..Well the Prussians were inclined to be anti-some-Whites. “you don’t say???” Yes, indeed. The Prussians were very prejudice against Poles (I am sure Czechs too)
Oy vey? How stupid you are. The Poles were all about fighting the Soviets. Try to deny it and you’ll only make a bigger fool of yourself. Your Germanic American audience is merely buying you time until your bullshit is uncovered. Pat Buchanan already made enough money supplying disinformation by pandering to that demographic.
As if Poles, Belarusians and Ukrainians just loved Stalin.
False either or is all you are ever going to do: Stalin or Hitler. Do you know what Markus? I just watched “Triumph of the Will”...anybody who is into that is retarded. Why are you talking about Stalin. His misdeeds were legion; the annexation of Poland a relatively minor issue in the scheme of things. I don’t like him (Hitler). 55 million European dead is enough, and yes, he had large responsibility for that. “oy gevalt!” Ya! Das is reight! Unt… If you have to point to a single individual after say, 1919, Hitler was most responsible yes. Nobody is blaming him alone, we don’t argue the Jewish/Talmudic way that you do, that Hitler was perfect and everyone else to blame – what a piece of shit you are Markus (Rodney Martin loves you, even if you are in his toilet and on his toilet paper).
“AHA, so you’re a panslavinst!” No, I am not a panslavist, but have come to recognize that - “panslavism” - as your ilk’s new ploy in pseudo-justification for aggression. The “panslavs” are planning to attack you right? No they are aren’t. Even if there could be such a cooperative union, it would be conceived in defense against beasts like you.
Well, Belarusian nationalists have issues of this kind. Not Poland. Their (Belarusian) nation is threatened with complete subsumption into Russia. “ that’s not much of a concern, since you got permanently pushed towards the west by the russians, eh?” “You got pushed” I got pushed, Markus? ...poor Markus, was deprived his Prussian “tradition” of eastward thrust, which he conceives of as merely his benign customary inclination: i.e. to invade eastward. Markus, grow-the-fuck-up. If you were a human being we could take over vast tracts of other continents, the oceans and ultimately venture with greater facility into outer space. They had the power to not go into it. The fault is primarily theirs, though the overly punitive economic conditions of The Treaty of Versailles are a close second. Yes. The corridor was solved. The Poles needed an avenue to the sea. You are talking about two cities, Bromberg and Torun which were more practical to give to Poland for that end, and for these two cities your god got fifty million Europeans killed. He was an idiot and so are you. Some Poles may have wished to reinclude Danzig, as Gdansk, given some historical epochs when they were in control there, but they would have been up against the decision of international committee inasmuch and Germany would have had the warrant on its side. Hitler went along with the German banker industrialists in order to fund his Friedrich the Great-like imperialist aspirations. That’s the real cause. “it’s seems you have a Friedrich the Great Trauma, get a some psychological care czyży!czyży!” Not me, it was Hitler who had the Friedrich The “Great” fixation: one of his last decrees was to have Friedrich’s remains disinterred and transferred further into Germany. Nice try krautwurst. “Was he absolutely correct in those views, Bob? Slavs and Poles were subhuman, etc? “can you give me a quotation from mein kampf?” I was quoting Bob, but the sentiments are confirmed in table talk and among his delegates whom he entrusted of their “practical judgment”.
...“is NS, since it’s a collectivist movement and therefore not right.” No, it was German leftist…until the night of the long knives, at latest…and not in its social darwinist aspects, imperialist or superman aspects, ever - there it was right wing
“best answer thus far, but that’s how it goes if you run out of arguments Pan” All the arguments necessary are there already, you and Bob just ignored them. “Sienkiewgoldbergsilbersteincz. bob seems to be very sincere, there is not a sprinkle of insults in his comments.” Yeah, well, don’t feel too bad Markus, there are plenty of good, intelligent Germans. I have known mostly that kind, even if you are not among them. 68
Posted by bogeygoy on Sun, 04 May 2014 14:14 | # DanielS, you’re unusually pro-Soviet for someone claiming to be Polish, what gives? Also, what do you think of Putin? Is it because he’s an antifa like yourself? Or is it perhaps a mutual interest, like for grabbing territory from the Ukraine in the near future? 69
Posted by DanielS on Sun, 04 May 2014 14:34 | # “DanielS, you’re unusually pro-Soviet for someone claiming to be Polish, what gives?”
“Also, what do you think of Putin?” He is a politician. From what I know (haven’t made a study of him) a civic nationalist, pragmatic. Does some things well for WN interests, other things not. “Is it because he’s an antifa like yourself?” I don’t identify as anti-fa. I made my very first derogatory remark about fascists ever above, “fascist-fag elites”..and did not feel very comfortable with it, as it is the kind of terminology, “fascists as ‘the’ bad guys” used by people I despise, anti White people, indeed. Are you crazy? I want to grab territory from Ukraine? No, that is your pseudo justification propaganda, like “pan slavism”. No, grabbing Ukraine, that was Hitler’s fantasy. The Polish/Ukrainian border is fine. There were horrible fights between the two nations over western Ukraine in that era - L’viv was Polish, is not now. A far as I am concerned, it is history, horrible history, but a history that calls for the border to be best left where it is. 70
Posted by bogeygoy on Sun, 04 May 2014 14:45 | # [quote=DanielS]He is a politician. From what I know (haven’t made a study of him) a civic nationalist, pragmatic. Does some things well for WN interests, other things not. Can you name one of those things?
You may not, but...
Sure, I believe you.
Strange assumption. Also, how would it be pan-Slavism if one Slavic people took advantage of another one (i.e. the Ukrainians in this case)?
Hitler was already grabbing Eva Braun, which suitably fulfilled his fantasies. But, if you prefer to insist…
Strange, the Polish national anthem (especially with the ‘original’ lyrics) seems to concur, especially…
(... It sure sounds a bit land grab’y, doesn’t it?)
You blatantly ignored Goybbels’ earlier ‘propaganda’, which seems to suggest that it’s anything but history. 71
Posted by DanielS on Sun, 04 May 2014 15:07 | # Posted by bogeygoy on May 04, 2014, 09:45 AM | # [quote=DanielS]He is a politician. From what I know (haven’t made a study of him) a civic nationalist, pragmatic. Does some things well for WN interests, other things not. Can you name one of those things? Locking-up Khodorkovsky was a good thing. Giving stipends for Russian couples to have children a good thing. Releasing Khordorkovsky and cooperation with Jewish Oligarchs, bad things.
You may not, but…” But nothing. It’s not my identity. I made my very first derogatory remark about fascists ever above [...] That’s the truth, if you don’t believe it, it’s your problem.
No it isn’t. “Also, how would it be pan-Slavism if one Slavic people took advantage of another one (i.e. the Ukrainians in this case)?” The similarity is in the excuse to vilify eastern nations to pseudo justify your Nazi aspirations…obviously, asshole.
Hitler was already grabbing Eva Braun, which suitably fulfilled his fantasies. But, if you prefer to insist… “ No, Eva did not suffice, I’m afraid. He is clear in table talk to fantasize about Crimea as a resort for Germans.
Strange, the Polish national anthem (especially with the ‘original’ lyrics) seems to concur, especially… Poland has not yet died, Obviously it is an anthem, not prescription ever anew. Just as obviously, construed by you as more pseudo justification for Nazism. To bring back the Polish nation? No. There were horrible fights between the two nations over western Ukraine in that era - L’viv was Polish, is not now. A far as I am concerned, it is history, horrible history, but a history that calls for the border to be best left where it is. I did not ignore Markus (Goybbels) propaganda - not that it is worth considering except as an illustration of a demented Nazi ..and just why it is that sympathy for Hitler needs counter balance, because there are eugenic-bred freaks like him who believe pro Hitler and anti Polish and Slavic propaganda verbatim. 72
Posted by Alfie on Mon, 05 May 2014 14:48 | # Remember the social revolution of the 60s? It was led by radicals who openly hated Western Civilization and values and wanted the complete destruction of the traditional white hierarchy. John Lennon wrote, “If you go carrying around pictures of Chairman Mao, you ain’t gonna make it with anyone anyhow” and he was right. The zeitgeist of the cultural revolution may have shared many professed values of Mao, but Mao was known as a butcher and his picture was not going to help convince 18 year old white kids from middle America to join the barricades against the National Guard or support integration of schools with non-whites etc. Other icons of the left were also not used, Lenin,Marx etc, except by the extremist cadre and those efforts were not aimed at the mainstream audience they needed to achieve their revolution. The IDEAS were used to sway the masses, not the personalities behind the ideas. I think its the same with Hitler etc. There are so many pro-white advocates that lead their arguments with Hitler as if that is going to get 18 year old white kids from middle America to become pro-white. If all these pro-whites would instead focus on the ideas that were correct, the destruction caused by diversity, the cost associated with multiculturalism, the efforts to actually end our race, the very real discrimination the system imposes on white people, and the sheer open hypocrisy of the left and all of their failed and flawed ideas that are so easy to see, then you can make headway with the white 18 year olds. Plastering your message with photos of Hitler and Nazi worship will have the same effect as running around with pictures of Marx would have had in 1968. It may attract a core cadre of already racially aware whites, but it is going to turn off the masses. Leave the Hitler posters behind, and lead with pro-white ideas. We don’t need Hitler right now. We need white and normal activists focused on the here and now and there is plenty right here and now to focus on. 73
Posted by Biff Baxter on Wed, 14 May 2014 11:41 | # Remember, when he was in the bunker in his last hours, he had a chance to be remembered as a man who forgot about himself and told his people to do everything they could to avoid them being preyed upon by the invading Soviets and the Americans. Instead, he proved to be history’s biggest pussy of all time when he ordered Albert Speer to destroy all the means of survival for German people. I will never admire a man who does not put the survival of women and children above all. Hitler was a bitter, nasty little repressed homosexual who desired to take the country down with him. The result, after the coward shot himself, was that Germany was left completely open to the depredations of two or three nations. It’s citizens were starved to death in the millions and its women gang-raped by nearly everybody. Eisenhower fenced up a couple million and let them starve in plain sight. Hitler could have brokered a surrender or at least gotten some assurances it would not turn into a complete rout. The fact is, he did not love his own people enough. He loved himself more. That’s why he needs to be forgotten. There were a million different things wrong with this guy that the jews have never mentioned because they wanted to build him into more of a man than he ever really was. The one thing I need to know is that he allowed his country to be utterly savaged and its women raped by the planet. He can never be forgiven for doing this. Never. Whatever else he was, he was a pussy who did not worry about his own people. This ranting jackass was no ubermensch. He had a chance to leave a myth behind him but instead died a fool cursing his own population to Ragnarok. 74
Posted by Dave Marshal on Fri, 06 Jun 2014 01:26 | # This is a stupid article, loaded with umpteen distortions. The reason nationalism for whites is demonized right now, can be traced back to 1945. If you un-demonize Hitler and the Reich, then you will unleash nationalism for whites, it will gain converts galore. We need this critique or revision of the WW 2 era- we need this desperately. To be afraid to do the heavy lifting on this revision is just caving in to the Jew lobby, being obedient to the cultural Marxist / liberal program. In the 1930’s there were real reasons to be down on Slavs. Just because one might be sympathetic to National Socialism right now, does not mean that one is automatically anti-Slav. 75
Posted by DanielS on Fri, 06 Jun 2014 05:47 | # No Dave, you are stupid, because you subscribe to the notion that there is no substance to the notion that Hitler and the Reich were poor representatives of racial and national awareness. The fundamental problems of theirs being that 1. They were not separatists, they were supremacists. 2. They were not nationalists, they were imperialists.
76
Posted by Dave Marshal on Fri, 06 Jun 2014 15:24 | # In 1939, there was no unemployment to speak of in the Reich. Thus, the notion that the NS wanted or needed extra space to expand into is a lie- there were no ready colonists in the wings to do such. The war was brought to Hitler, anti German factions maneuvered Germany into war with Poland, which was meant to be a local border war, until England and France turned it into a world war…..they declared war first What empire are you talking about ? Germany was at war, against their will. Germany had to expand outward THEN, this is how they were able to keep the enemy at bay, this is how they were trying to save German lives , this is how they were trying just to survive. Many Germans in the 1930’s may have felt superior to others mainly do to the fact that they were in fact superior in many ways. Whats wring with that ? There were plans to incorporate most whites into a Greater Reich , if they had won. This is the ‘empire’ or imperial dream you hate so much ? The other whites would be far far better off then and today if Germany had won the war. Being imperial in the 1920-30’s, was normal. But no, now most whites are conveniently bottled up into a silence or implicit or explicit self loathing, all due to how the enemy keeps screaming “Nazi” or keeps reminding us how we are all guilty by association of throwing live Jewish women and children into non existent gas ovens…..or such . What is your educational level etc.? 77
Posted by DanielS on Fri, 06 Jun 2014 15:40 | # What empire are you talking about ? Taking control of Czechoslovakia, Poland, Ukraine, Belarus, Lithuania, Latvia, Estonia and Russia up to the Urals. Not true, it was Hitler’s will to expand eastward in the manner of Friedrich “The Great.” Hitler acknowledges his role as the initiator in Table Talk. “Germany had to expand outward THEN. “this is how they were able to keep the enemy at bay” Not true. Poland, Belarus, Ukraine and more were all vehemently anti-Soviet, had already proven their willingness to fight against the Soviets, all were states that were significantly anti-Jewish. With all the effort that Nazi Germany devoted to organizing their military efforts, they could have done far better to have made the effort to coordinate with neighboring countries who had aims that were symbiotic at bottom. “this is how they were trying to save German lives” We can agree on that much, that they were trying to save German lives. “this is how they were trying just to survive.” No, they were trying to be masters over other nationalities, and to eradicate them as effective opposition on behalf of their own nationalisms. 78
Posted by Dave Marshal on Fri, 06 Jun 2014 18:30 | # The Polish and Russian conquests were necessary or understandable events. The military dictatorship in Warsaw was abusing ethnic Germans in Poland, and they were intransigent in their negotiations with Hitler over Danzig etc. The Brits made guarantees to Poland that caused them to refuse to budge before Hitlers reasonable requests. You condemn these ( the Polish attack and later move into the Soviet Union) as signs of Germany’s imperialism, and you trust Table Talk enough to declare Hitler the instigator of the war. What else do you use to say Hitler was the instigator ( Im sure you have a ton of reasons to think such). Stalin was not to be trusted , Op Barbarossa was preemptive. “This is how they were trying just to survive” I said this last, after the two prior similar statements- the implication was that this covered the later part of the war, after Stalingrad. And yes, holding onto the ground of the erstwhile other nations was indeed a desperate and correct way to just survive. Most Slavs in the 1930’s were in an esp. degraded state, very backwards compared to Brits or Germans. This caused NS leaders to look down upon the east, and this was very understandable. They knew about how the Mongol Asiatics had once poisoned the region and populace….. In hindsight, the situation in Ukraine could have been handled differently, but this is exactly that, hindsight. Such a strong condemnation of Hitler as you offer really does play into the hands of the enemy, the multi cult Marxists, the PC diversity gangs and organized Jewry. 79
Posted by DanielS on Fri, 06 Jun 2014 18:44 | # Well you are retelling a story that has been circulating for a while by Nazi apologists. You want to believe it, but it isn’t true. For one thing, “Stalin was not to be trusted.” As if any of the states between Russia and Germany trusted the Soviets. You are oblivious to everything I say (or distort it, e.g., saying that I am only citing Table Talk), so there is no point in talking to you. What a bore, Nazi advocates argue exactly like Jews, they were never wrong, yawn. Poor misunderstood Mr. Hitler. 80
Posted by Dave Marshal on Fri, 06 Jun 2014 21:22 | # In philosophy, we usually learn about how Marx turned Hegel on his head, but in your convoluted world, we learn about how it was Wittgenstein who up ended Kant, all so we can get a White Left (or class, or some such confusion ) Are you 14 yrs old? If you submitted your essay to my high school English comp teacher, she would ball it up and throw it in the trash, without bothering to finish reading the mess. You confuse terms and use a tortured phraseology, to cover your ignorance. You must really hate Mark Twain ( if you dont get it, the joke is on you). 81
Posted by DanielS on Fri, 06 Jun 2014 21:39 | # Posted by Dave Marshal on June 06, 2014, 04:22 PM | # “In philosophy, we usually learn about how Marx turned Hegel on his head” Ok, right.
In my convoluted world? Wittgenstein advised that we look at what people are doing in everyday situations - that is, he was turning Kant on his head, his advice to brace oneself with principles against inclinations and mere, popular sentiments.
How did you make that inference numb-nuts?
Your inference is absurd
Are you an idiot? There is a home for pinheads like you - carolynyeager.com
I’m afraid that I do not care what your teacher might think, her judgment is probably about as worthwhile as yours.
Social grouping that would allow for the speculative reach of classification of a people - a “leftist” unionionization of people - is a necessary step away from the empirical arbitrariness of prior epochs (Wittgenstein was a culprit in his influence on positivism, The Austrian School, etc., and later, with his vulgar pragmatism to look at what people are doing and move on, to take the ladder away, to cure people of the psychopathology of philosophy). Now do you understand? “You must really hate Mark Twain ( if you dont get it, the joke is on you).” “It’s not what people don’t know that’s the problem it’s what they know that isn’t so.” I cannot think of a more apt statement to apply to you, Dave. Now, please go to a Hitler site. It isn’t only Dr. Lister who is tired of this issue. 82
Posted by Dave Marshal on Fri, 06 Jun 2014 21:50 | # “Saying that I am only citing Table Talk” No, I said the opposite, liar. (“Im sure you have tons of reasons to think such”) Im sure you have more than that to support your spurious claim that Hitler acknowledged how he was the cause or instigator of the war, as you claim. Only, I dont see how any of it can hold up against what I know. I think YOU are a troll or infiltrator. 83
Posted by DanielS on Fri, 06 Jun 2014 21:56 | # Nice try Dave. Go to a Hitler site. There were many “starts” to the war. Nevertheless, Hitler had a great deal of control and a third rate philosophy inspired by war campaigns of the past - that led to catastrophe. But, there are sites that agree with you… hurry along there! 84
Posted by DanielS on Fri, 06 Jun 2014 22:03 | # Posted by DanielS on June 06, 2014, 04:39 PM | # Posted by Dave Marshal on June 06, 2014, 04:22 PM | # “In philosophy, we usually learn about how Marx turned Hegel on his head”
In my convoluted world? Wittgenstein advised that we look at what people are doing in everyday situations - that is, he was turning Kant on his head, his advice to brace oneself with principles against inclinations and mere, popular sentiments.
How did you make that inference numb-nuts?
Your inference is absurd
I’m afraid that I do not care what your teacher might think, her judgment is probably about as worthwhile as yours.
I can explain my reasons for everything that I say. I know what I am saying and why, therefore I am not attempting to cover up anything. Social grouping that would allow for the speculative reach of classification of a people - a “leftist” unionionization of people - is a necessary step away from the empirical arbitrariness of prior epochs (Wittgenstein was a culprit in his influence on positivism, The Austrian School, etc., and later, with his vulgar pragmatism to look at what people are doing and move on, to take the ladder away, to cure people of the psychopathology of philosophy, to move beyond words). Now do you understand? “You must really hate Mark Twain ( if you dont get it, the joke is on you).” “It’s not what people don’t know that’s the problem it’s what they know that isn’t so.” I cannot think of a more apt statement to apply to you, Dave. Now, please go to a Hitler site. It isn’t only Dr. Lister who is tired of this issue. 85
Posted by Dave Marshal on Fri, 06 Jun 2014 22:09 | # “Hence the white Left” Which came after your garbled Wittgenstein-Kant stuff. And now you are incredulous over the comment I left, when you are unable to correctly put sentences togehter? Lol. Guess what? This is a first- a comment left by an opponent is so odd and meaningless that I didnt bother to read it all. Ha. Care to tell us your educational level ? Did you get out of High School? 86
Posted by Leon Haller on Fri, 06 Jun 2014 22:43 | # Dave Marshall, A lot of us here think DanielS is either an idiot (and not merely English-language deficient, which he may or may not be) or some type of troll, as you suspect. This has nothing to do with the debate over Nazi Germany, about which reasonable whites of impeccably pro-white goodwill can disagree. [My own view is that I cannot, as a Christian, condone the entirety of the Third Reich, though I certainly denounce the Marxist/Jewish/liberal instrumentalization of the Nazis and the camps for contemporary antiwhite purposes; I think Hitler’s war in the east was overwhelmingly morally justified, even if the Nazis were far too brutal than they should have been or had to be wrt to non-Soviet populations; and I recognize that while the Nazis were not all bad, the Allies were far from all good; that, iow, much of WW2 involved typical Great Power conflicts and as such should not be subjected to false, ex post facto ‘moralization’. Finally, I certainly agree that it would have been far better for the West (and therefore for the progress, rightly understood, of mankind) had the Nazis triumphed - even though, as a Christian American, I would have actively opposed any attempted Nazi invasion of the US. The situation is complex, as we see.] Daniel is the only person I have ever encountered who denounces both Christ and Hitler simultaneously. That position may not be necessarily incoherent - one can be both an atheist who thinks Christianity is bad for white EGI, and someone who also opposes Nazism, for ethical, tactical or personal reasons - but it is certainly odd and bespeaks a fundamentally idiosyncratic individual. At the very least, his attempt to not merely ignore, but actively read out of this site, those who are loyal to Christ, as well those loyal to Hitler, is illustrative of a profound misunderstanding of the ideological composition of the pro-white movement. Why such a divisive person (whose disagreeableness far transcends his opposition to Christians and Nazis) has now been invited to co-manage the site is inexplicable to me. Anyway, I encourage you to remain here. I sense a growing sentiment to “take back MR”, similar to what obtained prior to our successful assault on Daniel’s similarly disagreeable editorial predecessor, JRichards (who at least was neither anti-Christian nor anti-Nazi, but whose rabid, foul-tempered conspiracism and, like Daniel, constant accusations of Jewish allegiance, was nevertheless a huge pain in the a@@). Richards had to go, and so does DanielS. 87
Posted by DanielS on Fri, 06 Jun 2014 23:50 | # Posted by Dave Marshal on June 06, 2014, 05:09 PM | #
“Hence the white Left” Which came after your garbled Wittgenstein-Kant stuff. I have garbled nothing except in your fantasies.
Look, I answered you, though there wasn’t any obligation. Guess what? This is a first- a comment left by an opponent is so odd and meaningless that I didnt bother to read it all. Ha. I read your comments and answered them.
The answer is that your pedigree is meaningless, you are an idiot. 88
Posted by DanielS on Fri, 06 Jun 2014 23:53 | # Believe me Haller (and his Jewish overlords) Dave won’t be staying and neither will you.
Juice Juice Juice Juice! yeah, Nicole Brown! Touchdown ! 89
Posted by Dave Marshal on Sat, 07 Jun 2014 17:24 | # A good writer is clear and concise, not opaque like you . You suck. 91
Posted by Porga on Tue, 10 Jun 2014 12:46 | # If the 3rd Reich had an anti-Slav world view then why was the commander of Hitler’s SS bodyguard unit a full blooded Polish Slav named Erich Kempka, see: There were over 200,000 ethnic Polish Slavs that fought on the German side in World War 2 see: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Poles_in_the_Wehrmacht Donald Tusk, the Prime Minister of Poland, his grandfather also fought in the 3rd Reich German military in WW2: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Donald_Tusk In the early years of the war there was the Goralenvolk Polish Waffen SS and in the last few years of the war there was a Polish Waffen SS unit that was so elite and so secret (because it operated behind Russian enemy lines) that it was not even listed in the official German order of battle: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polnische_Wehrmacht_(World_War_II) In one part of Mein Kampf Hitler says the Russians are a “great people”. Quote from Mein Kampf: “Russia furnishes the most terrible example of such a slavery. In that country the Jew killed or starved thirty millions of the people, in a bout of savage fanaticism and partly by the employment of inhuman torture. And he did this so that a gang of Jewish literati and financial bandits should dominate over a great people. “
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/14th_Waffen_Grenadier_Division_of_the_SS_(1st_Ukrainian) There were 6,000 Slovenian slavs in the 24th Waffen SS Division: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/24th_Waffen_Mountain_Division_of_the_SS General Helmuth von Pannwitz XV SS Cossack Cavalry Corps which had 30,000 Slavs in it: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/XV_SS_Cossack_Cavalry_Corps The 30th Waffen SS Grenadier Division was Belarus Slavs and Russian Slavs: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/30th_Waffen_Grenadier_Division_of_the_SS This is a picture of Russian Slavs in the 36th Waffen Grenadier Division of the SS putting down the Warsaw Ghetto uprising :
There was also the 29th Waffen Grenadier Division of the SS RONA (1st Russian) commanded by full blooded Slav SS officer Waffen-Brigadeführer der SS, Bronislav Kaminski: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bronislav_Kaminski The earliest Polish SS unit was this one: http://pl.wikipedia.org/wiki/Goralenvolk#Goralische_Waffen_SS_Legion but there was a later and better, more elite Polish SS unit that was kind of like Polish SS special forces that was used in the last years of the war called the White Eagle’s Legion (Polish: Legion Orła Białego): http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polnische_Wehrmacht_(World_War_II) The Polish Slav survivors of the White Eagle’s legion escaped to South America and were still actively involved in ODESSA and other parts of the Nazi SS underground after World War 2 was over: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ODESSA
http://www.geni.com/surnames/dombrowski and http://boredhistorian.blogspot.com/2013/05/the-last-stand-of-inge-dombrowski.html
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russian_Corps Also interesting is the story of Helmuth von Pannwitz, the commander of the Cossack SS Corps who was given the option to live as a free man in West Germany after the war but instead he chose to stay with his Russian Cossack P.O.W. soldiers after they were given back to Stalin and sent back to Moscow to be tortured : http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Helmuth_von_Pannwitz
hurrr durr I thought the Nazi German’s wanted to kill all the Slav’s even though the Third Reich’s most popular and highly paid actors were of Slav ancestry such as Lída Baarová (Czech Slav) Carl Raddatz (Polish Slav) Ferdinand Marian Hasckowetz (Czech Slav) The SS commander who they blame for much of the Holocaust was a Slovenian Slav named Odilo Globocnik: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Odilo_Globocnik And the commander of Hitler’s SS bodyguard unit was also a Polish Slav named Erich Kempka: 92
Posted by Silver on Tue, 10 Jun 2014 13:44 | # The following passage makes Hitler’s views regarding Slavs clearer than that tidbit about a “great people.”
93
Posted by manifestdestiny on Wed, 11 Jun 2014 03:22 | # Hmm…I don’t know whether my comment was lost in transit or has to wait for approval, but I’m going to send it one more time and cross my fingers. I hope this doesn’t result in double-posting. ——————— Amazed this thread has continued since AH’s birthday. I want to add my 2 cents. First, left vs. right. This dichotomy has been with us since the French Revolution, and it is distinct from another division, that of cosmopolitan (or internationalist, globalist, “universalist”) vs. particularist (which is often expressed in the form of nationalism, although other expressions are possible). It is possible to be a right-wing or left-wing nationalist, or a right-wing or left-wing cosmopolitan. And neither is identical with socialism vs. capitalism, although political factions tend to cluster more often one way than another. Traditionally, the dividing line between liberals (who sat on the physical left wing of the French Assembly, thus becoming “the left”) and conservatives (who sat on the physical right wing), has been their views of church and state. The right wanted to CONSERVE the established church and the king (“defender of the faith,” among other titles) who ruled by divine right. The left longed for the day when they could, in the words of one French “philosophe” (invariably, the philosophes were liberals), “strangle the last king in the entrails of the last priest.” Today, the political spectrum has shifted so far to the left that even what passes for conservatism in America is actually Neoclassical liberalism, although its latter day adherents tend to be moderate Neoclassicals who are intuitively if not ideologically conservative and want to allow a larger public role for religion, including as a basis for law and custom, than their more intuitively (and often ideologically) left-leaning opponents are comfortable with. That is all one needs to know to understand the fundamental difference between left and right. Please don’t confuse it with cosmopolitanism vs. nationalism (an attempted redefinition of left vs. right that dates from WW2) or private property vs. socialist redistribution (an attempted redefinition of right vs. left that dates from the Cold War). Although Marxism is definitely a version of leftism, early socialists were not Marxists, and monasteries and Hutterite colonies show how easily conservatism can coexist with communism under the right circumstances. Note that this is not an apology for socialism, just an attempt to distinguish between concepts that, however related, are by no means identical. From the beginning of his career, Hitler aimed to join the redistributionist promises of the Social Democrats (whose meetings he sometimes attended) with the patriotism and traditional values championed by conservatives. One astute German-American supporter and personal friend of Hitler from the 1920’s until they had a parting of the ways in the ‘30’s (after Goering tried to have him discreetly murdered in a way that would have made him look like a dead hero of the fatherland, precipitating his immediate flight) observed that while Hitler was in prison dictating Mein Kampf, the Party almost split apart from fighting between the nationalist wing, which tended to draw mostly right wingers, and the socialist wing, which tended to draw mostly left wingers. He said Hitler was the hyphen that held National-Socialism together. Both sides knew any chance for attaining power depended on his oratorical gifts, and he was pragmatic enough to offer both something of what they wanted. Although these are different concepts, and do not have to align the way they so often do, one can see how the existing relationships came about. Partly, the ideological confusion created by WW2 (the Western mainstream media consistently described the Nazi’s as a party of the “left” until they invaded the overtly Marxist USSR, upon which they were immediately rechristened a party of the “right”) and the Cold War, which millions of Christians viewed as primarily a struggle against organized atheism, but which many heirs of the Enlightenment preferred to cast as primarily a struggle between opposing economic systems. But going back further, we can also see how hatred of the monarchy (whether motivated by hatred of the Church or vice versa) easily led to belief in “consent of the governed” and the existence of a “general will,” and how these democratic concepts could only be justified by a belief in human equality. They could find no other moral basis for overthrowing the civil and ecclesiastical hierarchies, and they were not content to be mere reformists. Later, the presumption of equality could easily lead to resentment against “exploitation” and “class oppression” and thus to demands that inherently equal people be rewarded equally via the redistribution of resources. Thus, Marxism. Later still, the Frankfurt Schoolers would substitute race and sex and, now, sexual “orientation” for social class. They have shifted the agenda from overthrowing the bourgeoisie (the business class, consisting especially of entrepreneurs, and, by close relationship in the mode of production, higher level managers and perhaps upper-middle class professionals) to overthrowing the White male patriarchy. Conversely, every religion seeks to conserve its theology and morality, and thus tends to become a force for cultural conservation in general. Although doctrinaire Marxism claims that church and state compete for the loyalty of the people, research shows that piety and patriotism are positively correlated, not negatively as Marxism predicts. And in tests, devout evangelicals admit they would behave less altruistically toward outgroup members than their more secular counterparts in the same study, the example of the good Samaritan notwithstanding! So religious people tend to be less cosmopolitan in outlook, and more particularistic, and the left more cosmopolitan and less particularistic. And while Aristotle often disagreed with Plato’s idealized _Republic_, both agreed from observation that democracy (the preferred government of the anti-monarchist/anti-aristocratic/anti-hierarchical left) leads to increased social deviance and reduced moral discipline, which is more acceptable to both leftists (because more secular and morally tolerant) and cosmopolitans (who tend to be more tolerant of diversity) than to rightists and particularists. So, although these conceptual continua are distinct phenomena, they are related in such a way that we can understand why there is a general but not invariable tendency for people on the ends of certain continua to cluster together ideologically. On Hitler, he had plenty of personal flaws, and he made some bad decisions, but his character flaws, his practical mistakes, and his overly aggressive foreign policy (he acknowledged other foreign policy options in Mein Kampf) must be separated from the ideals of NS, which were widely held (under no particular name) throughout the civilized world until war propaganda made them taboo—a taboo that has become even more intense since the 1960’s, in contrast to other wars whose psychological consequences normally recede, and especially among the victors, with the second generation. Huns and Turks admire Attila, Genghis Khan is a national hero in Mongolia, even Stalin still has some open admirers in his native Georgia and even in Russia, yet the losers of WW2 are treated as though they were the most evil men who ever lived. It is an abnormal situation. WW2 is the defining, or rather, RE-defining war of European civilization. Before WW2, and especially before 1932 (when Hitler and FDR come to power) biologically informed nationalists were involved in the mainstream Western debate about the future course of European (including American) civilization. After the war, biologically informed nationalists were uncompromisingly excluded, and that exclusion has become not less but more fanatical with the passage of time. Is there a political solution, either revolutionary or reformist? Very unlikely. Egalitarians (whether naturally inclined or heavily indoctrinated) have an iron grip on every politically important institution. Niche media are not sufficient to counter their institutional dominance. And our growing body of rather low IQ ethnic groups will not tolerate any rational debate that touches on their mental or behavioral inferiority. You can’t criticize domestic Jewish influence because Americans love Jews. (It’s true! The surveys are clear. Propaganda works if you can get virtually all the media in your corner. That’s is why the Danes heavily supported Bush’s misguided adventures in the Middle East—every influential person in Denmark seemed to be behind it, and public opinion followed, in stark contrast to Europe generally.) And if you try to take away any group’s voting rights—the illiterate, the financially insecure or even the desperate, and don’t even mention going back to only White male property owners over the age of 21—for any suggestion of taking away the franchise from any group will be met with cursing, seizures, and frothing at the mouth. People with our views need to concentrate on keeping our views, our science, our historical facts, and our lineages—culture and biology—alive until conditions become favorable, probably in the remote future. There is no point in following strategies that might have been appropriate in the 1920’s or 1960’s (although I think it was already too late by then). The solution I recommend is bio-cultural rather than political, and does not require us to enlighten or persuade large numbers of Whites (which I do not believe we can do). Its drawbacks are that it is a strategy for the very long haul, and that it does not resolve the differences between liberal and conservative nationalists, or between capitalistic nationalists and socialistic nationalists, or nationalists of differing theologies. It accepts and probably intensifies disunity between groups of Whites in exchange for longevity and organic growth. That’s the trade-off. It avoids extinction now, but risks Balkanization in some future age, and many might prefer to risk near term extinction rather than long term Balkanization. Their motto might be “Better death than division!” That’s alright, because my proposal does not require having lots of people on board to carry out. We need to form parallel societies (in the plural, because we are too divided in our opinions to form a single community, and we must adapt to that reality). To do this, we must concentrate geographically, which will require relocation for most. We must control the content of our education and entertainment. We must regulate what peers our youth associate with and whom they marry. We must increase our group’s (or groups’) fertility (which only happens these days among groups with strong religious commitment, dismaying news if it is really true that some European countries now have as many Mosque-attenders as Church-attenders). In both Europe and America, the fertility rates of the 1950’s baby boom never stopped among weekly church attenders, but they decline steadily as frequency of church attendance declines, being lowest of all among those who never attend. And, although difficult, it would help our parallel societies a lot to trade in English for another language or languages, at least for those of us who live in the “Aryan diaspora.” (One can see why emphasizing the national language might be preferable in the Old Country, unless you are an ethnic minority like the Basques.) Most people will be unwilling to make such changes. Perhaps nobody will, in which case European peoples, after lingering like the Ainu for some centuries, probably will end as only a chapter in dusty history books, most likely written by people who will be taught to remember only the bad about us, or who will value us only for making way for them. But if some people organize themselves and take the plunge, they could be the nucleus of a new Europa of the West, centuries from now, after they become the new majority through natural increase. Not that I am holding my breath. Sustaining a parallel society probably requires substantial cultural changes vis a vis a larger society that is constantly trying to seduce people into the mainstream, and making a sharp break with one’s familiar culture is not only practically difficult but psychologically difficult as well. Still, it is possible, because it does not require vast numbers to work. Where retaining the second generation is concerned, it would be hard to undervalue education. Egalitarians repeatedly express worry that discoveries in biology or sometimes the social sciences (including history) will be “misused” to undermine their new egalitarian order. Sometimes I wonder (even though I know better!) whether just reading the right books would put the next generation on the road to some kind of sanity (and I would enjoy some debate about what those books should be). There is more than one way to organize society, and everyone is entitled to his own preference in such opinions, but everyone is not entitled to his own facts, and facts weigh heavily against the new cultural and political order instituted since WW2 and especially since the 1960’s. Yet most people don’t know this. Most people think reality is the opposite of how it really is and that anyone who thinks otherwise is delusional. Even many WN’s want to base their socio-political preferences on “spirit” and affection for traditional folkways or sentimental feelings for one’s own race. Not that these are bad, but if those are the only reasons people have, they will lose the argument generation by generation. Before I sign off, I wrote “I know better!” somewhat contradictorally. I do believe that, once you have certain well-grounded facts, it is hard to go back. You can’t unlearn knowledge. But I also know that people conform to the views of their peers, at all ages, but especially in youth. Some social scientists say that youth in their teens and early twenties are psychologically and genetically primed to form tribal identification at these ages (which, perhaps just coincidentally, or perhaps not, is also the age range when the growth of the frontal lobes is finally being completed). So people need the right facts, but they also need to be surrounded by age-mates who also have the right facts, in an environment where they will not suffer ostracism or humiliation for discussing such facts, and they also need to have some of the logical “dots” connected for them, in a manner that is clear but not over-emphatic (not too “preachy”), because not everyone can reason his way from point to point with equal facility.
94
Posted by DanielS on Wed, 11 Jun 2014 04:37 | # “Before WW2, and especially before 1932 (when Hitler and FDR come to power) biologically informed nationalists were involved in the mainstream Western debate about the future course of European (including American) civilization. After the war, biologically informed nationalists were uncompromisingly excluded, and that exclusion has become not less but more fanatical with the passage of time.” Because Hitler made the biology of race didactic with what became, particularly after the night of the long knives, his right-wing supremacism and imperialism. It would be enough to turn-off and scare any normal person that a world view so mean spirited and disrespectful of out-groups and marginals could gain momentum. And it really provided Jews with rhetoric to exploit.
The problem is that there are already Hitler sites which allow for comfortable, too comfortable, discussion of Hitler as if merely concerned for the facts, but they are disingenuous as they edit-out views critical of Hitler’s conceptual errors - except where those errors were a matter of tactical failure of his means (such as not finishing-off the British at Dunkerque), not that his ends were poorly conceived. I believe that GW is on to something in that there was something Nietzschean about Nazism, in its master slave element, which was toxic (and inaccurate - i.e., not factual enough) to the point of being unnatural and hence, inauthentic and unsustainable. This brings us to another problem, which is that like the Jebus people, the Hitler people would be promoting him and discussing him here to no end, if they could, irrespective of the fact that there are already Hitler friendly sites. There are more pressing matters to discuss than the resurrection of Jebus and Hitler. Some of the imposition of Hitler resurrection, perhaps much of it, has to do with the problem that GW alluded to that German Americans experience a strong desire to redeem their fatherland’s image - for them it is a central issue. For them it appears as if revising WW II and the holocaust is a central matter - smothered, they can scarcely have perspective to care about anything else but trying to throw off the burden of guilt trips which leave them vulnerable. From another point of view, however, the Nazis were every bit as instructive in where they were wrong as in where they were right. The view which does not feel the bent to redeem Nazi Germany is the balanced one, is the view that can see own-most innocence of European peoples and ask dispassionately why a reaction as such was provoked and how it was operationalized to its own and the rest of Europe’s detriment. The goal is not to condemn Germans (and if one wants to go on about how purely wonderful the Nazis were, there are other sites for that), but to finally address the non-native European influences which caused such a reaction; and to do better in systemic, symbiotic defense of ourselves against the bacillus, foreign imposition and whatever philosophical errors, so as not to hurt the parts of our own body politic of Europeans in rash, headlong attempts to throw off its affliction. Post a comment:
Next entry: The politics of culture - Part 3
|
|
Existential IssuesDNA NationsCategoriesContributorsEach author's name links to a list of all articles posted by the writer. LinksEndorsement not implied. Immigration
Islamist Threat
Anti-white Media Networks Audio/Video
Crime
Economics
Education General
Historical Re-Evaluation Controlled Opposition
Nationalist Political Parties
Science Europeans in Africa
Of Note MR Central & News— CENTRAL— An Ancient Race In The Myths Of Time by James Bowery on Wednesday, 21 August 2024 15:26. (View) Slaying The Dragon by James Bowery on Monday, 05 August 2024 15:32. (View) The legacy of Southport by Guessedworker on Friday, 02 August 2024 07:34. (View) Ukraine, Israel, Taiwan … defend or desert by Guessedworker on Sunday, 14 April 2024 10:34. (View) — NEWS — Farage only goes down on one knee. by Guessedworker on Saturday, 29 June 2024 06:55. (View) |
. Yeah right. Hitler propaganda is massively encouraged, top notch quality and is overwhelming these days, isn’t it?? Especially in Europe. Since you asked: I am dutch-belgian-french and your site records will show you where I live. I lost ancestors fighting him. Hitler propaganda in Core Europe these days… do you have any idea what you are talking about ??? Do you know the laws in Europe?? This is the most laughable rebuttal from you which makes me wonder if you are intellectually capable at all, let alone intellectually honest (which I already noticed to be a very close call). Especially so since you and some of your mates here claim to be so intellectual.
Posted by GuestLurker on Mon, 21 Apr 2014 04:54 | #
Hitler might not have been perfect. He was merely human after all. But he towered over all of his enemies including the fat Anglo drunken swine Churchill, never mind all of the successive democratic political gangsters of the West.
Heil Hitler, and Happy Birthday.