|
|
|
The Destruction of Ethnic Germans and German Prisoners of War in Yugoslavia, 1945-1953 By Tomislav Sunic From the European and American media, one can often get the impression that World War II needs to be periodically resurrected to give credibility to financial demands of one specific ethnic group, at the expense of others. The civilian deaths of the war’s losing side are, for the most part, glossed over. Standard historiography of World War II is routinely based on a sharp and polemical distinction between the “ugly” fascists who lost, and the “good” anti-fascists who won, and few scholars are willing to inquire into the gray ambiguity in between. Even as the events of that war become more distant in time, they seemingly become more politically useful and timely as myths. German military and civilian losses during and especially after World War II are still shrouded by a veil of silence, at least in the mass media, even though an impressive body of scholarly literature exists on that topic. The reasons for this silence, due in large part to academic negligence, are deep rooted and deserve further scholarly inquiry. Why, for instance, are German civilian losses, and particularly the staggering number of postwar losses among ethnic Germans, dealt with so sketchily, if at all, in school history courses? The mass media—television, newspapers, film and magazines—rarely, if ever, look at the fate of the millions of German civilians in central and eastern Europe during and following World War II. [1] The treatment of civilian ethnic Germans—or Volksdeutsche—in Yugoslavia may be regarded as a classic case of “ethnic cleansing” on a grand scale. [2] A close look at these mass killings presents a myriad of historical and legal problems, especially when considering modern international law, including the Hague War Crimes Tribunal that has been dealing with war crimes and crimes against humanity in the Balkan wars of 1991-1995. Yet the plight of Yugoslavia’s ethnic Germans during and after World War II should be of no lesser concern to historians, not least because an understanding of this chapter of history throws a significant light on the violent break-up of Communist Yugoslavia 45 years later. A better understanding of the fate of Yugoslavia’s ethnic Germans should encourage skepticism of just how fairly and justly international law is applied in practice. Why are the sufferings and victimhood of some nations or ethnic groups ignored, while the sufferings of other nations and groups receive fulsome and sympathetic attention from the media and politicians? At the outbreak of World War II in 1939, more than one and a half million ethnic Germans were living in southeastern Europe, that is, in Yugoslavia, Hungary, and Romania. Because they lived mostly near and along the Danube river, these people were popularly known “Danube Swabians” or Donauschwaben. Most were descendants of settlers who came to this fertile region in the 17th and 18th centuries following the liberation of Hungary from Turkish rule. For centuries the Holy Roman Empire and then the Habsburg Empire struggled against Turkish rule in the Balkans, and resisted the “Islamization” of Europe. In this struggle the Danube Germans were viewed as a rampart of Western civilization, and were held in high esteem in the Austrian (and later, Austro-Hungarian) empire for their agricultural productivity and military prowess. Both the Holy Roman and Habsburg empires were multicultural and multinational entities, in which diverse ethnic groups lived for centuries in relative harmony. After the end of World War I, in 1918, which brought the collapse of the Austro-Hungarian Habsburg empire, and the imposed Versailles Treaty of 1919, the juridical status of the Donauschwaben Germans was in flux. When the National Socialist regime was established in Germany in 1933, the Donauschwaben were among the more than twelve million ethnic Germans who lived in central and eastern Europe outside the borders of the German Reich. Many of these people were brought into the Reich with the incorporation of Austria in 1938, of the Sudetenland region of Czechoslovakia in 1939, and of portions of Poland in late 1939. The “German question,” that is, the struggle for self-determination of ethnic Germans outside the borders of the German Reich, was a major factor leading to the outbreak of World War II. Even after 1939, more than three million ethnic Germans remained outside the borders of the expanded Reich, notably in Romania, Yugoslavia, Hungary and the Soviet Union. In the first Yugoslavia—a monarchical state created in 1919 largely as a result of efforts of the victorious Allied powers—most of the country’s ethnic Germans were concentrated in eastern Croatia and northern Serbia (notably in the Vojvodina region), with some German towns and villages in Slovenia. Other ethnic Germans lived in western Romania and south-eastern Hungary. This first multiethnic Yugoslav state of 1919-1941 had a population of some 14 million people of diverse cultures and religions. On the eve of World War II it included nearly six million Serbs, about three million Croats, more than a million Slovenes, some two million Bosnian Muslims and ethnic Albanians, approximately half a million ethnic Germans, and another half million ethnic Hungarians. Following the breakup of Yugoslavia in April 1941, accelerated by a rapid German military advance, approximately 200,000 ethnic Germans became citizens of the newly established Independent State of Croatia, a country whose military and civil authorities remained loyally allied with Third Reich Germany until the final week of the war in Europe. [3] Most of the remaining ethnic Germans of former Yugoslavia—approximately 300,000 in the Vojvodina region—came under the jurisdiction of Hungary, which during the war incorporated the region. (After 1945 this region was reattached to the Serbian portion of Yugoslavia.) The plight of the ethnic Germans became dire during the final months of World War II, and especially after the founding of the second Yugoslavia, a multiethnic Communist state headed by Marshal Josip Broz Tito. In late October 1944, Tito’s guerilla forces, aided by the advancing Soviets and lavishly assisted by Western air supplies, took control of Belgrade, the Serb capital that also served as the capital of Yugoslavia . One of the first legal acts of the new regime was the decree of November 21, 1944, on “The decision regarding the transfer of the enemy’s property into the property of the state.” It declared citizens of German origin as “enemies of the people,” and stripped them of civic rights. The decree also ordered the government confiscation of all property, without compensation, of Yugoslavia’s ethnic Germans. [4] An additional law, promulgated in Belgrade on February 6, 1945, canceled the Yugoslav citizenship of the country’s ethnic Germans. [5] By late 1944—when Communist forces had seized control of the eastern Balkans, that is, of Bulgaria, Serbia and Macedonia—the German-allied state of Croatia still held firm. However, in early 1945, German troops, together with Croatian troops and civilians, began retreating toward southern Austria. During the war’s final months, the majority of Yugoslavia’s ethnic German civilians also joined this great trek. The refugees’ fears of torture and death at Communist hands were well founded, given the horrific treatment by Soviet forces of Germans and others in East Prussia and other parts of eastern Europe. By the end of the war in May 1945, German authorities had evacuated 220,000 ethnic Germans from Yugoslavia to Germany and Austria. Yet many remained in their war-ravaged ancestral homelands, most likely awaiting a miracle. After the end of fighting in Europe on May 8, 1945, more than 200,000 ethnic Germans who had remained behind in Yugoslavia effectively became captives of the new Communist regime. Some 63,635 Yugoslav ethnic German civilians (women, men and children) perished under Communist rule between 1945 and 1950—that is, some 18 percent of the ethnic German civilian population still remaining in the new Yugoslavia. Most died as a result of exhaustion as slave laborers, in “ethnic cleansing,” or from disease and malnutrition. [6] Much of the credit for the widely-praised “economic miracle” of Titoist Yugoslavia, it should be noted, must go to the tens of thousands of German slave laborers who, during the late 1940s, helped to build the impoverished country. Property of ethnic Germans in Yugoslavia confiscated in the aftermath of World War II amounted to 97,490 small businesses, factories, shops, farms and diverse trades. The confiscated real estate and farmland of Yugoslavia’s ethnic Germans came to 637,939 hectares (or about one million acres), and became state-owned property. According to a 1982 calculation, the value of the property confiscated from ethnic Germans in Yugoslavia amounted to 15 billion German marks, or about seven billion US dollars. Taking inflation into account, this would today correspond to twelve billion US dollars. From 1948 to 1985, more than 87,000 ethnic Germans who were still residing in Yugoslavia moved to Germany and automatically became German citizens. [7] All this constitutes a “final solution of the German question” in Yugoslavia. Numerous survivors have provided detailed and graphic accounts of the grim fate of the ethnic German civilians, particularly women and children, who were held in Communist Yugoslav captivity. One noteworthy witness is the late Father Wendelin Gruber, who served as a chaplain and spiritual leader to many fellow captives. [8] These numerous survivor accounts of torture and death inflicted on German civilians and captured soldiers by Yugoslav authorities adds to the chronicle of Communist oppression worldwide. [9] Of the one and a half million ethnic Germans who lived in the Danube basin in 1939-1941, some 93,000 served during World War II in the armed forces of Hungary, Croatia and Romania – Axis countries that were allied with Germany – or in the regular German armed forces. The ethnic Germans of Hungary, Croatia and Romania who served in the military formations of those countries remained citizens of those respective states. [10] In addition, many ethnic Germans of the Danubian region served in the “Prinz Eugen” Waffen SS division, which totaled some 10,000 men throughout its existence during the war. (This formation was named in honor of Prince Eugene of Savoy, who had won great victories against Turkish forces in the late 17th and early 18th centuries.) [11] Enlisting in the “Prinz Eugen” division automatically conferred German citizenship on the recruit. Of the 26,000 ethnic Danubian ethnic Germans serving in various military formations who lost their lives, half perished after the end of the war in Yugoslav camps. Particularly high were the losses of the “Prinz Eugen” division, most of whom surrendered after May 8, 1945. Some 1,700 of these prisoners were killed in the village of Brezice near the Croat-Slovenian border, while the remaining half was worked to death in Yugoslav zinc mines near the town of Bor, in Serbia. [12] In addition to the “ethnic cleansing” of Danube German civilians and soldiers, some 70,000 Germans who had served in regular Wehrmacht forces perished in Yugoslav captivity. Most of these died as a result of reprisals, or as slave laborers in mines, road construction, shipyards, and so forth. These were mostly troops of “Army Group E” who had surrendered to British military authorities in southern Austria at the time of the armistice of May 8, 1945. British authorities turned over about 150,000 of these German prisoners of war to Communist Yugoslav partisans under pretext of later repatriation to Germany. Most of these former regular Wehrmacht troops perished in postwar Yugoslavia in three stages: During the first stage more than 7,000 captured German troops died in Communist-organized “atonement marches” (Suhnemärsche) stretching 800 miles from the southern border of Austria to the northern border of Greece. During the second phase, in late summer 1945, many German soldiers in captivity were summarily executed or thrown alive into large karst pits along the Dalmatian coast of Croatia. In the third stage, 1945-1955, an additional 50,000 perished as forced laborers due to malnutrition and exhaustion. [13] The total number of German losses in Yugoslav captivity after the end of the war—including ethnic “Danube German” civilians and soldiers, as well as “Reich” Germans—may therefore be conservatively estimated at 120,000 killed, starved, worked to death, or missing. What is the importance of these figures? What lessons can be drawn in assessing these postwar German losses? It is important to stress that the plight of German civilians in the Balkans is only a small portion of the Allied topography of death. Seven to eight million Germans—both military personnel and civilians—died during and after World War II. Half of those perished during the final months of the war, or after Germany’s unconditional surrender on May 8, 1945. German casualties, both civilian and military, were arguably higher in “peace” than in “war.” In the months before and after the end of World War II, ethnic Germans were killed, tortured and dispossessed throughout eastern and central Europe, notably in Silesia, East Prussia, Pomerania, the Sudetenland, and the “Wartheland” region. Altogether 12-15 million Germans fled or were driven from their homes in what is perhaps the greatest “ethnic cleansing” in history. Of this number, more than two million were killed or otherwise lost their lives. [14] The grim events in postwar Yugoslavia are rarely dealt with in the media of the countries that emerged on the ruins of communist Yugoslavia, even though, remarkably, there is today greater freedom of expression and historical research there than in such western European countries as Germany and France. The elites of Croatia, Serbia and Bosnia, largely made up of former Communists, seem to share a common interest in repressing their sometimes murky and criminal past with regard to the postwar treatment of German civilians. The breakup of Yugoslavia in 1990-91, the events leading to it, and the war and atrocities that followed, can only be understood within a larger historical framework. As already noted, “ethnic cleansing” is nothing new. Even if one regards the former Serb-Yugoslav leader Slobodan Milosevic and the other defendants being tried by the International War Crimes Tribunal in The Hague as wicked criminals, their crimes are trivial compared to those of Communist Yugoslavia’s founder, Josip Broz Tito. Tito carried out “ethnic cleansing” and mass killings on a far greater scale, against Croats, Germans and Serbs, and with the sanction of the British and American governments. His rule in Yugoslavia (1945-1980), which coincided with the “Cold War” era, was generally supported by the Western powers, who regarded his regime as a factor of stability in this often unstable region of Europe. [15] The wartime and postwar plight of Germans in the Balkans also provides lessons about the fate of multiethnic and multicultural states. The fate of the two Yugoslavias—1919-1941 and 1944-1991—underscores the inherent weakness of multiethnic states. Twice in the 20th century, multicultural Yugoslavia fell apart amid needless carnage and a spiral of hatreds among its constituent ethnic groups. One can argue, therefore, that it is better for diverse nations and cultures, let alone different races, to live apart, separated by walls, than to pretend to live in a feigned unity that hides animosities waiting to explode, and leaving behind lasting resentments. Few could foresee the savage inter-ethnic hatred and killings that swept the Balkans following the collapse of Yugoslavia in 1991, and this among peoples of relatively similar anthropological origins, albeit different cultural backgrounds. One can only speculate with foreboding about the future of the United States and western Europe, where growing interracial tensions between the native populations and masses of Third World immigrants portend disaster with far bloodier consequences. Multicultural Yugoslavia, in both its first and second incarnations, was above all the creation of, respectively, the French, British and American leaders who crafted the Versailles settlement of 1919, and the British, Soviet Russian and American leaders who met at Yalta and Potsdam in 1945. The political figures who created Yugoslavia did not represent the nations in the region, and understood little of the self-perceptions or ethnic-cultural affinities of the region’s various peoples. Although the deaths, suffering and dispossession of the ethnic Germans of the Balkans during and after World War II are well documented by both German authorities and independent scholars, they continue to be largely ignored in the major media of the United States and Europe. Why? One could speculate that if those German losses were more widely discussed and better known, they would likely stimulate an alternative perspective on World War II, and indeed of 20th century history. A greater and more widespread awareness of German civilian losses during and after World War II might well encourage a deeper discussion of the dynamics of contemporary societies. This, in turn, could significantly affect the self-perception of millions of people, forcing many to discard ideas and myths that have fashionably prevailed for more than half a century. An open debate about the causes and consequences of World War II would also tarnish the reputations of many scholars and opinion makers in the United States and Europe. Arguably, a greater awareness of the sufferings of German civilians during and after World War II, and the implications of that, could fundamentally change the policies of the United States and other major powers. —————————————————————— Notes 1. Mads Ole Balling, Von Reval bis Bukarest (Copenhagen: Hermann-Niermann-Stiftung, 1991), vol. I and vol. II. 2. L. Barwich, F. Binder, M. Eisele, F. Hoffmann, F. Kühbauch, E. Lung, V. Oberkersch, J. Pertschi, H. Rakusch, M. Reinsprecht, I. Senz, H. Sonnleitner, G. Tscherny, R. Vetter, G. Wildmann, and others, Weissbuch der Deutschen aus Jugoslawien: Erlebnisberichte 1944-48 (Munich: Universitäts Verlag, Donauschwäbische Kulturstiftung, 1992, 1993), vol. I, vol. II. 3. On Croatia’s armed forces during World War II, and its destruction after 1945 by the Yugoslav Communists, see, Christophe Dolbeau, Les Forces armées croates, 1941-1945 (Lyon [BP 5005, 69245 Lyon cedex 05, France]: 2002). 4. Anton Scherer, Manfred Straka, Kratka povijest podunavskih Nijemaca/ Abriss zur Geschichte der Donauschwaben (Graz: Leopold Stocker Verlag/ Zagreb: Pan Liber, 1999), esp. p. 131; Georg Wildmann, and others, Genocide of the Ethnic Germans in Yugoslavia 1944-1948 (Santa Ana, Calif.: Danube Swabian Association of the USA, 2001), p. 31. 5. A. Scherer, M. Straka, Kratka povijest podunavskih Nijemaca/ Abriss zur Geschichte der Donauschwaben (1999), pp. 132-140. 6. Georg Wildmann, and others, Verbrechen an den Deutschen in Jugoslawien, 1944-48 (Munich: Donauschwäbische Kulturstiftung, 1998), esp. pp. 312-313. Based on this is the English-language work: Georg Wildmann, and others, Genocide of the Ethnic Germans in Yugoslavia 1944-1948 ( Santa Ana, Calif.: Danube Swabian Association of the USA, 2001). 7. G. Wildmann, and others, Verbrechen an den Deutschen in Jugoslawien, 1944-48, esp. p. 274. 8. Wendelin Gruber, In the Claws of the Red Dragon: Ten Years Under Tito’s Heel (Toronto: St. Michaelswerk, 1988). Translated from German by Frank Schmidt. 9. Stéphane Courtois, and others, The Black Book of Communism: Crimes, Terror, Repression (Cambridge: Harvard Univ. Press, 1999). 10. G. Wildmann, and others, Verbrechen an den Deutschen in Jugoslawien (cited above), p. 22. 11. Armin Preuss, Prinz Eugen: Der edle Ritter (Berlin: Grundlagen Verlag, 1996). 12. Otto Kumm, Geschichte der 7. SS-Freiwilligen Gebirgs-Division “Prinz Eugen” (Coburg: Nation Europa, 1995). 13. Roland Kaltenegger, Titos Kriegsgefangene: Folterlager, Hungermärsche und Schauprozesse ( Graz : Leopold Stocker Verlag, 2001). 14. Alfred-Maurice de Zayas, Nemesis at Potsdam: The Expulsion of the Germans From the East. (Lincoln: Univ. of Nebraska, 1989 [3rd rev. ed.]); Alfred-Maurice de Zayas, The German Expellees: Victims in War and Peace (New York: St. Martin’s Press, 1993); Alfred-Maurice de Zayas, A Terrible Revenge: The “Ethnic Cleansing” of the East European Germans, 1944-1950 (New York: St. Martin’s Press, 1994); Ralph F. Keeling, Gruesome Harvest: The Allies’ Postwar War Against the German People (Institute for Historical Review, 1992). 15. Tomislav Sunic, Titoism and Dissidence: Studies in the History and Dissolution of Communist Yugoslavia (Frankfurt, New York: Peter Lang, 1995) This article was originally posted at Institute for Historical Review in 2004, and was adapted from Tom’s address to the 14th IHR Conference, in Irvine, California two years earlier Comments:2
Posted by 2R on Sun, 30 Sep 2007 03:55 | # I didn’t know where else to post this but you guys need to read this study regarding ethnic violence. http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/full/317/5844/1540?ijkey=S.Kb5wAK45Q5.&keytype=ref&siteid=sci 3
Posted by Fred Scrooby on Sun, 30 Sep 2007 04:49 | # 2R, the Negro crime wave in all Amerikwan cities can be thought of as Jewish ethnic violence by proxy, directed against Euros: the Negroes who actually perpetrate the violence are the proxies of the Jews. It’s really the Jews striking at Euros (by Negro proxy) as an ongoing tribal war. 4
Posted by desmond jones on Sun, 30 Sep 2007 05:31 | # Fred, The article is about the potential for violence based on the degree of ethnic mixing.
The options are very clear separation or a Leviathan.
Which closely compliments Mr. Sunic’s position:
5
Posted by zusammen on Sun, 30 Sep 2007 05:44 | #
Ethnically exclusive city states is superior to sprawling nation states. A better civilization design solves environmental and social ills. Some city states could even select the Leviathan option without affecting neighboring cities. 6
Posted by _jimbo_ on Sun, 30 Sep 2007 10:51 | # Hitler made the absolutely fatal mistake of being way too kind & gentlemanly with his ZOG foes…..you just can’t make mistakes like that!......give the kikez a chance & they’ll fckn annihilate you….like they did to the white Russians c 1918-1938, like they did to the Germans during & post WWII; like they are doing to the Iraqis now (current civlian casualties: over 1 million!).....he should have obliterated the BEF @ Dunkirk & then immediately launched a saturation/carpet-bombing offensive on the UK followed shortly there-after by an all-out invasion…while taking as many precautions as possible to spare the lives of white British children….he should have fckn FLATTENED! the masonic-controlled-jewK, rounded up & shot STONE fckn DEAD every Brit’ over the age of 17(except, perhaps, for a few fascist stalwarts like Oswald Mosley & William Joyce…[i think he was in Germany then, any-way?])...after that, he should have done the same with the jewSSR….except for those areas that welcomed him as a liberator from judæo-bolshevik terror….the Baltic nations, Ukraine &c the only way to ‘broker’ a ‘peace’ is from a position of over-whelming military superiority…as such: ‘peace over-tures’ to the Brits should have only been made when SS Panzer Divisions were thundering down WhiteHall! all white people are now suffering the results of Hitler’s “gentlemanly behaviour”! 7
Posted by zusammen on Sun, 30 Sep 2007 11:11 | # Okay. Tell us what Hitler really should have done and how you would feel much better had he done so. Loosen up and don’t hold back this time. Thanks! 88! 8
Posted by _jimbo_ on Sun, 30 Sep 2007 14:11 | # Arguably, a greater awareness of the sufferings of German civilians during and after World War II, and the implications of that, could fundamentally change the policies of the United States and other major powers there’s only ONE way to do that!....a ‘Turner Diaries’-type ‘scenario’...and a ‘long march of no return’ for ALL our racial enemies!...i needn’t specify their ‘ethnicity’.....‘returning the favour’ dished out to millions of innocent German women & kids post-WWII should be amongst our first priorities in the New White Imperium! Sunic generally strikes me as too much of a cosseted intellectual savant…..the only ‘language’ that works in to-day’s world is EXTREME VIOLENCE!..... 9
Posted by Fred Scrooby on Sun, 30 Sep 2007 15:02 | #
That’s frustration and extreme anger talking, Jimbo, not a level head. Violence may come and if it does it won’t be our side’s fault: we’ve been pleading, begging the other side to lift the lid on the pressure-cooker, and all we’ve gotten in reply has been the clamping-down of that lid ever tighter as they turn us a deaf ear. But until the tragedy of violence does erupt (and pray God it doesn’t) we have to devote ourselves to non-violence in endeavoring to, first, communicate with the other side, and second of course, to settle this matter, and in settling it there are compromises we won’t make (such as leaving the present racial transformation partly in place as a fait accompli). Absolutely the worst-case scenario for everyone, bar none, would be for this to erupt in violence: THE WORST. No one should have any illusions about that. 10
Posted by _jimbo_ on Sun, 30 Sep 2007 15:43 | # That’s frustration and extreme anger talking, Jimbo, not a level head is it? Violence may come and if it does it won’t be our side’s fault Solzynhetsin(sic) said that if more people had to have attacked the NKVD goons, even with suicidal violence, they may not have been so keen to cart people off to the gulags! we’ve been pleading, begging the other side to lift the lid on the pressure-cooker, and all we’ve gotten in reply has been the clamping-down of that lid ever tighter as they turn us a deaf ear But, until the tragedy of violence does erupt (and pray God it doesn’t) we have to devote ourselves to non-violence in endeavoring to, first, communicate with the other side and, second, of course, to settle this matter, and, in settling it, there are compromises we won’t make (such as leaving the present racial transformation partly in place as a fait accompli) Absolutely the worst-case scenario for everyone, bar none, would be for this to erupt in violence: THE WORST. No one should have any illusions about that 11
Posted by ES on Sun, 30 Sep 2007 16:04 | # Well, Jimbo, before you fight you need an army. Unless you think one man could take them on successfully, in which case the question is, what’s keeping you? 12
Posted by Guessedworker on Sun, 30 Sep 2007 18:57 | # Jimbo, Please resist the temptation to comment at MR, no matter how loud the ol’ blood ‘n soil’s a-singin’ in your ears. You are a nuisance ... twice-banned, for all the good it does, and perfectly incapable of enlightening the dumbest human being walking this earth. Go away. Depart. Be a drugs mule in Singapore ... a combat pilot for the Mahdi Army. Do carpentry on the Nullarbor ... anything. But go, please. And don’t come back. 13
Posted by danielj on Sun, 30 Sep 2007 23:14 | # On Mr. Oswald Mosley from a friend of mine:
14
Posted by 2R on Mon, 01 Oct 2007 04:43 | # That “Jimbo’s” website has to be the most vile thing I’ve ever seen. Anyway, the ethnic cleansing of Germans after WWII is a perfect example of why no one should ever believe that leftists or Neocons care about so called “Human Rights.” Many race re-placers assure us that the dispossession of Whites in Europe or North America will be a “peaceful” transition due to our legal system. South Africa HAD a legal system at one point as well and that transition has resulted in mass rape for the White women of South Africa. The Jenaocide Six situation exemplifies perfectly why Whites mustn’t ever let themselves be under the control of non-Whites. Whether its the Jenocide Six situation, ethnic Germans after WWII, Ukrainians during the 1930’s, Channon Christian, South Africans, Rhodesians, etc…the race re-placers will never admit wrong doing against Whites. They don’t even believe that its even wrong for non-whites to kill, murder, cleanse, or rape White people. How could they ever expect us to except our dispossession? Even now, while Whites still are the majority in this country, its turning into a non-white on White turkey shoot. Can you imagine what it will be like when White’s are minority? The only thing positive that could come out of a non-white majority is that might be the only thing that will wake up Joe Six-pack? Sometimes I’m not even sure if that will do it either? There’s a pattern I’ve noticed with our Judo-tyrannical overlords. They always start trouble and after the reaction comes back at them they use their control of the information systems to make it look as if they’re the innocents. Take for example the situation in Kosovo. The KLA was armed and instructed to cause trouble and when the Serbs reacted, the Serbs were made to look like the instigators. This is what their trying to do now. They keep covering up the rapes, beating, and killings of White people hoping that some half cocked white-like “Jimbo”- goes off the deep end and does something stupid. Then they can say “look the white supremacists are coming, the white supremacists are coming!!!!” So I warn you my fellow White men, do not allow them to sucker you. Let them keep pushing and keep pushing until they dig themselves in a hole that they can’t climb out from. As one wise man pointed out to me at this site, our enemies took their best shot and they took it while we were sleeping. The white man is just waking up and our enemies know it. They cannot debate us or out think us so the only thing they can do is lie and deceive people about us. This doesn’t mean that we don’t have a lot of hard work to do and this essay by Dr. Sunic is a reminder of what will happen to the White race if we allow ourselves to fail. This is the time when history is made. 15
Posted by Steve Edwards on Mon, 01 Oct 2007 09:17 | # From Jimbo’s Blog of Lunacy: “i believe all the current ills afflicting the White Race is because Adolf Hitler did not win World War II; i believe jews & niggas are MY DEADLY ENEMIES!” This is a parody, right? If Hitler truly did care about the interests of whites, he should have thought twice about invading his neighbouring white countries (predictably raising alarm bells across Europe), and declaring war on the most powerful white military-industrial machine on earth on account of his military alliance with the non-white Japanese. 16
Posted by Steve Edwards on Mon, 01 Oct 2007 11:23 | # “i thought ZOG declared war on the Third Reich” What, exactly, is “ZOG”, and when did it declare war on the Third Reich? “the countries Germany invaded were in self-defence” LMAO!!! Sure, that’s why they signed a mutual aggression pact with your hated “JewSSR” to conquer and divide eastern Europe between them. Oh, yes, and perhaps you can explain why Hitler was more than happy to accept military supplies from the Soviet Union, that damned kike-controlled USSR, while he was carrying out a massive air campaign against Britain. Herr Hitler had some interesting priorities, no? “Polish kikes were killing off ehtnic Germans by the tens of thousands” Would you mind digging up some substantiation for this remarkable claim? “the jewSSR was all set to swamp Western Europe with 700 divisions of sub-humanoid Boshevik scum” What on earth are you talking about? On the eve of Operation Barbarossa, the Soviets had perhaps only a third of that number. How did all these extra “divisions” magically appear? Are you now emulating Hitler’s example, under seige and issuing attack orders to fictional armies from his bunker, in seeking to concoct non-existent divisions and write them onto the pages of history? “read some David Irving, u fckn twat” I have read some David Irving, actually. He’s an interesting writer, obviously he has his flaws like all people, but his example is a stark contrast to your mad ravings. Clearly, you haven’t been a particularly good pupil of his. And before you reach any conclusions, no, I do not believe that Britain was right to declare war on Germany for invading Poland (while ignoring the Soviet Union’s culpability). The British should have let the Nazis and the Communists destroy each other. Guessedworker, does MR really need this lunatic’s contributions on here? 17
Posted by Steve Edwards on Mon, 01 Oct 2007 11:25 | # Oh. Thank God. Guessedworker, feel free to delete my penultimate comment. 18
Posted by ES on Mon, 01 Oct 2007 12:11 | # Jimbo’s rants are hilarious. Too bad they scare all the normal people. 19
Posted by Scimitar on Mon, 01 Oct 2007 13:18 | # I have written elsewhere recently that Americans and National Socialism don’t mix. That ideology seems to attract ‘Angel of Death’ types in the United States. Come to think of it, the phenomenon is so common, and so depressing, that it might be worth doing a blog entry about. I’m going to post a comment from ‘Gerald E. Morris’ in the O’Meara thread at OCD. Check it out. 20
Posted by Slavyanski on Mon, 01 Oct 2007 14:55 | # It is an insult to Dr. Sunic that some people should come on here with the most ridiculous conspiracy theories, supposedly supporting what he wrote. Incidentily I disagree with some aspects of what he wrote, but what I don’t agree with is paranoid nutcases dragging his work into the mud by taking it up into their conspiratorial worldview. I mean just look at that last post before mine “Jews declared war on Germany in 1933”. There was no such state or government as “Judea”. Many Jews in Germany protested AGAINST the boycott because they believed it would only fan the flames of anti-Semitism. Still many people that you would consider to be “Jews” loyally served the Third Reich’s military structure to the highest levels(like Milch and Von Manstein). Pure idiocy. What I was going to say is that it is indeed unfortunate that many ethnic Germans lost their homes during the war, and many among them were innocent. But the Germans and the Axis long before determined what kind of war they would fight, not so much in the Balkans but definitely in Poland(Operation Tannenburg) and occupied Russia, Ukraine, and Belarus. Many Volksdeutsche communities collaborated with this war machine, which brought about the destruction of somewhere around 8-16 million CIVILIAN deaths in the USSR alone, by way of shooting, bombing, and starvation(yes, this is a man-made famine when you deliberately seize all grain for the army and housing for your invading army). Collaboration, not only by Germans but other ethnicities, often facilitated those massacres, and thus bears some responsibility. Of course many Volksdeutche in some places weren’t really aware of that, but then the blame must be put on the NSDAP for purposely recruiting Volksdeutche to their cause. What is so laughable about racialists is that you all believe in this delusion that Hitler and the Nazis were somehow pro-European or pro-white(whatever that means). Did you ever wonder why in terms of volunteer units, the Germans were more than happy to arm Caucasians, Uzbeks, and Turkmen, than most Ukrainian, Russian, or Belorussian units(many of which they sent to the Western front once they had actually organized)? It’s very simple, they wanted to steal that land west of the Urals, and Turkmen or Uzbeks could more or less stay where they were if the Nazis won. The 80 million or so European Slavs in the USSR were to be starved out, driven east of the Urals, and exterminated, as plenty of Nazi records show. Pro-European my ass. I should say it WOULD be hilarious, were it not so tragic, the way you people equate Hitler with love of “your race”, when he was so obviously nothing more than a capitalist demagogue and a German nationalist at best. Did you ever notice that the Third Reich was more eager to accept foreign volunteers, even Germanic volunteers, as the war became more difficult? You deny the Holocaust, in which an equal or greater number of non-Jews died, just because your irrational Jew-hatred is so intense that you spit on the graves of your own people just to ruin the day of certain Jewish fanatics, of which you are nothing but a mirror image, and in many cases their creator(as it was said: “Anti-Semitism creates the Jew”). You cry crocodile tears for Dresden, with idiotically inflated death tolls, and yet not one drop for Guernica, Warsaw, London, Belgrade, Stalingrad, Leningrad, and many other cities mercilessly bombed by the Germans. Pan-European- nonsense.
Next, why should anyone shed a tear for those who were part of the Prinz Eugen division(or Handzar division for that matter)? Let us not forget that it was Germany, Italy, and Bulgaria which invaded, slaughtered, and started the conflict. How many people were killed in “reprisals” or as suspected Partisans? What reason had the Partisans to show any mercy in return, to an enemy that never did so for them? Same goes for Bleiburg or the massacre of Serbian nationalists elsewhere(the location escapes me at the moment). Yes there were civilians among them, and yes there were plenty of civilians among the occupiers’ victims, many of whom may not have been associated with the NOVJ i POJ. And while we are discussing misplaced tears, what about what may be Tito’s largest amount of victims, that is people labelled “Stalinists” or “pro-Soviet”, including people like war hero Arso Jovanovic? Anti-Communists love lumping Tito’s hundreds of thousands of post-war dead in with the hilarious “100 million deaths under Communism” figure….but many of these were in the eyes of the Tito regime: Stalinists! Ergo with all the hate directed toward Stalin and the real socialist USSR, shouldn’t the bourgeosie intelligentsia laud Tito’s liquidation of anyone thought to be “Stalinist”? They certainly laud many of his other anti-Marxist actions. 21
Posted by Fred Scrooby on Mon, 01 Oct 2007 15:03 | # Slavyanski, why were they systematically killed after the war ended, when the Allies were in charge of disarmed people? That they were killed under those circumstances isn’t open to question. Why was it done? 22
Posted by Tommy G on Mon, 01 Oct 2007 15:16 | # “Jimbo’s rants are hilarious. Too bad they scare all the normal people.” Posted by ES on Monday, October 1, 2007 at 11:11 AM | # Can you give some examples of normal people? Please name names! 23
Posted by Slavyanski on Mon, 01 Oct 2007 15:20 | # Systematically killed? I see reference to punative actions primarily against German soldiers and military personnel, which ought to be expected given the bloody results of Hitler’s attack on Yugoslavia. As Sunic correctly writes, many were driven from their homes. However, this was not always the result of the enemy, but rather the Reich government ordered and in some cases forced the evacuation of German territories ahead of the Allied advance in the east. Tales of mass rape(not that rape didn’t happen, but certainly not on a scale as the Germans claim) and other brutalities were spread in order to scare the population into leaving willingly. In many ways, the Third Reich government forced millions of Germans to go down with the ship, so-to-speak, preventing them from making overatures to the allies and scaring them with tall tales. Technically I might add, residents of Eastern Europe had FAR more legitimate reason to persecute Germans than the Nazis had to lock up Jews. 24
Posted by Fred Scrooby on Mon, 01 Oct 2007 15:38 | #
On what grounds do you justify doing it after the other side had surrendered and been disarmed? On grounds the Russians were entitled to be barbaric after what the Germans had put them through? What about the U.S. and the Brits? What was their responsibility? Patton didn’t agree with the brutal post-surrender treatment of the Germans. Was he wrong? Naïve? You get the last word: I’ve expressed my view; you’re entitled to yours. What was done can’t be justified. 25
Posted by silver on Mon, 01 Oct 2007 16:52 | # What nationality are you slavyanski? I suspect you may be Serb, since I doubt too many non-Serbs (or non-Yugoslavs) would have ever heard of Arso Jovanovic, and since you consider Bulgaria an “invader”, rather than an occupier. Ako jesi, kazi. I objasni sta je sa ovim “slavyanski”—jel’ mislis na neki novi “pan-slav” pokret? 26
Posted by Constantin von Hoffmeister on Mon, 01 Oct 2007 18:45 | # I agree with Slavjanski. Pro-Nazi “White nationalists” are not an asset. They are a liability as they are clearly not “pro-White” (as they are DEFINITELY anti-Russian AND anti-Semitic). Death to “revivisionism”! Sunic, like all NUTZIS, contributes NOTHING to the cause. Constantin 27
Posted by Rusty on Mon, 01 Oct 2007 19:28 | # Constantine wrote: I used to think so, but CvH’s opposition gives me pause. If he’s afraid of them .... hmmm. Constantine wrote: Again, the strange “thinking” so typical of CvH. Anti-Semitic? CvH loves that word. And he continues to insist that Jews are White, despite every evidence that even Jews themselves do not consider themselves White. Why in the world is CvH here? Is he your token Jew, GW? 28
Posted by Guessedworker on Mon, 01 Oct 2007 21:03 | # Constantin, I counted three attempts at controversy there in just two lines of type. Is that a record? Come now. No more the statement-making poseur. We really do have to cure you of that. Now:- 1. Define “anti-semite”. 2. Answer the question I put to you here. Do Jews generally want to stop the process of our racial destruction? 29
Posted by zusammen on Mon, 01 Oct 2007 22:55 | #
Support for Indo-European genetic interests does not necessarily require opposition to non-whites. Pro-white is not well defined by its opposition to non-whites. Pro-white is not equivalent to anti-non-white. Not that I care at all for non-whites given the present society forced on us.
I’m under the impression no war was ever conducted with great care given to those innocent among enemies. I find it strange that for all the world’s fighting armies throughout history, this unique, extra moral expectation sits solely on Nazi Germany’s shoulders. Propaganda? 30
Posted by Scimitar on Tue, 02 Oct 2007 00:16 | #
J.P, No offense, but didn’t you argue otherwise against me at VNN Forum a few years ago? 31
Posted by Al Ross on Tue, 02 Oct 2007 00:31 | # Please, zusammen, replace Indo-European with Aryan, even at the risk of being reviled by our greatest enemies and their admirers, e.g., disgusting philo-Semites like this risible von Hoffmeister character. 32
Posted by Scimitar on Tue, 02 Oct 2007 00:36 | #
1.) National Socialism is a straw man distraction. The Third Reich no longer exists. It’s a non-issue. 2.) Sunic is by no means a Nazi or a “Nutzi.” 3.) What sense does it make to be a pro-white “Communist?” I have never seen you answer that question. The USSR wasn’t “pro-white.” It supported anti-white regimes and movements across the world, especially in Africa. 33
Posted by zusammen on Tue, 02 Oct 2007 01:30 | # The National Socialists and Communists seem to focus on social class. The former seek to structure society in such a way that the owners and laborers form a harmonious union for the common good. This reminds me of Jarls and Karls in Norse society, or perhaps lords and serfs in the Middle Ages, an arrangement that seems sustainable for a few centuries at least. NS adds a modern State with secret police, a national army and bureaucracies to enforce harmony. The latter work to eliminate class differences, distribute some wealth evenly among all members and allocate the remainder to the State which manages the entire society. Communism and liberal democracy are readily vulnerable to infiltration and domination by covert concentrated interests who take advantage of and betray the common trust agreement to “equality”. Stalin purged the rise of concentrated selfish interests during his rule. We have yet to purge our own plutocrats but the people are getting impatient with them. Communist and democracy societies do not seem stable for centuries. 34
Posted by Steve Edwards on Tue, 02 Oct 2007 06:30 | # I certainly agree with Slavjanski and Constantin Van Hoffmeister that Nazis cannot be seen as pro-European under any stretch of the imagination. They are, by definition, pro-German and screw everyone else. The historical facts are clear - the Nazis directed the bulk of their resources into killing and enslaving fellow Europeans (I’m not even counting the Jews here - their identity is rather ambiguous on this matter, and they may or may not be European). However, I disagree that communism, which is supported by the lunatic Constantin, and possibly Slavjanski, offers any alternative, especially as the Soviet Union (which Scimitar has pointed out repeatedly, and which his opponents continue to evade him over) was the World Headquarters of “Anti-Racism” (meaning, of course, anti-white agitation) for 70 years. If the Soviet Union had never existed, it is likely that that US (and the rest of Europe) would never have introduced the entire litany of repressive anti-European and anti-white legislation that is now leading to the physical destruction of the West. 35
Posted by Constantin von Hoffmeister on Tue, 02 Oct 2007 07:37 | # “What sense does it make to be a pro-white ‘Communist?’” I do not know. I am not a Communist. Counter question: What sense is there of being a pro-White anything? Is not a pro-White Communist better than an anti-White one? Why did you put “Communist” in quotation marks? Constantin 36
Posted by Constantin von Hoffmeister on Tue, 02 Oct 2007 07:40 | # No more the statement-making poseur. I have no idea what you are talking about. Is not everybody making statements here? Is not everybody here then a “statement-making poseur”? Your double standard is at work again. Just like you single out the Jews you like to single out me. Constantin 37
Posted by Guessedworker on Tue, 02 Oct 2007 07:54 | # Commenters do seem to tell Constantin what his politics are, and then he has to deny it. Not a communist, not a National Bolshevik, etc. Obviously, confusion prevails, and the dispelling of it by Constantin would be helpful for all concerned. On the poseurship, look at your comment. It is all form and no content, and invites a bemused response. This is less than helpful, no? The objective is to be helpful. Now, those two little requests I made of you ... 38
Posted by Constantin von Hoffmeister on Tue, 02 Oct 2007 08:11 | # “and the dispelling of it by Constantin would be helpful for all concerned” That is why I deny being what I am not. I refuse to be labeled. Constantin 39
Posted by Guessedworker on Tue, 02 Oct 2007 10:53 | # I refuse to be labeled. It depends. As Welf Herfurth, the ... let me see ... German-Australian national anarchist, environmentalist, NDP member, businessman and intellectual, says, liberals loves to label what opposes them. By that, he means that the long and serious intellectual process by which he came to his present, mature political and philosophical views gets traduced and demonised as “fascism”, “racism”, “nazism”, “authoritarianism”, “hate” and the rest. This type of labeling is plainly immoral as well as opportunist and intellectually dishonest. By all means, Constantin, deliver yourself from such indecent public deception. But beware the psychologically feminine, Garboesque mystique that attends a refusal to appear in the sunlight at all. Not doing so - indeed, insisting on some higher self-definition that is perfectly unknowable to others - would certainly lead me to suspect a personal motive no better than mere rebelliousness. But more likely it is inverted snobbery, like the snobbery of the “professional” Green who creates a moral order in which, in spirit at least, he - and not the city banker or the power politician - is the ruler ... like the snobbery of the “artist” who, though burdened with the inevitable social disadvantage that a refusal to live as mere mortals, in all their too, too concrete conventionalism, must, nonetheless manages to make the statement in life that his “extraordinary” and “visionary” and “perceptive” talent is the true scale of human worth. And, whaddya know, he’s on top! Well, I’m for humility and truth-speaking. These are the antithesis of and cure for the faux-individualism, the “special little, self-defined me”, that liberalism, in all its contempt for the truly human, affords us. Besides, at the individual level not many of us are worth much. It is absurd to approach our fellow Man, particularly our political allies, from a need to state our difference, our uniqueness. We are NOT different or unique. We are just men, most of us. We only cease to be “just men” in so much as we are members of a community of interests, complete with the labels that go with that. Therefore, giving of ourselves in an open and comradely way is productive and right. The dedication of self is required, not its reification in conceit. 40
Posted by Slavyanski on Tue, 02 Oct 2007 12:04 | # First of all, I notice that some people have a problem pinning down Constantin’s ideology. For me that is not the case: Marxist-Leninist, Lenin-Stalin-Hoxha line. As Scimitar pointed out, we did indeed argue over the question of NS’s “whiteness”. If I argued that NS was pro-white, then I was clearly wrong, hands down. Of course, I no longer care about what is “pro-white” because the “white race” is a malleable political concept and has had little bearing on culture or relations even between European nations. White racialism is indeed reactionary because as much as its advocates claim to support equal segregation, their angry outpourings and love of regimes like the Nazis, South Africa, Rhodesia, etc. show that more than anything they would be happy just to return to a period of white dominance over others. It is Communism that seeks to establish the equality of all nations; it is in the interests of the masses to cooperate rather than compete for resources. Equality of nations means precisely what is says: in other words your “white” nations would be included.
Now for Fred’s comments about the killing of prisoners after surrenduring. If he wants to ask that question, he might have posed it to numerous German commanders on the Eastern Front, who began the practice. I find it rather ironic that Hans Schmidt, in Panzergrenadier, bemoans the Americans supposedly leaving German prisoners to starve in barbwire enclosures with no shelter. As a veteran of the Eastern Front, he should have seen his own men, who practically invented the procedure. As I said, Germany started the war, and set the terms of that war. The lesson is, don’t start a Vernichtenkrieg if you can’t finish it. 41
Posted by Slavyanski on Tue, 02 Oct 2007 12:22 | # I just wanted to add this: What exactly do you consider to be a “Nazi” or “Nutzi”? The reason being that this modern “hi-brow” racialist movement has a lot of people who shriek at the Nazi label, yet curiously spend a lot of time involved in several activities: 1. Glorification of National Socialist philosophy, Germany, and/or it’s actions. 2. Attacking the enemies of the Axis, often for doing the same things that the Axis forces did to the same or often greater extent. 3. Associating Jews with anything opposed to the Axis, and attributing various social problems to them. 4. Lamenting the Allied victory in WWII. 5. Trying to present the Germans or pro-Axis populations as principle victims. 6. Denying the Holocaust or other Nazi atrocities.
42
Posted by Fred Scrooby on Tue, 02 Oct 2007 13:33 | #
My comments weren’t about “killing of prisoners after surrendering” following a battle, during a war. All armies did that to an equal extent: when forward units literally fighting for their lives in the middle of a campaign didn’t have the means to hold, feed, guard prisoners, etc., they sometimes killed them. Germans and Japs get the blame for this because they lost the war: “the victor gets to write the official history.” The Americans, Russians, and Brits did it just as much, under the circumstances described. When they could hold prisoners they held, fed, guarded, and gave medical treatement to them and shipped them behind the lines to be held in camps. When in the heat of battle they couldn’t see to the above they might simply kill them because they considered their men came first, their army, their nation, and they had no alternative in the heat of battle at that particular moment. The Americans did this when the commanders felt they had to, just as much as the Germans did. There was no difference. The difference is the Germans lost the war so didn’t get to stress the other guy’s imperfections while keeping mum about their own, as the Americans did. But the above isn’t what I was talking about. I wasn’t talking about “killing prisoners who’d surrendered after a battle.” I wasn’t talking about “after a battle.” I was talking about after the war itself was over. I was talking about what was done to POWs who’d been captured and were being held, to armies who hadn’t been captured but were still in the field at the moment the war itself ended, and to completely innocent civilians after the war had ended, the other side had been disarmed, and under normal circumstances everyone was supposed to be disarmed, demobilized, mustered out of service, and sent home. That didn’t happen to the Germans. The normal thing didn’t happen to them. When the war itself ended, U.S. and Soviet Jews decided it was time for the ethnic vendetta to start. And it started. There’s so much pure excrement in the rest of Slavyanski’s two comments, such as where he talks about the white race being “a malleable poitical concept with no bearing on culture,” etc., I’m not going to waste my time refuting any of it. This Slavyanski person is a bad actor of some kind, some kind of raging malcontent it’s definitely not worth anyone’s time responding to. Were he intelligent, it might be different — might be worth replying in detail to his excrement. But he’s not only unbalanced, he’s dull-witted. He’s stupid, he’s a creep, he’s here not to express truths as he sees them but to vent his twisted rage. Well, the commentariat here aren’t Slavyanski’s psychoanalysts, nor is MajorityRights.com his own personal psychiatrist’s couch. I for one intend to ignore him no matter what he comes up with next. 43
Posted by zusammen on Tue, 02 Oct 2007 16:41 | #
It is distasteful playing devil’s advocate in this case, but nevertheless the practice of dissent suppression after a war is far from unknown. It’s like throwing infants from the battlements, slaying all the men, enslaving the children and raping the women after defeats in the distant past. Armies tend to do these things in order to secure victory for the long term so they can avoid fighting the same enemy again in the near future. Lately, suppression has taken the form of economic sanctions. This is supposed to be more socially conscious than direct mass murder. Sanctions can be used to provoke a violent uprising which helps the sanction provider morally justify (for public consumption) its mass murder second stage measure. 44
Posted by Rusty on Tue, 02 Oct 2007 18:06 | # I understand that a lot of Americans had German heritage. What did they think about the slaughter of the innocent Germans? 45
Posted by Slavyanski on Tue, 02 Oct 2007 19:32 | # Fred:“My comments weren’t about “killing of prisoners after surrendering” following a battle, during a war. All armies did that to an equal extent: when forward units literally fighting for their lives in the middle of a campaign didn’t have the means to hold, feed, guard prisoners, etc., they sometimes killed them. Germans and Japs get the blame for this because they lost the war:” Nonsense. Look at the orders issued before Operation Barbarossa. You cannot compare the loss of prisoners on both sides. Soviet POWs were noticably treated different than POWs of other nations, and the survival statistics prove it.
The fact that victors write history doesn’t necessarily make it automatically invalid. Fred:” When the war itself ended, U.S. and Soviet Jews decided it was time for the ethnic vendetta to start. And it started.” Who were “the Soviet Jews”. Name names. If there was some kind of vendetta, and there were plenty of non-Jewish Europeans that had vendettas, why do you think they had them? Germany engaged in a war of extermination not only against Jews but the inhabitants of the land they intended to steal in the USSR, and this is irrefutable. They couldn’t finish the war, and they paid for it. Get over it. It’s hilarious how you people point to Jews as “whiners” about the Holocaust. Did the Jews ever do, in the late-30s, anything REMOTELY close to what the Germans had done by 1945? No. Now you want us to shed tears for men who in many cases, threw Russian families out of their houses in the dead of winter. Fred:“There’s so much pure excrement in the rest of Slavyanski’s two comments, such as where he talks about the white race being “a malleable poitical concept with no bearing on culture,” etc., I’m not going to waste my time refuting any of it. “ You’re not going to attempt to refute it, because you can’t. What is the “White race”? It isn’t “Aryan”, unless you consider it to be a linguistic definition, but then if you do that it excludes Finns, Estonians, Hungarians, etc. If you say European, you exclude generations of “white people” born outside of Europe. Please show me the time in history when “white” people banded together for their “race”. Nations, linguistic groups, religious communities, ethnicity…these have played a role. Race is something relatively new in terms of society, in the sense that race became a rallying point primarily in ethnically mixed communities like America or South Africa, where grouping similar groups together helped prevent revolts by slaves or the working class. Race as a tool in America can be traced to the Virginia slave laws, which made paltry concessions to “white slaves” in order to prevent them from collaborating with the black slaves to revolt. Worked pretty well it seems. Now I’m sure we’re going to hear all sorts of responses about “the biological reality” of race. Here’s the main problems with that: 1. If you point to genetic markers, then you have to at least admit that biological race could not be a major social factor until the technology to discover one’s actual race existed. 2. Show me one “biological” racialist study that draws a line between “whites” and Jews. Most of the “scientific"literature upon which WN and Neo-Nazi racial theory is based does not make a distinction between white Europeans(Caucasoid) and Jews, both Semites and Ashkenazis. So Jews are not a separate “race”, by the racial “scientists” own standards. Turks of various ethnicities are also generally classified in the same broad “racial group” as Europeans. Not suprising, if you look at a lot of Anatolian Turks and Tatars. 3. If I presented you with a person that fits your stereotypical image of white, and then told you this person was actually Turkish, Jewish, Arab, etc. Does that person become “non-white”? Of course a lot of you folks talk about being “cultrually white”. Well WTF is that exactly, seeing that cultures have mixed and changed throughout history? “This Slavyanski person is a bad actor of some kind, some kind of raging malcontent it’s definitely not worth anyone’s time responding to. “ You just can’t respond Fred, because you know your “racialist” ideology is nothing but reactionary bullshit invented by privileged curmudgeons that long for the day that they could call blacks “nigger” in public again.
You’re the guy that thinks Jews are a race, but I’m not intelligent. Sure. You won’t respond because you can’t, and you know it.
So much projection here. 46
Posted by Slavyanski on Tue, 02 Oct 2007 19:42 | # I just have to comment again on how hilarious it is to have Nazis hurl accusations like “crazy”, “mentally-unbalanced”, etc. at me. You guys believe something as big as the Holocaust is a giant hoax, that Nazi Germany was a victim, that your “race” is in danger, but I’m crazy. Sure. 47
Posted by Guessedworker on Tue, 02 Oct 2007 21:41 | # Slavyanski, Are you living in Canada, by any chance? And who is “you guys”? Who is a “nazi”? You are talking like a crazed ideologue-multiculturalist. Notwithstanding Fred’s advice to the contrary, I will be happy to dispose of any honest arguments you can bring forward. Then we might straighten out some of the twisted logic circuits in your brain. But let us not debate dishonest arguments, not Godwinesque finger-pointing, because that would be to credit a vile and ignorant falsehood as truth. Now, drop the accusatory rubbish, which is not needed, and we’ll see what you can offer in terms of sport. 48
Posted by Slavyanski on Wed, 03 Oct 2007 04:54 | # No I do not live in Canada. I have presented honest arguments. So let’s see your response then. I think it is fair to catagorize many of whom I addressed as “Nazis” or “Nazi-sympathizers”, given many of the comments on this board. If you are supporting the idea that Germans were somehow the innocent victims of WWII, then I would question your definition of “logic”. 49
Posted by Slavyanski on Wed, 03 Oct 2007 05:01 | # To add something; I don’t think Godwin’s law is applicable here. People that seem to have a need to portray Nazi Germany as a major victim of the war, and feel the need to repeat Nazi propaganda or defend Nazi Germany’s actions, are going to logically be associated with National Socialism, period. With the kind of slavish support of Nazi Germany in this respect, as well as the blatant anti-Semitism in this thread, it is not at all unfair to refer to some people here as Nazis or Nazi sympathizers. Your insistance on name-calling is as ludicrous as someone who constantly defends socialism and class-concepts while getting irate anytime someone suggests he is a Marxist(of course right-wingers like to call all manner of liberals ‘Marxists’). If labelling and name-calling is a terrible concern, you might as well have laid into Fred first, due to his childish fit he threw after I challenged his belief that “race” is anything more than a social construct. 50
Posted by zusammen on Wed, 03 Oct 2007 05:13 | # I wonder if human beings have the right to organize their own society around cherished beliefs they hold. Social constructs come to mind here. The equality bigots don’t think so. 51
Posted by Slavyanski on Wed, 03 Oct 2007 05:19 | # I think it’s been pretty much accepted that there is no unlimited right to organize society around “cherished beliefs”. At any rate, racialism and its general worldview are certainly not “cherished” by the vast majority of what you consider to be “white people”. The point is, that “white” or “race” is not a workable concept around which to organize society. It creates too many problems. For example, how many white racialists even consider what racialism would look like applied by other races, particularly in Asia for example? WN views tend to spend a lot of time on this “white race”, and little on explaining what the other “races” are. Claims that Jews are a “race” are just laughable if you take time to look at a Jewish society like Israel. For example, how can whites be a race if they look a certain way, but Jews may run the gamut from Nordic to black African, but still be considered a “race”? As soon as you want to organize society around a concept like this, then it is open to all these inconveniet questions that people like Fred are afraid to even entertain, much less answer. Who is “white”? Who is “Aryan”? What is “European”? What is “European” culture? 52
Posted by zusammen on Wed, 03 Oct 2007 05:31 | # So, it is “pretty much accepted” that a small collection of like-minded people are forbidden from organizing a society around principles and beliefs they hold to be true, prefer, or otherwise cherish. To my knowledge, these beliefs, once instituted, would not harm anyone within or without the society. I next wonder by what authority is such a society forbidden. 53
Posted by Slavyanski on Wed, 03 Oct 2007 08:34 | # No rights are absolute. What if, in your racial society or whatever, someone suddenly decided that they wanted to marry or cohabitate with someone outside of your beliefs. What if they had a dispute about what constitutes a person of your “race”, which is bound to happen due to the chimerical character of “race”? It is also likely that such a person would have others that agree, and want to create a society within a society. What then? As to whether these beliefs would harm anyone, we have seen the result of such beliefs in the past. The most effective way to attain self-determination for one group is to attain it for all- equality of nations. Only then will a nation be a nation, and its independence and character assured. 54
Posted by Steve Edwards on Wed, 03 Oct 2007 10:16 | # I can understand Slavyanski’s distaste for some of the tacit pro-Hitler sentiment around here. I have never understood why anyone would want to pay homage to National Socialism, myself. “As to whether these beliefs would harm anyone, we have seen the result of such beliefs in the past. The most effective way to attain self-determination for one group is to attain it for all- equality of nations. Only then will a nation be a nation, and its independence and character assured.” If Slavyanski is making this statement in support of “universal nationalism”, then I can only offer my hearty “hear hear” to that notion. The problem, however, is that this statement appears to be in conflict with the following: “I think it’s been pretty much accepted that there is no unlimited right to organize society around “cherished beliefs”. At any rate, racialism and its general worldview are certainly not “cherished” by the vast majority of what you consider to be “white people”. The point is, that “white” or “race” is not a workable concept around which to organize society. It creates too many problems. For example, how many white racialists even consider what racialism would look like applied by other races, particularly in Asia for example?” The first point is this - what do you mean by a “nation”, which you rightly support the independence of each, if not a relatively distinctive “race” (i.e. a very large, partly inbred, extended family)? How can you affirm one without essentially endorsing the other? My second point concerns Asia. To a large extent, racialism already IS applied by the Asian races (I use “races” in the plural to mean large, relatively distinctive, ethnic groups). The Malays have no problem defining a Malay . Their country’s constitution and laws depend on knowing who is a Malay and who isn’t. The Vietnamese (my area of budding expertise) classify every citizens’ race and even religion on their identity papers (“dan toc” can mean “nation”, “race” or “ethny” - it’s written on their cards). It is assumed without question that each race has its own characteristics and traditions, which are worth maintaining in of themselves. They don’t bother getting caught up in worthless Frankfurt School deconstruction (or, more accurately, nihilism) on the matter. They merely use their eyes and their intuition. I can’t speak for the Chinese, because although I have travelled there, I am not familiar with the Chinese language (except through the many Chinese words that have been taken on by the Vietnamese), but the Chinese who are fluent in English don’t seem to lose much sleep over telling me who is and isn’t Chinese, and what that means for the behavioural traits of their diaspora in South East Asia vis-a-vis the Malays, Indians, etc. And the Koreans are possibly the biggest racialists on the face of the earth. Most importantly, Asian “racialism” (actually, this is the wrong word, it’s just “normality” - recognising that one’s membership in a distinct community carries clear benefits for individual, kin and ultimately one’s descendents) is simply an affirmation of what everybody on the planet, except a parasitic and possibly criminal class of European-descended elites, understands to be natural and sensible behaviour. And this affirmation has the crucial psychological effect (and stabilising benefit) of essentially keeping matters of national identity beyond the nitpicking, naysaying and general sniping that is characteristic of virtually every European country on the planet. The alternative is the massive psychological, political and ultimately societal destabilisation that is brought on through a complete refusal to (or even prohibition on) to firmly state that the incumbent ethnicity of a given territory has the right to live and perpetuate itself, to not be simply overthrown and replaced by some competitor group, and to organise collectively for its own benefit. What, therefore, is your position on race-replacement? 55
Posted by Constantin von Hoffmeister on Wed, 03 Oct 2007 11:12 | # I am officially taking back what I said about Sunic. He might not be a Nazi. I have met him personally on two occasions in Germany. He clearly holds pro-NS beliefs and defends Nazi Germany whenever the possibility arises. Nevertheless, I respect his views although I disagree with him on almost everything that he writes about (especially his obsession with the Jews and his vehement anti-Communism). The atrocities of the Red Army in East Prussia and Germany proper were a reaction against Nazi barbarism on the Eastern Front. In the words of Isaac Newton: “To every action force there is an equal, but opposite, reaction force.” How come people from the right almost never whine about Nazi atrocities? For example, how come they always bring up the bombing of Dresden but never the bombing of Warsaw, Belgrade or Stalingrad (on August 23, 1942, BEFORE the German invasion of the city - almost as many civilians died in the bombing of Stalingrad than in the bombing of Dresden)? There is clearly an agenda at work here. What might that agenda be? It is anti-Russianism in the guise of anti-Communism. I have yet to see international gatherings of nationalists from all over the White world commemorating the bombing of Stalingrad. Until I see that, I will continue exposing the anti-Russian bias that most Western nationalists seem to have internalized. I am currently reading Frederick Taylor’s “DRESDEN: Tuesday 13 February 1945.” Taylor does an excellent job of smashing the myth of Dresden as a “completely innocent city.” There goes another cornerstone of neo-Nazi lore! Nazi Germany started to bomb civilian targets first. I put the blame for “terror bombing” on Nazi Germany and their policy of “total war.” The bombing campaign of the Allies might have been misguided but it probably saved millions of lives by shortening the war. Constantin
56
Posted by Guessedworker on Wed, 03 Oct 2007 14:30 | # Constantin, I know Tom and count him as a personal friend, and of course know his books. If you read H-a it will dispose of all thought that he is obsessive over the Jews. He critiques such obsession, but does not grant their neutrality viz-a-vis the demise of our people. He is a rational critic of Jewry’s role in that demise. Naturally, he is anti-communist. Communism was as much a child of classical liberalism as is today’s advanced liberalism. Tom points to the inner and outer parallels between the two, and urges us to go beyond all liberalism in search of the sustainable system which duly sustains us. I completely agree with this analysis, and wonder that you do not. Constantin, we are dying of the individual life. Enough of unnatural philosophy. 57
Posted by ben tillman on Wed, 03 Oct 2007 15:08 | # No rights are absolute. ALL rights are absolute, by definition. 58
Posted by ben tillman on Wed, 03 Oct 2007 15:11 | # Claims that Jews are a “race” are just laughable if you take time to look at a Jewish society like Israel. For example, how can whites be a race if they look a certain way, but Jews may run the gamut from Nordic to black African, but still be considered a “race”? Race is a matter of ancestry, not appearance. Are you really arguing these things in good faith? 59
Posted by ben tillman on Wed, 03 Oct 2007 15:20 | # What if, in your racial society or whatever, someone suddenly decided that they wanted to marry or cohabitate with someone outside of your beliefs. What if they had a dispute about what constitutes a person of your “race”, which is bound to happen due to the chimerical character of “race”? Better to ask these questions after you’ve explained why you think they’re so important and so dodgy. It would be a good exercise for you to formulate such an explanation. Anyway, the answer to your questions is, we’d address the issue in the manner that serves the community’s interests. 60
Posted by Slavyanski on Wed, 03 Oct 2007 15:23 | # “If Slavyanski is making this statement in support of “universal nationalism”, then I can only offer my hearty “hear hear” to that notion. The problem, however, is that this statement appears to be in conflict with the following:” The real Marxists have always been saying it from the beginning- self-determination for all nations. This is not “nationalism” however. Nationalism is an ideology that puts national identity ahead of class. In a classless society, class is more important than national identity. The common national language or identity cannot erase the irreconcilable differences between classes. But when the ruling class has been subjugated, and the nation is in the hands of its own masses- that is a real nation in the truest sense, because now the nation is united in purpose. What is a nation but a collective entity, and how can you truly have a nation when it is run in the interests of its smallest minority? ““The first point is this - what do you mean by a “nation”, which you rightly support the independence of each, if not a relatively distinctive “race” (i.e. a very large, partly inbred, extended family)? How can you affirm one without essentially endorsing the other?” Race is a relatively new concept, developed several hundred years ago, often malleable to fit the needs of colonialists, slave-holders, or the ruling class of nations that had mixed ethnicities- e.g. America had blacks, but then it had a mix of Europeans. The “white” identity kept oppressed Europeans on the side of the bosses.
Really? Go to Japan and see how they have been eating up anything Western for decades. While you’re there, try picking up some Japanese girls and see how easy it is to bed them, despite the fact that Japan is a wealthy nation. One colleague of mine told me that(he was there) you need to be one of two things if you want to get laid in Japan: 1. White, 2. Black. Got that? It’s easiest to get laid in Japan if you are not Japanese. “The Malays have no problem defining a Malay .”
Vietnam also protected minorities, and has equality under the law in regards to this. Plus we are talking about a nation and in some cases, tribal groups, not a “race”.
If you look into the actual history of the Frankfurt School and the 60s you will see that this had little to do with cultural changes in the US. “I can’t speak for the Chinese, because although I have travelled there, I am not familiar with the Chinese language (except through the many Chinese words that have been taken on by the Vietnamese), but the Chinese who are fluent in English don’t seem to lose much sleep over telling me who is and isn’t Chinese, and what that means for the behavioural traits of their diaspora in South East Asia vis-a-vis the Malays, Indians, etc.” Yes, Chinese will tell you who is Chinese. But notice the Chinese laws on ethnicities. There is equality under the law(at least de facto, like in most nations), and Chinese is again a nation and not a race. And even defining “Chinese” can be difficult.
Korea has a very unique history, as does Japan. But go to Korea and I bet you won’t have trouble finding a bride. “Most importantly, Asian “racialism” (actually, this is the wrong word, it’s just “normality” - recognising that one’s membership in a distinct community carries clear benefits for individual, kin and ultimately one’s descendents) is simply an affirmation of what everybody on the planet, except a parasitic and possibly criminal class of European-descended elites, understands to be natural and sensible behaviour. And this affirmation has the crucial psychological effect (and stabilising benefit) of essentially keeping matters of national identity beyond the nitpicking, naysaying and general sniping that is characteristic of virtually every European country on the planet.” Here is the problem with this “Asian racialism”. If it were to compare with the kind of racialism that is advocated for Europeans, we would have to believe that there is some distinct race of “Asians”, or even East Asians. As you already know, these various nations are very diverse and none would appreciate being lumped in with neighboring countries just because they are East Asian or because some of them look similar. Try telling a Japanese person that they are the same “race” as a Korean for example. And don’t forget what happened during Japan’s Asia for the Asians campaign during WWII. Some Japanese actually called it a racial war against the white man(British, French, Dutch, Americans). And yet they abused their “Asian brothers” with unimaginable cruelty. In many ways this paralleled Hitler’s BS Pan-European crusade against Bolshevism, but the Japanese weren’t as good as building a believable facade as the Nazis. “The alternative is the massive psychological, political and ultimately societal destabilisation that is brought on through a complete refusal to (or even prohibition on) to firmly state that the incumbent ethnicity of a given territory has the right to live and perpetuate itself, to not be simply overthrown and replaced by some competitor group, and to organise collectively for its own benefit. What, therefore, is your position on race-replacement? “ The question is, who is driving that phenomenon. Racialism always points to a mystice scapegoat(the Jew), or the immigrants, never looking at class in any serious way. 61
Posted by Slavyanski on Wed, 03 Oct 2007 15:32 | # Time to tune up Tillman. 1. Rights are absolute? So the US has an absolute right to free speech? No, since the time of the founders it has been determined that some speech cannot be allowed, such as screaming “fire” in a crowded theatre. It is not legal to openly advocate mutiny in the military or to give out state secrets over any medium. Nearly all nations worldwide have limitations on such rights, for better or worse. 2. Right to bear arms. Should non-citizens, mental patients, convicted felons, etc. have the right to bear arms, because a piece of paper says so? And where is the limit? Automatic weapons, heavy machine guns, RPGs, mortars?
Are you really arguing these things in good faith? “ So why don’t you explain then, how race could possibly be a determining factor upon which to build a society, given the mixture and assimilation of peoples, and other variables? Perhaps you knew some Nordic looking fellow for many years, and you considered him “White”. Imagine he does too. One day you by chance find out about his ancestry, and found that his grandfather was Jewish? So now he “isn’t white”? Obviously the idea that “race” could possibly be such a determining factor, particularly in the historical sense, is ludicrous. I might also point out that racialists seem fond of labelling people Jews if their mother or father, or grandparents are Jewish. I realize that religious Jews also use such classifications, but they are totally without merit. If one says their father is Jewish, are we to believe that this father has descended from the original Hebrews, somehow keeping his bloodline totally pure for thousands of years until he screwed up and married some “goy”? Pure idiocy, whether espoused by Jews or anti-Semites. The idea that Marx was “half-Jewish” for example, is insane. 62
Posted by zusammen on Wed, 03 Oct 2007 15:45 | #
Why would it have to be an absolute right? No other society had this unattainable prerequisite.
We have societies within societies. This is nothing new. We also have something called emigration, which is also nothing new.
I’m confused. Are you referring to the ancient Greeks defending themselves from Persian invasion, to the Soviets invading Afghanistan or to the many recent US wars against those who choose a non-American way of life?
So sorry. A thousand ultra wealthy oligarchs consider your idea of nations their personal natural/human resource zones. They are happy that you are focused on pacifist utopian equality and “fighting neo-nazis” like the other billion conformists in the affluent world. 63
Posted by Slavyanski on Wed, 03 Oct 2007 16:07 | # “Why would it have to be an absolute right? No other society had this unattainable prerequisite.” I merely said that rights have limitations. “We have societies within societies. This is nothing new. We also have something called emigration, which is also nothing new.” “I’m confused. Are you referring to the ancient Greeks defending themselves from Persian invasion, to the Soviets invading Afghanistan or to the many recent US wars against those who choose a non-American way of life?” So you are likening immigrants, legal and illegal, to the Persian empire or revisionist Soviet Union, both of which invaded military in order to conquer? And are you not taking into account which society was actually better in the comparison between the Afghan socialist government and the Islamic fundamentalists? “So sorry. A thousand ultra wealthy oligarchs consider your idea of nations their personal natural/human resource zones. “ Uh…gee…I know that. Marxists have only been saying the same thing for over 100 years now. We are the ones trying to overthrow those oligarchs first.
For one thing, we do fight the main establishment; but it is laughable to think that NeoNazis are themselves truly anti-establishment, since they often indirectly serve the establishments interests, and directly serve those interests with their useless ideology that goes nowhere. As for equality, it might surprise you to learn that “equality” has generally never meant: everyone is the same, whether culturally, ethnically, or on an individual level. Under liberalism it meant equality under the law. Marxists only pointed out that with a class society, this is meaningless, and strived to eliminate class. If you think Marxism supports utopian universal equality you ought to read Critique of the Gotha Programme. 64
Posted by zusammen on Wed, 03 Oct 2007 16:29 | # I believe the Greeks got it right with ethnically homogenous polis communities, a design we can emulate with autonomous city states. They don’t all have to be ethnically homogenous if they want to run things differently. One big problem I am seeing is affording access to huge swaths of land and enormous populations to a few profit-oriented interests. A general ban on developing the countryside, like neutral zone wilderness preserves between each city state would solve that and what follows: Another big problem is the globally spreading lust for an unsustainable American style material affluence, when a hybrid planned subsistence would more than suffice. This doesn’t rule out a few grand projects held in common for advancement of human understanding like a few spaceports, particle accelerator facilities and so forth. In my opinion, individual material affluence is acting as replacement for group cultural traditions and this poisons both our ethnic genetic interests and the natural environment that keeps us well. 65
Posted by Guessedworker on Wed, 03 Oct 2007 19:35 | # “I merely said that rights have limitations.” Interests don’t. Read Salter before Karl-baby. Until you can discriminate between ultimate and proximate you are not going to make any sense here. All the evidence is that at present you can’t. Hint: social justice and equality are not ultimate values. “We are the ones trying to overthrow those oligarchs first.” Who funded Lenin? Neo-Nazis are of no import, by the way. You are charging at a straw man. Don’t bother. What you really have to achieve here is an answer to Steve Edward’s question: Do you support race-replacement? Do you, for example, support the Africanisation of European genes? 66
Posted by ben tillman on Wed, 03 Oct 2007 19:40 | # Racialism always points to a mystice scapegoat(the Jew), or the immigrants, never looking at class in any serious way. Class isn’t a meaningful biological category. 67
Posted by ben tillman on Wed, 03 Oct 2007 19:45 | # I merely said that rights have limitations. No, you said that “rights” are *not absolute*, which is the same thing as saying there is no such thing as a right. If you had said that rights have limitations, you would have been correct. 68
Posted by ben tillman on Wed, 03 Oct 2007 19:51 | # Class isn’t a meaningful biological category. To explain further in light of GW’s comment, “class conflict” refers to a conflict between the *interests* of different classes, but there can be no conflict of interest if there is no biological difference. There is only one interest: the interest of living things in staying alive. 69
Posted by Constantin von Hoffmeister on Thu, 04 Oct 2007 07:37 | # “If you read H-a it will dispose of all thought that he is obsessive over the Jews. He critiques such obsession, but does not grant their neutrality viz-a-vis the demise of our people. He is a rational critic of Jewry’s role in that demise.” Fair enough. I have not read HOMO AMERICANUS. I have ordered it on amazon and shall read it when it arrives. As for Communism, I still disagree. The Soviet Union (especially under Stalin) was hardly a bastion of liberalism. Constantin 70
Posted by Steve Edwards on Thu, 04 Oct 2007 09:43 | # Slavyanski writes: “The real Marxists have always been saying it from the beginning- self-determination for all nations. This is not “nationalism” however. Nationalism is an ideology that puts national identity ahead of class. In a classless society, class is more important than national identity. The common national language or identity cannot erase the irreconcilable differences between classes. But when the ruling class has been subjugated, and the nation is in the hands of its own masses- that is a real nation in the truest sense, because now the nation is united in purpose. What is a nation but a collective entity, and how can you truly have a nation when it is run in the interests of its smallest minority?” Yes, it’s nice of the Marxists to at least pretend to be on the same page, but unfortunately, once again, they are dissimulating. The biggest problem they face is human nature. Intelligence is largely heritable, as are your physical characteristics, and, according to many psychologists, even your personality. Once we admit the role of natural selection and adaptation in driving human development, egalitarianism is essentially dust. There is no such thing as “equality”, nor is there any prospect of it ever coming to the fore, because of those stubborn human differences that cannot, unless through the most totalitarian means imaginable, be ironed out. That is to say, a “classless society” is an utterly worthless chimera, as it invariably runs into the brickwall of human nature. And Marxism’s attack on the division of labour is the most laughable notion to have ever cursed the field of “economics” (to the extent that Marxists, departing from their modus operandi as an unfalsifiable religion, were actually prepared to make falsifiable hypotheses like any normal scientist). Indeed, the most pernicious thing about “equality” is its tacit attack on humanity itself - to actually believe in “equality” and to hold to “equality” as a project worth carrying out necessitates the destruction of humanity, in all its divisions and diversity, itself. Here I quote Rothbard: “...(M)en are not uniform…the species, mankind, is uniquely characterized by a high degree of variety, diversity, differentiation; in short, inequality. An egalitarian society can only hope to achieve its goals by totalitarian methods of coercion; and, even here, we all believe and hope the human spirit of individual man will rise up and thwart any such attempts to achieve an ant-heap world. In short, the portrayal of an egalitarian society is horror fiction because, when the implications of such a world are fully spelled out, we recognize that such a world and such attempts are profoundly antihuman; being antihuman in the deepest sense, the egalitarian goal is, therefore, evil and any attempts in the direction of such a goal must be considered evil as well.” Rothbard continues: “The egalitarian revolt against biological reality, as significant as it is, is only a subset of a deeper revolt: against the ontological structure of reality itself, against the “very organization of nature”; against the universe as such. At the heart of the egalitarian left is the pathological belief that there is no structure of reality; that all the world is a tabula rasa that can be changed at any moment in any desired direction by the mere exercise of human will – in short, that reality can be instantly transformed by the mere wish or whim of human beings. Surely this sort of infantile thinking is at the heart of Herbert Marcuse’s passionate call for the comprehensive negation of the existing structure of reality and for its transformation into what he divines to be its true potential.” Marxism starts out by denying reality and asserting the desirability of an unattainable goal: absolute equality. In implementing its programme it must subvert the order of existence (nations, ethnies, races, etc) and, necessarily, centralise power on an unprecedented level to create the impossible “equality”. Marxism’s endgame, mass murder of the “bourgeoisie”, the “kulaks”, anyone who is slandered as an “oppressor” of the “workers”, is the inevitable denuoement of appointing a completely unaccountable elite, charged with the duty of negating human nature, which, due to the unreachable nature of its goals, must necessarily be a PERMANENTLY unaccountable elite, which, carrying a blank cheque to wipe out anyone who dissents to their programme, absurdly issues its dictats in the name of “egalitarianism”. Rothbard concludes: “We began by considering the common view that the egalitarians, despite a modicum of impracticality, have ethics and moral idealism on their side. We end with the conclusion that egalitarians, however intelligent as individuals, deny the very basis of human intelligence and of human reason: the identification of the ontological structure of reality, of the laws of human nature, and the universe. In so doing, the egalitarians are acting as terribly spoiled children, denying the structure of reality on behalf of the rapid materialization of their own absurd fantasies. Not only spoiled but also highly dangerous; for the power of ideas is such that the egalitarians have a fair chance of destroying the very universe that they wish to deny and transcend, and to bring that universe crashing around all of our ears. Since their methodology and their goals deny the very structure of humanity and of the universe, the egalitarians are profoundly antihuman; and, therefore, their ideology and their activities may be set down as profoundly evil as well. Egalitarians do not have ethics on their side unless one can maintain that the destruction of civilization, and even of the human race itself, may be crowned with the laurel wreath of a high and laudable morality.” 71
Posted by Steve Edwards on Thu, 04 Oct 2007 09:52 | # Slavyanski’s second point was one of semantics, by insisting that Asians classify themselves in “ethnicities” rather than “races”. Very well, I pointed out precisely that myself. Now name one Asian ethny that is in serious danger of being race-replaced. “The question is, who is driving that phenomenon. Racialism always points to a mystice scapegoat(the Jew), or the immigrants, never looking at class in any serious way.” Whatever. Do you support race-replacement or do you, just as the Chinese, Japanese, Vietnamese, Koreans, Malays, Thais (capitalist, class-based societies, by the way) do, oppose it? 72
Posted by Steve Edwards on Thu, 04 Oct 2007 10:08 | # “As for equality, it might surprise you to learn that “equality” has generally never meant: everyone is the same, whether culturally, ethnically, or on an individual level. Under liberalism it meant equality under the law. Marxists only pointed out that with a class society, this is meaningless, and strived to eliminate class.” Tell me - on what basis do you oppose a class-based system unless on the first, essentially open-ended, principle of equality? Once you accept the inequalities of mankind (upon affirming “diversity” you must automatically accept inequality), and the hierachies of competence contained within, you have no basis with which to pursue the abolition of class (I suppose you CAN try to destroy human nature, again). What, exactly is your objection to class? Do you think tearing down success is an admirable social pursuit? 73
Posted by Slavyanski on Thu, 04 Oct 2007 11:13 | # Let’s destroy Steve’s appeal to nature fallacy, shall we? “Yes, it’s nice of the Marxists to at least pretend to be on the same page, but unfortunately, once again, they are dissimulating. The biggest problem they face is human nature. “ What is “human nature”? You treat this as if it is some kind of absolute, unchanging, eternal law. You shouldn’t have trouble defining it. The fact is that human nature, human perspective, changed radically thoughout man’s existence. Practices and ideas which we would find abhorrent today were par for the course at different periods of time, mainly because these ideas and behaviors were required for survival under those conditions. “Intelligence is largely heritable, as are your physical characteristics, and, according to many psychologists, even your personality.” According to MANY psychologists? Let’s see some names and credentials.
Again, you are creating a strawman by supposing that equality has something to do with trying to compensate for man’s individual differences, like intelligence or talent. Marxists have never implied that this should be sought, nor that it was a truth. Neither have liberals for that matter.
” There is no such thing as “equality”, nor is there any prospect of it ever coming to the fore, because of those stubborn human differences that cannot, unless through the most totalitarian means imaginable, be ironed out. “ There is no such thing as the strawman “equality” that you are attacking.
Oh yeah, what is this “human nature” you keep talking about?
“Indeed, the most pernicious thing about “equality” is its tacit attack on humanity itself - to actually believe in “equality” and to hold to “equality” as a project worth carrying out necessitates the destruction of humanity, in all its divisions and diversity, itself. Here I quote Rothbard:” Your definition of equality is a strawman. “...(M)en are not uniform…the species, mankind, is uniquely characterized by a high degree of variety, diversity, differentiation; in short, inequality. An egalitarian society can only hope to achieve its goals by totalitarian methods of coercion; and, even here, we all believe and hope the human spirit of individual man will rise up and thwart any such attempts to achieve an ant-heap world.” You attack Marxism as unfalsifiable. Is the belief in the “human spirit” falsifiable per chance? That sounds far closer to religion if you ask me. No matter; Marx would see something like this screed and simply say: “No SH%T!” Marxists never tried to pretend that men were of equal ability, intelligence, etc.
Rothbard continues:” Again, more religious concepts. “The egalitarian revolt against biological reality, as significant as it is, is only a subset of a deeper revolt: against the ontological structure of reality itself, against the “very organization of nature”; against the universe as such. At the heart of the egalitarian left is the pathological belief that there is no structure of reality; that all the world is a tabula rasa that can be changed at any moment in any desired direction by the mere exercise of human will – in short, that reality can be instantly transformed by the mere wish or whim of human beings. Surely this sort of infantile thinking is at the heart of Herbert Marcuse’s passionate call for the comprehensive negation of the existing structure of reality and for its transformation into what he divines to be its true potential.” Again, this is a strawman view of equality. It also presupposes that the ruling class are in power because they are superior in some way. In that case, you ought to stop bitching about the establishment that enrages your kind so. They know what they are doing. Perhaps your natural betters see further than you do, and that is why they open the doors to third world immigration. Who are YOU to question them? “Marxism starts out by denying reality and asserting the desirability of an unattainable goal: absolute equality.” Marxism has never set this as it’s goal.
” In implementing its programme it must subvert the order of existence (nations, ethnies, races, etc) and, necessarily, centralise power on an unprecedented level to create the impossible “equality”.” Absense of class and ending exploitation of nations is not based on absolute equality. ” Marxism’s endgame, mass murder of the “bourgeoisie”, the “kulaks”, anyone who is slandered as an “oppressor” of the “workers”, is the inevitable denuoement of appointing a completely unaccountable elite, charged with the duty of negating human nature, which, due to the unreachable nature of its goals, must necessarily be a PERMANENTLY unaccountable elite, which, carrying a blank cheque to wipe out anyone who dissents to their programme, absurdly issues its dictats in the name of “egalitarianism”.” What about the bourgeoisie’s slaughter? What about the kulak exploitation of the peasantry? Are they allowed to do this because we are to presuppose that they are somehow more intelligent or talented? Look what poor peasants in Russia were able to do when they suddenly had access to education. I’m not going to deal with Rothbard anymore, because he is arguing against a strawman and more importantly, resorting to idealistic nonsense that has no bearing in the real world. Marxism has never advocated absolute equality. In fact, you need not even read the classics of Marxism to understand this concept, but instead the descriptions of socialist(lower Communist) and Communist society: 1. From each according to his abilities, to each according to his work. 2. From each according to his abilities, to each according to his needs. In those two sentences alone, we already see the affirmation that men are inherently unequal- they have different abilities, different needs, different capacity to work, etc. If you want to debate Marxism with me, please actually DO SOME RESEARCH on what Marxism is about, rather than presenting these idiotic strawman arguments. 74
Posted by Slavyanski on Thu, 04 Oct 2007 11:19 | # “Slavyanski’s second point was one of semantics, by insisting that Asians classify themselves in “ethnicities” rather than “races”. Very well, I pointed out precisely that myself. Now name one Asian ethny that is in serious danger of being race-replaced.” This is not semantics. Asians are not a “race”. You espouse concern over some European or White race, Asians are not a race, neither are whites. A European nation should be just as concerned about being “replaced” by other European residents as well, and in fact they are. Germans don’t like massive Polish/Yugoslav immigration, as to many British nationalists as well. The problem of course is they blame the immigrants and not the system. You want me to name the Asian nation that is in danger of “replacement”? Try Japan for example, which has shockingly declining birthrates, while immigration and human trafficking is on the rise. Ditto South Korea, which is increasingly relying on Indian and Filipino laborers in agriculture. “ Ignoring on all problems with this premise, no, I don’t support “race replacement” as you call it. In reality, it is unlikely that any European people will be “replaced”, if we look at the history of certain parts of the world like Central Asia, where “white people”, including Indo-European speaking peoples, still exist to this day. However, immigration is a tool of exploitation. It is hurting the destination nations, and it is even worse for source nations, which lose all their best minds, as well as vital labor. 75
Posted by Guessedworker on Thu, 04 Oct 2007 12:23 | # Slavy, We don’t want to debate Marxism with you (by which, of course, I mean classical, class-based, economic Marxism). We have seen enough of it. It is, in any case, a completely dead letter among Europeans, and - post 1917 - always was. The working classes did not want it. So instead they got the cultural variant. I might be interested in debating that with you, if by any chance you support the Jewish culture war in the West. Your reading of the demographic security of European Man is naive and complacent. And, frankly, I am amazed that someone of your intelligence, who is not beholden to the totalitarian thought-control of the cultural and academic elites, is not fully informed about human bio-diversity. However, it really isn’t our job to educate you. You have to cross the Rubicon and start asking the questions yourself, or whatever we say will fall foul of your all too evident hostility. There are many resources available to diligent searchers, and they increase all the time. Now, here are two quite large questions which I hope you will answer in good faith. I ask them as one revolutionary to another, albeit a very different one. 1) What is the ultimate interest in the collective life of Man? 2) By what means does this find expression in coarse politics. 76
Posted by Fred Scrooby on Thu, 04 Oct 2007 13:43 | # Here are those Murray Rothbard passages in Steve’s comment with “equality” and “egalitarianism” replaced by “race-denial”: Indeed, the most pernicious thing about race-denial is its tacit attack on humanity itself - to actually believe in race-denial and to hold to race-denial as a project worth carrying out necessitates the destruction of humanity in all its divisions and diversity itself. Here I quote Rothbard [See Scroob note above: I’ve amended these excerpts from Rothbard]: “...(M)en are not uniform…the species, mankind, is uniquely characterized by a high degree of variety, diversity, differentiation; in short, inequality. A society based on race-denial can only hope to achieve its goals by totalitarian methods of coercion; and, even here, we all believe and hope the human spirit of individual man will rise up and thwart any such attempts to achieve an ant-heap world. In short, the portrayal of a society based on race-denial is horror fiction because, when the implications of such a world are fully spelled out, we recognize that such a world and such attempts are profoundly antihuman; being antihuman in the deepest sense, the race-deniers’ goal is, therefore, evil and any attempts in the direction of such a goal must be considered evil as well.” Rothbard continues [again, this is Rothbard amended]: “The race-denying revolt against biological reality, as significant as it is, is only a subset of a deeper revolt: against the ontological structure of reality itself, against the “very organization of nature”; against the universe as such. At the heart of the race-denying left is the pathological belief that there is no structure of reality [Scroob note: Exactly: the only way to deny race is to deny all other categorizations along with it since they’re all based on the same principles, leaving a world devoid of coherence, one in which Jewish academics, for they are the main ones doing the race-denying, refuse to see any coherent structure in the universe independent of their own volition, in other words, an impossibility]; that all the world is a tabula rasa that can be changed at any moment in any desired direction by the mere exercise of human will – in short, that reality can be instantly transformed by the mere wish or whim of human beings. Surely this sort of infantile thinking is at the heart of Herbert Marcuse’s [Scroob: he was Jewish and fit the template perfectly] passionate call for the comprehensive negation of the existing structure of reality and for its transformation into what he divines to be its true potential.” [Jewish] Marxism [not North Korean Marxism, not Vietnamese Marxism, but Jewish Marxism] starts out by denying reality and asserting the desirability of an unattainable goal: absolute race-denial. In implementing its programme it must subvert the order of existence (nations, ethnies, races, etc) and, necessarily, centralise power on an unprecedented level to create the impossible “race-denial”. [Jewish] Marxism’s endgame, mass murder of [whites, i.e., Eurochristians whom Jews loathe with a murderous passion], anyone who is slandered as an “oppressor” of [non-whites], is the inevitable denuoement of appointing a completely unaccountable elite, charged with the duty of negating human nature, which, due to the unreachable nature of its goals, must necessarily be a PERMANENTLY unaccountable elite, which, carrying a blank cheque to wipe out anyone who dissents to their programme, absurdly issues its dictats in the name of “race-denial”. Rothbard concludes: “We began by considering the common view that the race-deniers, despite a modicum of impracticality, have ethics and moral idealism on their side. We end with the conclusion that race-deniers, however intelligent as individuals, deny the very basis of human intelligence and of human reason: the identification of the ontological structure of reality, of the laws of human nature, and the universe. In so doing, the race-deniers are acting as terribly spoiled children, denying the structure of reality on behalf of the rapid materialization of their own absurd fantasies. Not only spoiled but also highly dangerous; for the power of ideas is such that the race-deniers have a fair chance of destroying the very universe that they wish to deny and transcend, and to bring that universe crashing around all of our ears. Since their methodology and their goals deny the very structure of humanity and of the universe, the race-deniers are profoundly antihuman; and, therefore, their ideology and their activities may be set down as profoundly evil as well. Race-deniers do not have ethics on their side unless one can maintain that the destruction of civilization, and even of the human race itself, may be crowned with the laurel wreath of a high and laudable morality.” 77
Posted by Constantin von Hoffmeister on Thu, 04 Oct 2007 15:49 | # “[Jewish] Marxism [not North Korean Marxism, not Vietnamese Marxism, but Jewish Marxism] starts out by denying reality and asserting the desirability of an unattainable goal: absolute race-denial.” Where does Marxism assert that? Please provide documentary evidence. I recently went to the Museum of Biology in Moscow. They have a special room dedicated to the different races of man. In this room are drawings of different racial archetypes as well as skulls of the different races and maps of the different territories that the different races inhabit on Earth. This room was installed during the Soviet Union. Since the Soviet Union was based on Marxist principles and, according to your bizarre claim, Marxism is bent on “absolute race-denial,” why would such a room have existed in such a prestigious museum in the Soviet Union? Constantin 78
Posted by zusammen on Thu, 04 Oct 2007 17:15 | # Constantin, cultural Marxism became dominant in the years surrounding and following the Soviet Union’s demise. As has already been stated, we have version zero which was French Revolutionary, version one which was Karl Marx’s economic state applied by the Soviets and we have version two which is the cultural Marxism imposed on us today. 79
Posted by Guessedworker on Thu, 04 Oct 2007 17:19 | # I accept in part what you say about Marxist racial science. But only in part. Was not Marxist genetic biology Lysenkoist, meaning anti-Mendelian, meaning anti-hereditarian? I think it was. The blank slate was necessary to the perfectability of Man. Neither are extanct biological fact, of course - which is the primary reason that Rothbard is right and Slavy and you are wrong. As regards Fred, perhaps he really means CM or Critical Theory. That is an indisputably Jewish product. 80
Posted by Fred Scrooby on Thu, 04 Oct 2007 22:54 | # All U.S. Jewish marxism fanatically denies race. No exceptions. The worst U.S. Jews in this regard, the most fanatical (and in general the deadliest enemies of Eurochristians) are the same kind as Russia’s Jews (since both kinds descend from Russian-Empire Jews of three and four generations ago: they’re all cousins and think alike), so without first-hand knowledge of today’s Russian Jewish marxism one can say with confidence it denies race. I don’t know details of the museum CvH visited so can’t comment on it. His account thereof changes nothing. 81
Posted by Slavyanski on Fri, 05 Oct 2007 05:59 | # “We don’t want to debate Marxism with you (by which, of course, I mean classical, class-based, economic Marxism).” I know you don’t want to debate Marxism, you would rather debate some other kind of Marxism that doesn’t exist.
Uh…sure.
Yeah, that’s why they fought to the death, sometimes far from their own countries, to establish socialist states. There’s nothing better than travelling from say, Albania to Spain, to fight in a civil war for a cause you “don’t want.”
Fine, we’ll start with the fact that there is no such thing as “cultural Marxism”, that right-wing nutcases have been labelling every wacky, liberal identity politics trend as ‘Marxist’, and that there is no such thing as a ‘Jewish culture’ war. In fact, you will see the same kind of struggle over tradition and decadence in countries like Israel. ‘Your reading of the demographic security of European Man is naive and complacent. ‘ Yet it is based on actual economic trends, not some mystical Jewish culture war. Is it any coincidence that the most advanced Asian countries are also starting to have serious demographic issues? “And, frankly, I am amazed that someone of your intelligence, who is not beholden to the totalitarian thought-control of the cultural and academic elites, is not fully informed about human bio-diversity.” Don’t give me this “bio-diversity” nonsense. First of all, look at the titles of articles on this board alone. Look at the comments. This is about far more than “bio-diversity”, which has always existed. If this is all about “bio-diversity”, why do you bitch about “racial equality” in the first place, assuming you deny any claims to superiority? We see Holocaust denial on here, we got a guy telling me that Operation Barbarossa should have been successful, and people talking about “what the Jewish Bolsheviks did”. This isn’t about bio-diversity. “However, it really isn’t our job to educate you.” No thanks, I’ve been educated by people like you for far too long. I did ask questions, and over time it seems racialism can’t answer a lot of them.
82
Posted by Guessedworker on Fri, 05 Oct 2007 07:59 | # Slavy writes: I know you don’t want to debate Marxism, you would rather debate some other kind of Marxism that doesn’t exist. You force me to state the screamingly obvious:- The very Jewish idea that some moral stain attaches to an economic oppressor-class, and freedom for the individual can only be attained by that class’s undoing, is hateful, extraordinarily harmful and wrong. Its revolutionary application was known among Jewish intellectuals, as it was by Antonio Gramsci, to be unwanted by European Man by the early 1920s. Today, it duly has no value whatsoever to postmodern European society, where nihilism, social anomie and commodity fetishism prevail. It’s finished ... a dark chapter in our history that all but the self-hating and the mentally deranged hope we will never revisit. You are living one hundred years too late for your economic disaster politics to be supposed to have any value for European Man. Postwar neo-liberalism slaughtered it. The future in Europe is one of racial division and barbarism, overseen by an anti-national Leviathan. Does Marx have anything to say about that? No, he is dust and a cold marble grave. Address the real and great modern issues. You are going to go precisely nowhere in your present intellectual cul-de-sac, because no one - not a soul - will walk alongside you. Now, my hopelessly Lysenkoist friend, answer the two questions I put to you earlier:- 1) What is the ultimate interest in the collective life of Man? 2) By what means does this find expression in coarse politics. 83
Posted by Constantin von Hoffmeister on Fri, 05 Oct 2007 08:12 | # “All U.S. Jewish marxism fanatically denies race.” Ridiculous. Please define “U.S. Jewish Marxism.” It seems that you label any kind of liberal ideology you despise as “Jewish Marxism,” even though a lot of these ideologies are neither “Jewish” nor “Marxist.” Yawn. I am not going to participate in a discussion where childish terms like “U.S. Jewish Marxism” are thrown around as if they were cookies at a church sale. Constantin 84
Posted by Guessedworker on Fri, 05 Oct 2007 08:20 | # The denial of heredity is essential to the liberal view of the perfectability of Man. Marx himself said, “We are all Hobbe’s children”, though he might more accurately have said Locke’s. The denial of heredity by Marxist Jews like Gould and Lewontin is on record, btw. 85
Posted by Constantin von Hoffmeister on Fri, 05 Oct 2007 08:23 | # The following article by Vladimir Avdeyev (the foremost racial scientist in Russia today) proves that the Marxist Soviet Union did not practice race-denial. Please spare me further nonsense of how the Soviet Union supposedly practiced race-denial. Constantin
THE BIOLOGICAL SUPERIORITY OF THE NORDIC RACE by Vladimir Avdeyev
As the ideological confrontation was in full force, the famous German race scientist Ilse Schwidetzky, in her book RACIAL SCIENCE OF THE OLD SLAVS (1938), proved that “the western and eastern branches of the Slavs belong to the Nordic race.” Poland and Germany were no allies of the Soviet Union at this time, even though its leading anthropologists Jan Czekanowski und Karol Stojanowski had the same points of view on the racial belonging of the Slavs. The American scientists Lothrop Stoddard and Madison Grant characterized the population of the northern and central parts of Russia as “continental Nordics.” One of the leading scientists of Germany in the field of biochemical analyses of racial characteristics, Otto Reche, conscientiously referred in his works to the writings of the Soviet scientists B. N. Vishnevsky, A. A. Melkich and V. Y. Rubashkin. He was a member of the NSDAP, but as a true scholar he could not ignore that, for the basis of the method for the calculation of pure-blooded Aryans in the Third Reich, the contributions from the permanent board of the blood group research department in Charkov, as well as the magazine DOCTOR’S ISSUE, the NEW BIOCHEMICAL AND RACIAL MONITOR and other accomplishments by Soviet scientists were all fundamentally important. The German specialists in the field of dermatoglyphics (the science of determining races and nationalities with the aid of finger prints) referred to the Soviet scientists P. S. Semyonovsky and M. V. Volozky. The developers of the concept of racial hygiene in Germany consciously published the works of N. K. Kolzov, Y. A. Filipchenko and B. I. Slovzov. V. M. Bechterev was highly esteemed among the German race psychologists, as were N. V. Timofeyev-Resovsky and A. S. Serebrovsky among geneticists. In his book RACIAL HYGIENE (1988), the reputed modern English writer Robert N. Proctor mentions following interesting facts, based on his archival research. N. V. Timofeyev-Resovsky was sent to Germany as part of a government pact with the USSR and became the director of the Institute for Genetics at the Kaiser-Wilhelm Institute in Berlin. Later, he lectured at courses for qualifying SS-officers, and in 1938 he participated in an open meeting of the party elite. He gave his lecture immediately after the leader of the Racial Policy Office of the NSDAP, Walther Gross, but before main ideologue of the Third Reich, Alfred Rosenberg. Immediately after the victory over Germany, a broad campaign was launched in Soviet scientific literature to change the historical concept of the origin of the Russian people, based on the latest data of anthropology and archeology. Even in the year 1930, the Soviet historian Y. V. Gotye wrote in his work THE IRON AGE IN EASTERN EUROPE, “The settlement of the Slavic tribes on the left shore of the Dnepr made me think that the companions of the early Slavic advances towards the East and Southeast should have been the Nordics.” In his work THE EAST-SLAVIC TRIBES, P. N. Tretyakov colorfully confirmed this thought. In the publications of this time, one clearly felt the political objective to prove that “the oldest brother in the brotherly family of Soviet peoples” was the Russian, precisely because he is of Nordic descent. Cinema, paintings and sculpture of this era bear witness to this truth. The racial ideals that were inherent in the artistic artifacts of the vanquished easily transferred to the victors. The paintings and sculptures of Josef Thorak and Arno Breker - the leading German sculptors - found their reflection in the Mamayev Cemetery in Stalingrad and in the design of the metro stations in Moscow. Until today, the main entrance of the Lenin Library is - as one drop is to another - identical to the facade of the Reich Chancellery. 86
Posted by Constantin von Hoffmeister on Fri, 05 Oct 2007 08:41 | # “The very Jewish idea that some moral stain attaches to an economic oppressor-class, and freedom for the individual can only be attained by that class’s undoing, is hateful, extraordinarily harmful and wrong.” What makes this idea “very Jewish”? Please explain. Considering that the majority of Communists were/are not Jews, I find this notion to be rather dubious, if not downright ridiculous. Constantin 87
Posted by Constantin von Hoffmeister on Fri, 05 Oct 2007 08:47 | # “You are going to go precisely nowhere in your present intellectual cul-de-sac, because no one - not a soul - will walk alongside you.” Oh yes, and I can see the teeming masses walking alongside the likes of you, dutifully screaming, “Yes, it is the Jews’ fault! It is all because of the Jews!” Are you serious? Your kind of anti-Semitism is deader than a doornail. More Communists are active today than anti-Semites. If anything, anti-Semitism is a relict of the 19th century. Since you argue that Marxism is a dead ideology, how come you constantly attack “Jewish Marxism” (whatever that is)? It seems that “Jewish Marxism” is a real threat to you TODAY. The contradictions never cease. Constantin 88
Posted by Daryl on Fri, 05 Oct 2007 09:18 | # That is an excellent point. Marxism is dead yet alive at the same times in the minds of people who want to blame it on Jews. They claim it is dead to build their ego, but continue to suggest Jews are pushing it, in order to satisfy their obsession with having the Jews as the enemy. The two positions are paradoxical. Whatever bad can be said about Marxism, Tzarism is worse. 89
Posted by Guessedworker on Fri, 05 Oct 2007 09:33 | # Don’t be hysterical, Constantin. I have never said it’s all anybody’s fault except our own power elite’s. You and I have the same opinion on the Jewish relationship to our political, social and cultural life. We agree with MacDonald. Are you an “anti-Semite”? Very well, don’t wave your pathetic insults at me. On Marxism, I certainly argue that class-warfare is dead. Critical Theory has outlasted classical Marxism, and cultural hegemonic warfare has replaced class-warfare. This is politics for babies, and I don’t know why we are arguing over it. 90
Posted by Steve Edwards on Fri, 05 Oct 2007 09:35 | # Slavyanski asks me “what is human nature?”. I’m not sure why he is asking me, as I have already made it clear what I believe human nature to be - inherently unequal on account of mankind’s evolved differences. I haven’t argued otherwise on this thread. I suppose Slavyanski was expecting me to advocate some abstract notion of human nature, but I can’t offer any such thing, because there is no body of evidence, as opposed to abstract philosophy (albeit which is interesting in itself), as to what this kind of human nature may entail. All we have to go on is that humans, through natural selection, have adapted to vastly different environments as they spread out over the globe, whether you want to call these divisions “races” or “ethnies” (my usual, preferred terminology). Then there’s the divisions between the sexes, and so on. Slavyanski’s second point was that Marxists do not, actually, seek to ignore or somehow negate (most likely the latter) the inherent inequalities of mankind. That’s a rather peculiar point to make, because on what other grounds do you agitate for the abolition of CLASS, if not on the radical egalitarian grounds that no individual should be allowed to accumulate capital in their own name? Why else would you be subscribing to a theory that the “workers” take over the “means of production”, and, presumably, be given an equal (that word again) say in controlling its affairs? Here’s Rothbard, again, on the Marxist desire to abolish the division of labour, and, by implication, opportunity cost itself:
... William Godwin thought that, once private property was abolished, man would become immortal. The Marxist theoretician Karl Kautsky asserted that in the future communist society, “a new type of man will arise…a superman…an exalted man.” And Leon Trotsky prophesied that under communism: man will become incomparably stronger, wiser, finer. His body more harmonious, his movements more rhythmical, his voice more musical…. The human average will rise to the level of an Aristotle, a Goethe, a Marx. Above these other heights new peaks will arise.21”
91
Posted by Constantin von Hoffmeister on Fri, 05 Oct 2007 09:48 | # “You and I have the same opinion on the Jewish relationship to our political, social and cultural life.” We certainly do not. For once, I do not believe in some kind of “Jewish Marxist” conspiracy. I do not blame “the Jews” (imaginary monolithic cabal) for something that some Jews AND some gentiles are responsible for. Some Jews and some gentiles is NOT THE SAME as “the Jews” or “Jewish Marxists.” Contrary to you, I also believe that the benefits that Europe derived from Jews outweigh the damages that some of them have inflicted. “The very Jewish idea that some moral stain attaches to an economic oppressor-class, and freedom for the individual can only be attained by that class’s undoing, is hateful, extraordinarily harmful and wrong.” Again, what makes this idea “very Jewish”? Would you please answer the question. Constantin 92
Posted by Guessedworker on Fri, 05 Oct 2007 09:49 | # Constantin, I am not aware of claiming that the Soviet Union practiced race-denial. Through Lysenkoism it certainly practiced the denial of heredity, which is related. You write of class-war: What makes this idea “very Jewish”? Since you have read MacDonald you need no explanation from me of his thesis of the culture of critique. Jews, as we have discussed here recently, are not the only minority to harbour an ambition to weaken or degrade the host society in the pursuit of security. Are you denying that setting the working man at the throat of the “bourgoiesie” weakens and degrades, or can you point to a society that has been strengthened thereby? Meanwhile, perhaps you would answer the questions I asked before:- 1. Define “anti-semite”. 2. Answer the question I put to you here. Do Jews generally want to stop the process of our racial destruction? 93
Posted by Guessedworker on Fri, 05 Oct 2007 09:57 | # Constantin: For once, I do not believe in some kind of “Jewish Marxist” conspiracy. I do not blame “the Jews” (imaginary monolithic cabal) for something that some Jews AND some gentiles are responsible for. Some Jews and some gentiles is NOT THE SAME as “the Jews” or “Jewish Marxists.” Contrary to you, I also believe that the benefits that Europe derived from Jews outweigh the damages that some of them have inflicted. I do not believe in a conspiracy. I do think that Jewish ethnic interests are expressed through various political, social and cultural movements invented, funded and promoted by various Jews, and that these have a high tendency to critique or seek harmful change in the status quo. Does the resultant harmful change outweigh the benefits brought by Jewry? Well, can you audit the harm, as measured in the resultant nihilism, social anomie, bastardy, deracination, dispossession etc caused by the Jewish “contribution” to:- Communism and Marxism-Leninism To this unoriginal list I would add the denial of human bio-diversity, which is the scientific end of immigration activism, and the newest front: the pseudo-scientific promotion of miscegenation. Now, the benefits? Well, you list them. 94
Posted by Constantin von Hoffmeister on Fri, 05 Oct 2007 10:02 | # “Critical Theory has outlasted classical Marxism” In what sense is “Critical Theory” Marxist at all? Where is the connection between the Frankfurt School and the theories of Karl Marx (who was an anti-Semite himself)? It seems that only deranged liberal leftists and looney conspiracy-obsessed rightists are making this connection. This is why, without any basis in reality whatsoever, right-wing fanatics can draw (non-existent) parallels between such diametrically opposed figures like Herbert Marcuse and Vladimir Ilyich Lenin. “Both Jews, you know? Both the same kind of devils, you know?” This all pure madness. No need to mention that Lenin was not Jewish at all… Hey, but by all accounts I could be an agent of Mossad, working in league with evil Frankfurt School propagandists who, up until this very day, are slowly poisoning the minds of White gentile children with Talmudic hate. No matter that the Talmud has no bearing whatsoever on the teachings of the Frankfurt School (which are not all bad, by the way) and Marxist theory. For right-wing anti-Semitic conspiracy nuts it is all the same. Logic and reasoning go straight out the window! And then people who subscribe to this insane bullshit accuse honest people of being brainwashed? Hello? Anybody home up there? Constantin 95
Posted by Constantin von Hoffmeister on Fri, 05 Oct 2007 10:05 | # “Do Jews generally want to stop the process of our racial destruction?” I have answered this question in a previous post. No need to repeat myself. Constantin 96
Posted by Constantin von Hoffmeister on Fri, 05 Oct 2007 10:12 | # “Does the resultant harmful change outweigh the benefits brought by Jewry? Well, can you audit the harm, as measured in the resultant nihilism, social anomie, bastardy, deracination, dispossession etc caused by the Jewish “contribution” to:-” Why did you put “contribution” in quotation marks? Are you suggesting that Jews are actually behind all those movements? If so, you are wrong, and your argument is meaningless. I do not see your point. Yes, I have read Kevin MacDonald, and I have stated that I disagree with him on many points. I especially object to the assertion that Jews “invented” certain movements when this assertion is demonstrably false. “Pornography”??? Even the ancient Greeks had pornography! Did the Jews introduce it there? Give me a break already! Besides, what is wrong with pornography in the first place? It is an integral part of European civilization, if you like it or not. Constantin 97
Posted by Constantin von Hoffmeister on Fri, 05 Oct 2007 10:28 | # “Holocaustism” You just made that up, didn’t you? Maybe I should make things up as well to support my arguments. Constantin 98
Posted by Constantin von Hoffmeister on Fri, 05 Oct 2007 10:36 | # “Are you denying that setting the working man at the throat of the ‘bourgoiesie’ weakens and degrades, or can you point to a society that has been strengthened thereby?” Yes, I am denying it. After all, Russia was strengthened by the Bolshevik Revolution. Or are you going to say that Tsarist Russia was a stronger society than the Soviet Union in its heyday? Why did you put “bourgeoisie” in quotation marks? Are you implying that it does not exist? Constantin 99
Posted by Guessedworker on Fri, 05 Oct 2007 11:28 | # Are you going to say that Tsarist Russia was a stronger society than the Soviet Union in its heyday?” I know little of Tsarist Russia. But, in general, organic society is always stronger than one constructed on the pursuit of an abstract ideal. The human mind is less adept in these things than Nature. Are you suggesting that Jews are actually behind all those movements? Oh dear. Surely you don’t need missionary work from me, do you? Well, this is as much as I am prepared to do. Don’t come back with some intellectually lazy demand for more evidence. If you want to continue denying the manifold forms of Jewish ethnocentric activism, YOU provide the evidence that the following is wrong. So ... Communism and Marxism-Leninism: substantially but not, of course, wholly Jewish. No one makes the latter assertion. Freudianism: Jewish Critical Theory: Minus the very minor Habermas, Jewish (and you can add postmodernism, minus Foucault, of Queer Theory fame). Second-Wave Feminism: Substantially Jewish at the intellectual/authorial end. Second-Wave Libertarianism: majority-Jewish. LBGT Rights and Human Rights: Both well-populated with Jews, the former at the leadership end, the latter legal. Open Borders and Immigration, American Civil Rights: Read 20th Century American history ... read Scimitar’s blog, for pete’s sake. Neoconservatism: Intellectually Jewish, substantially Jewish at the political end. Holocaustism: Jewish, of course. It is, btw, the exploitation of the historical fact (I am a little surprised at having to explain this to a German - or perhaps it’s only Germans to whom one has to explain this). Pornography: pretty damned Jewish (have you read Nathan Abrams on Jews in the porn industry?) The denial of race: Boas ... Montague ... Rose ... Kamin ... Gould ... Lewontin ... Diamond ... Wise ... Miscegenationism: We call it Zivism, if that helps. I hope that will suffice. The onus appears to be on you to deny that Jews are present in all these movements, and are so because these are vehicles for their ethnic interests. Alternatively, if you admit that they are present but are all acting only as disinterested individuals, show me the evidence. And let’s have that list of positive contributions, too (there - no scare quotes). 100
Posted by Al Ross on Fri, 05 Oct 2007 11:50 | # You certainly are on song today, GW, but you really shouldnt have to provide blinding flashes of the bleeding obvious to those who have chosen sightless obduracy. 101
Posted by Guessedworker on Fri, 05 Oct 2007 11:53 | # Constantin, You question the relationship of Critical Theory to classical Marxism. It exists most plainly, of course, at the level of the culture of critique. But anyway ... In 2003 I came across a long essay in an on-line university archive. It was by Douglas Kellner, and is titled “Cultural Marxism and Cultural Studies”. I’ve quoted and referenced it quite a bit in the years since. You can access it here. It posits the relationship twixt CT and Marxism thus:-
I think that’s a good description of how things were. It fits my purposes perfectly well. 102
Posted by Guessedworker on Fri, 05 Oct 2007 13:39 | # Sorry, Constantin, I had not seen your response to my question at the end of that other thread. So, in answer to the question “Do Jews generally want to stop the process of racial destruction?” you have written:- No, they do not. But neither do White gentiles. So what is the point? I am not going to follow your marching orders of treating Jews as a homogenous whole when they are clearly not. So that is an admission that Jews - or, at leas, Ashkenazim - as a group do see an advantage in the cosmopolitanisation and consequent deracination of the Western societies in which they live. How does that mesh with your stated Judeophilia? Is not an interest in cosmopolitanisation and deracination a reason to suspend it somewhat? Even drop it entirely? But instead you grasp the fig leaf that “neither do White gentiles.” But European Man does not understand the interest of Jews in our racial displacement. You know perfectly well that his mind on the subject of Jews is not his own, that he is forbidden to think freely, trained in the most Pavolovian style to discourage thinking freely, and dutifully see free-thinkers as “evil”, “nazis”, “camp guards” et al. And where did this mindset come from? Our love of cosmopolitanisation and deracination? Now, let’s look at the issue of Ashkenazic Jews as a “homogeneous whole”. How many Jews do you know who don’t support Israel. There is just that small group of highly religious traditionalists, Neturie Karta, right? Well, how many Jews do you know who don’t support open borders and free immigration? Well, there’s Larry Auster ... Paul Gottfried ... a few ex-Amren kooks like David Hart. All of them ant-Islamics. But any others? Any who support European Man for his own sake? So, how many Jews do you know who don’t support the entire Holocaust story? Erm ... not Finkelstein, who objects to the exploitation of it. There was David Cole, but he got beaten up and had to retract. Any more? No. So, it’s pretty homogeneous, then. Do you have any arguments left? I don’t think so. 103
Posted by Fred Scrooby on Fri, 05 Oct 2007 14:19 | # I just want to say that I am the one responsible in this thread for introducing the concept of “U.S. Jewish marxism” which CvH objects to so forcefully and seems to attribute to GW. GW didn’t do it. I did, so C can stop hysterically berating him for it. (He can berate me for it all he wants, if he likes making a fool of himself ...) As for the rest of the exchange, C differs so radically from my own views on the diaspora-Jewish role in XXth-Century Aryan-nation obliteration and white-race annihilation/genocide, a role they continue to play into the new century (a central role, which has proven necessary though not by itself sufficient for the wreaking of the destruction — without allies they couldn’t have done it — and a role they won’t abandon until every single non-Jewish white man on earth has been changed into a Negro) that to respond to him would require writing whole books, so isn’t possible. It’s easy enough to assert the Pythagorean theorem in an argument until the other person denies every pillar on which it stands and puts you in a position of needing to write a book to reply to him. Then replying is no longer practical, and you stop. For me, CvH’s value lies in his opposition to the current Eurospherewide régime of forced transformation of every European-race man, woman, and child on the planet into a Negro, something for which we have the world of marxism to thank, as Vladimir Bukovsky explained in the Paul Belien interview though he didn’t explain it in exactly those words. If C opposes that forced transformation — and he does — he’s my ally, his totally blinkered views of diaspora Jewry and the nature of communism notwithstanding. 104
Posted by mleccah on Fri, 05 Oct 2007 17:23 | # The internet allows little men to appoint themselves philosophic demagogues with no more than a few hours’ each week in self-promotion. That’s the ‘enigma’ of Big Von. Arrogant pap. Why anyone would pick through his stupid writings and go, “I agree with this, but not with this,” is beyond me — as though one thing does not share of the same essence as another. His facetious, mock-socratic sucking-up to Jews (“where are ‘the Jews’ exactly?”, asks he, feeling trenchant) is a symptom of his shallow cast of mind, though he understands it as a corrective to the admittedly more absurd reaches of lay anti-Semitism. This parasitic fool has latched onto majorityrights because the creator of the site is himself a German. So the tree grows crooked; it is to be expected. 105
Posted by Guessedworker on Fri, 05 Oct 2007 17:47 | # “the creator of the site is himself a German” If you say so. 106
Posted by Fred Scrooby on Fri, 05 Oct 2007 21:44 | # Mleccah, the creator of this site and its owner and editor is Guessedworker, an Englishman. 107
Posted by Fred Scrooby on Fri, 05 Oct 2007 21:48 | # Furthermore, the last thing that would motivate Constantin to associate himself to a site is its creator being German: C appears to have no feelings of German nationalism. 109
Posted by Oliver Cromwell on Fri, 05 Oct 2007 23:26 | # When most people speak of Marxism today, they are actually talking about a mishmash of Critical Theory, postmodern ism and the usual egalitarian claptrap. The economics of Marxism and the idea of a classless society are less important. Much of the terminology of Communism is kept around to show continuity with the Old Left. Che Guevara is the new Marx, with Gramsci, Rosa Luxemburg and Karl Liebknecht making cameo appearances. 110
Posted by Fred Scrooby on Sat, 06 Oct 2007 00:07 | # Oliver Cromwell, it makes no difference if Karl Marx was not, shall we say, a huge fan of Negroes (Engels either, of course) (or even of Slavs, for that matter — neither of those two was especially bullish, let us call it, on the Slavs as a race ...): that makes no difference whatsoever. Moscow was from 1917 to 1991 the world center of anti-racist propaganda and the drive to eliminate nations and races from the earth in favor of creating the new Soviet Man, who was to be nationless and raceless as well as classless. CvH has found a group of Russians — this Durgin person and some others — nostalgic for what they see as Russia’s halcion days under communism, who would love to deny Soviet Russia’s anti-racist past under Jewish Bolshevism, would love to deny Jewish Bolshevism was Jewish, and love to pretend a racist communism can be born out of the anti-racist version’s ashes. Not related but I’d like to mention (especially for the German/Austrian diaspora, of which I count myself a member, especially now that the Jews have turned the United States into Negroland) a collection of Ernst Zundel videos newly posted in YouTube format. I just discovered them last night and have watched six or eight, chosen nearly at random: they’re all excellent and merit a four-star rating, each one I watched. This man Zundel (in German written with the umlaut, I believe) is a first-rate commentator and a true German patriot, an admirable personage, judging from the videos I’ve looked at so far. The honest, simple, pure, steadfast German patriotism of a man like Zündel would be spat upon by CvH. That’s one of the latter’s defects and no small one. 111
Posted by Constantin von Hoffmeister on Sat, 06 Oct 2007 13:42 | # “The mass media—television, newspapers, film and magazines—rarely, if ever, look at the fate of the millions of German civilians in central and eastern Europe during and following World War II.” This is not true. The expulsion of the Germans from the East was the subject of a popular TV show in Germany last year, as well as TV documentaries, magazine articles and books. There was also a popular TV show about the bombing of Dresden two years ago. Constantin 112
Posted by Slavyanski on Sat, 06 Oct 2007 15:17 | # “I know little of Tsarist Russia. But, in general, organic society is always stronger than one constructed on the pursuit of an abstract ideal. The human mind is less adept in these things than Nature.” Socialism is not an abstract ideal, certainly no more abstract than the theocratic Russian Orthodox church of that era. Tsarist Russia could hardly be described as “organic”. How can you call that a nation when the leadership allowed its people to suffer in ignorance and starvation?
Not “Jewish” at all. Marx was not a “Jew”, save for by ridiculous idiotic assertions by people who believe that Jewishness is something other than a religious identity, something that Marx’s father escaped from. Furthermore even with that ethnic issue, are we to believe that Marx’s father kept his bloodline pure from the time of the original Hebrews all the way up to meeting his mother? Absolute nonsense. You would not consider a mulatto person to be white, but a “half-Jew” is a Jew. So much for race being readily definable.
“Freudianism: Jewish” No such ideology exists. Psychoanalysis is still a recognized scientific field, despite the fact that many of Freud’s ideas are no longer recognized as accurate. “Critical Theory: Minus the very minor Habermas, Jewish (and you can add postmodernism, minus Foucault, of Queer Theory fame).” Does not have nearly as much influence on society as anti-Semites like to claim. “Second-Wave Feminism: Substantially Jewish at the intellectual/authorial end.” WTF is “Second-Wave” feminism? Feminism also has had little effect on society. I cannot remember, in my entire life, meeting one ‘feminist’. I suppose you may meet some on a university campus, but the thing about nonsense identity politics movements is that most people grow out of them once they leave school- they need to concern themselves with money and survival. “Second-Wave Libertarianism: majority-Jewish.” That’s funny because a lot of you guys push libertarian ideas some times, and one of your buddies even quoted Murray Rothbard. I guess they’re ok when they say what you want. “LBGT Rights and Human Rights: Both well-populated with Jews, the former at the leadership end, the latter legal.” Really? Prove it. Name names. “Open Borders and Immigration, American Civil Rights: Read 20th Century American history ... read Scimitar’s blog, for pete’s sake.” Name…names. You always pick out some Jewish names, and ignore the fact that these people represent a small minority. Take the Bolshevik revolution for example- the Bolsheviks in 1917 had THE LOWEST AMOUNT OF JEWS, juxtaposed against the Menscheviks and the Jewish Bund(which clearly represented Jewish interests). Yet you pick out some names, often erroneously, and claim the movement was Jewish. “Neoconservatism: Intellectually Jewish, substantially Jewish at the political end.” Serves the interests of the ruling class, which is largely gentile. Aided by thousands of Gentile academics, authors, journalists, etc. “Holocaustism: Jewish, of course. It is, btw, the exploitation of the historical fact (I am a little surprised at having to explain this to a German - or perhaps it’s only Germans to whom one has to explain this).” What the hell is this? “Pornography: pretty damned Jewish (have you read Nathan Abrams on Jews in the porn industry?)” I guess the tens of millions that buy pornography get a free pass then. “The denial of race: Boas ... Montague ... Rose ... Kamin ... Gould ... Lewontin ... Diamond ... Wise ...” Herrenstein, Murray, Esynik? The problem is that science doesn’t support your racial ideas, period. What science does lean toward the existence of biologically defined “races” does not separate Jews as a race, as you want it to. Too bad. “Miscegenationism: We call it Zivism, if that helps.” Right, only Jews are interested in this, and Jews don’t miscegenate. That’s why one can find Jews that range from Nordic, to Asiatic, to African. ” The onus appears to be on you to deny that Jews are present in all these movements, and are so because these are vehicles for their ethnic interests. Alternatively, if you admit that they are present but are all acting only as disinterested individuals, show me the evidence.” Here’s where your argument gets shot to hell: You ask us to deny Jewish “PRESENCE” in these movements, as though presence alone equals domination or creation of said movements. This betrays the mystical, quasi-religious nature of anti-Semitism. To you, the PRESENCE of a Jew is some how more significant than that of other nationalities. Jewish presense denotes a controlling role, while the mere presense of any other ethnicity does not. In fact, for you the presense of Jews denotes a controlling role over and above even the largest majority of any movement. 113
Posted by Fred Scrooby on Sat, 06 Oct 2007 18:08 | #
Sight unseen, we can be a hundred percent certain how those popular TV shows and TV documentaries, magazine articles and so on presented the atrocities against the Germans: as fully justified retribution for German atrocities, therefore something good which Germans need to celebrate. Germans = evil, Kwamerikwans = good. Sight unseen, we can be certain that’s how they were presented to the German people (what’s left of the German people, that is, in the wake of their methodical, planned-years-in-advance large-scale extermination after the surrender, the systematic rape of all German women aged 8 to 98 by hordes of uncivilized Russian-uniform-wearing Asiatic/Mongol invaders — sent in by the revenge-bent Russian and American Jews — who were so primitive, savage, and brutal they shocked even the hard-bitten likes of General Patton, and the Kwamerikwan-imposed forced race-replacement régime the entire Eurosphere has been suffering under since 1945, including of course Germany). Here‘s something about the post-German-surrender Jewish-revenge holocaust. How do we know it was Jewish revenge, not, say, Polish revenge, WASP revenge, Norwegian revenge, Ukrainian revenge, Bohemian revenge or Moravian revenge? Call it an educated surmise based on clues such as that the U.S. legal team at the Nuremberg Trials wasn’t 75% Polish, 75% WASP, 75% Norwegian, 75% Ukrainian, 75% Bohemian, or 75% Moravian but was 75% something and was so thanks, doubtless (how else, when the second in command strongly opposed that proportion?) to the branch of the D.C. government dealing with post-surrender punishment in general being under the control of that same something:
114
Posted by Fred Scrooby on Sat, 06 Oct 2007 18:37 | # Regarding the Ernst Zundel videos mentioned in my comment a few above: anyone interested had better look at them while there’s a chance, because, you never know, they may not be up much longer ... 115
Posted by Slavyanski on Sat, 06 Oct 2007 18:46 | # “Sight unseen, we can be a hundred percent certain how those popular TV shows and TV documentaries, magazine articles and so on presented the atrocities against the Germans: as fully justified retribution for German atrocities, therefore something good which Germans need to celebrate. Germans = evil, Kwamerikwans = good. ” Sight unseen? Why don’t you go to Germany, or ask someone in Germany, to tell you. Oddly enough, you resort to similar tactics when you deny the Holocaust.
Systematic rape huh? Well let’s play Holocaust revisionist for a second: The reports of rape come from Goebbels and eyewitnesses. Ergo, NO RAPES HAPPENED!! Just kidding, let’s some back to reality for a moment. Rape stories in Germany were blown widely out of proportion, primarily by Goebbels. In fact, the rapes that did occur were done by a minority of Red Army men; yet studies also show that the majority of these rapists happened to be from areas that were under German occupation- in other words, it was indeed revenge. More importantly, these were mostly not “Mongoloid Asiatics”, as your ignorant post claims. Records abound not only of the Red Army issuing orders against rape, but in some cases soldiers were shot on sight for it. If it was not prosecuted to the extent you wish, keep in mind what the Germans had done to the Belorussians, Ukrainians, and Muscovite Russians. Next time, before you pull stuff like “Asiatic/Mongol” invaders out of your ass, consider that there are people that actually take a lot of time to study this subject. For a more balanced but mainstream reading, check Victory at Stalingrad, which cites some crucial studies about the rapes that did occur. But again, no Barbarossa, no rapes. And you are naive as hell if you think rape didn’t occur on the eastern front. It was certainly reported, and their eyewitnesses and victims are just as good as yours. German documents exempted Wehrmacht soldiers from prosecution for several crimes, among them was rape(unlike the Red Army, which documented not only orders against rape but reports of executions for rape as well). “Here‘s something about the post-German-surrender Jewish-revenge holocaust. How do we know it was Jewish revenge, not, say, Polish revenge, WASP revenge, Norwegian revenge, Ukrainian revenge, Bohemian revenge or Moravian revenge? “ So the people who actually carried out acts of revenge weren’t the real avengers? Nonsense. Germany decided what kind of war it wanted to fight, it couldn’t finish it. End of story. 116
Posted by Slavyanski on Sat, 06 Oct 2007 19:48 | # I might also question, if rape interest you, why don’t I see the Neo-Nazis talking about the mass rapes that occured when the Japanese came into European-held areas of China, or European colonies in East Asia? You want to talk about “Asiatic” hordes raping women, why don’t you take a look at Hitler’s buddies? 117
Posted by Fred Scrooby on Sat, 06 Oct 2007 19:52 | #
118
Posted by Slavyanski on Sat, 06 Oct 2007 19:55 | # Good job, don’t address any of my points. Where did Tom Dodd’s evidence come from? Was Tom Dodd’s family wiped out by invading Germans? Were they hung out in the freezing cold, left to swing as human signposts for alleged, often unproven associations with partisans? Dodd can take his accusations and shove them firmly up his ass.
119
Posted by Svigor on Sat, 06 Oct 2007 22:30 | # I’m having trouble deciding if CvH or Slavsky is more full of shit. I guess the latter, his “arguments” seem particularly easy to refute, insofar as I am led to believe by my brief forays into his posts (which do not last long). Random example, his reference to that dull old saw, “we’ve all seen where racialism leads.” Yaaaaaawn (*cough* equalityobsessedcommieskilledfarmorethaninequalityobsessednazis *cough*) Deprogramming is hard work, dude. 120
Posted by Svigor on Sat, 06 Oct 2007 22:39 | # save for by ridiculous idiotic assertions by people who believe that Jewishness is something other than a religious identity Lol, what a jackass. Google “secular jew” and save yourself future embarrassment. 121
Posted by Svigor on Sat, 06 Oct 2007 22:47 | # Then, when your face goes back to white from red, Google “jewish genetics” and savor the experience all over again… 122
Posted by Guessedworker on Sun, 07 Oct 2007 00:25 | # Slavy. Your doggedness is commendable. But you are making a rod for own back, as Svigor has told you. For now, let’s just deal with “socialism” and its place in the realm of the abstract. I hope you can agree that socialism, in the Marxist sense you undoubtedly mean it, exists within, and not separate from, the tradition of Western liberalism, and has as its fundamental aim the same exercise of the unfettered will ... in other words, the will to power. Now, there is another socialism of sorts, which was uninfected by that Jewish “culture of critique” (which, interestingly as we will see, MacDonald argues to be not cultural at all but selected in the evolutionary sense). This socialism, of sorts, was that beautiful and good solidarity which was founded in self-help and recognition of place and kind - in other words, in connectivity to the social body rather than in fatal opposition to one part of it. Now, I would be willing to bet that inside your head right now these words are bringing forth outraged and defensive arguments along the lines of, “No, no ... it’s impossible and ridiculous to contemplate a stable, unified and socially-articulated, non-Marxist society. The bourgeoisie is the enemy of the working man!” But why? You yourself have presented arguments as to the limits of egalitarianism in your political religion. If the issues are only social mobility for the able and protection for the weak, one does not need a class analysis to deliver them. Victorian England was shot through with efforts to engineer these ends - led, let it be said, by the “bourgeoisie” (both Whig and Tory). In place of envy and hatred was compassion. It’s important that you understand that organic society is founded always on the nature of Man, and the nature of Man, in this one sense, is good. The organic is also, obviously, the antithesis of the abstract. So in what sense is the abstract “bad”? Well, the ultimate interest of Man in his manifestation as an individual, as a member of a genetically distinct group and of humanity in general is continuity ... it is a reproductive interest. He may not understand this in his conscious thoughts as he passes through the passage of time, but it is so. What flows from this into the coarse realm of politics is all that preserves the natural connectiveness of those like oneself, and enhances the passage of that connectiveness into the future. This we call Ethnic Genetic Interest, and its aspect is love. It should be obvious to you that a politic which invites us to envy or hate our fellows because they constitute a different and supposedly oppressive social class is profoundly unhelpful. Prosecuting a class-war is, in Darwinian terms, simply maladaptive. It reduces our common store of EGI ... takes us away from the organic foundation of society and towards dystopia. However, let it be noted that competing ethnies in the same living space only advance their own interests at the expense of their competitor’s interests. That is an unbreakable natural law. So what is maladaptive or “bad” for one group may be highly advantageous for another. Now, I know you will intentionally fail to internalise ... be impressed by ... understand this presentation of the “Nazi crime-think” you so love to disparage. Too bad. If you are remotely interested in understanding not just us or nationalism but yourself, damn it, and the very life you hold, you will read some of the posts here on Ethnic Genetic Interest. Good luck with it. 123
Posted by Steve Edwards on Sun, 07 Oct 2007 07:31 | # Some VERY interesting quotes here. Slavyanski writes of Marxism: “Not “Jewish” at all. Marx was not a “Jew”, save for by ridiculous idiotic assertions by people who believe that Jewishness is something other than a religious identity, something that Marx’s father escaped from.” Strange, because most self-identified Jews I’ve ever met have scarcely been religious at all. And they still called themselves “Jews”! Clearly, these people must be “idiots” for labelling themselves “Jewish”, according to the traditions of their ancestors. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Secular_Judaism Of second-wave libertarianism: “That’s funny because a lot of you guys push libertarian ideas some times, and one of your buddies even quoted Murray Rothbard. I guess they’re ok when they say what you want.” No, hardly any of “you guys” (“those guys”) push libertarian ideas at all. In fact the only people who are even influenced at all by classical liberalism are myself and James Bowery. At this point you may have noticed that the readers of this site do not, in fact, constitute a monolithic bloc of seething national socialists and Jew-haters! Of neo-conservatism: “Serves the interests of the ruling class, which is largely gentile. Aided by thousands of Gentile academics, authors, journalists, etc.” Really? Which “thousands” of Gentile academics, authors and journalists are supporters of “neo-convervatism”? Name names! Of feminism: “WTF is “Second-Wave” feminism? Feminism also has had little effect on society. I cannot remember, in my entire life, meeting one ‘feminist’. I suppose you may meet some on a university campus, but the thing about nonsense identity politics movements is that most people grow out of them once they leave school- they need to concern themselves with money and survival.” You know perfectly well what “Second-Wave” feminism is, unless you are dissimulating (which I certainly can’t rule out). Secondly, feminism has not had “little” impact on society. It’s impact has been substantial, unless you think female control over fertility through the Pill, freely available abortion, enforced equal opportunity and anti-discrimination laws, all of which were largely driven by the feminist movement, had “little” impact on society. 124
Posted by Slavyanski on Sun, 07 Oct 2007 09:40 | # “For now, let’s just deal with “socialism” and its place in the realm of the abstract. I hope you can agree that socialism, in the Marxist sense you undoubtedly mean it, exists within, and not separate from, the tradition of Western liberalism, and has as its fundamental aim the same exercise of the unfettered will ... in other words, the will to power.” I’d rather deal with socialism in the realm of reality instead.
Of course you would imagine this, because you people are constantly living in a fantasy world where you define what your opponents believe. The contradiction between ruling class and proletariat is economic reality. It doesn’t change just because you want it to, unless you change the system fundamentally.
The problem is that the egalitarianism you people fight is not proposed by anyone, liberals nor Marxists.
Occasionally the ruling class has had to make concessions, but this is usually when forced to. The most concessions occurred around the time after the October Revolution, but a lot after WWII. “It’s important that you understand that organic society is founded always on the nature of Man, and the nature of Man, in this one sense, is good. The organic is also, obviously, the antithesis of the abstract.” Again, nature of man, nature of man. Please define this “nature of man”.
Obviously we can agree on the reproduction point, but where does ethnics or genetics come into. I read your site’s FAQ on race. I am not going to challenge the scientific claims; but I ask you why in the hell do you think this is a good idea upon which to organize society, given the fact that you cannot look at someone and determine his racial background to the extent that you claim. More importantly, it is clear that man has never given great importance to this form of identity, about which he could not have been aware for most of his existence. Family, Tribe, nation, religion..all were far more important. “It should be obvious to you that a politic which invites us to envy or hate our fellows because they constitute a different and supposedly oppressive social class is profoundly unhelpful. “ This oppression is an economic reality. You can actually calculate the rate of exploitation if you wanted to.
Good luck with it. “
125
Posted by Slavyanski on Sun, 07 Oct 2007 09:46 | # “Strange, because most self-identified Jews I’ve ever met have scarcely been religious at all. And they still called themselves “Jews”! Clearly, these people must be “idiots” for labelling themselves “Jewish”, according to the traditions of their ancestors. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Secular_Judaism” Some people adhere to that definition, some do not. Marx didn’t. Who are you to tell people how they need to definte themselves? Again, this doesn’t answer the question. How is Marxism Jewish? “No, hardly any of “you guys” (“those guys”) push libertarian ideas at all. In fact the only people who are even influenced at all by classical liberalism are myself and James Bowery. At this point you may have noticed that the readers of this site do not, in fact, constitute a monolithic bloc of seething national socialists and Jew-haters!” If it walks like a duck.. “Really? Which “thousands” of Gentile academics, authors and journalists are supporters of “neo-convervatism”? Name names!” Dick Cheney, Rumsfeld, every pundit on Fox News and other Murdoch publications, etc.
I think it’s something you pulled out of your ass after I pointed out that originally feminism was just a movement for safer work conditions, lower working hours for women(so they could have children), and equal pay for equal work. I know you are referring to the identity politics movements of the 60s and 70s that in reality have very little influence. “Secondly, feminism has not had “little” impact on society. It’s impact has been substantial, unless you think female control over fertility through the Pill, freely available abortion, enforced equal opportunity and anti-discrimination laws, all of which were largely driven by the feminist movement, had “little” impact on society. “ Oh I’m sorry, I guess women shouldn’t be allowed to control their own bodies, and they should get paid lower amounts for the same work. Did you ever question why any of this was necessary? Did you ever notice that there were reasons why women need to work, use the pill, or get an abortion? Were you aware for example, that during part of the Soviet period, abortion was free and legal, yet the population rose substantially the whole time. By contrast, Russia now has one of the highest rates of abortion in the world, even though they need to pay now. 126
Posted by Svigor on Sun, 07 Oct 2007 16:04 | # Some people adhere to that definition, some do not. Marx didn’t. Who are you to tell people how they need to definte themselves? Again, this doesn’t answer the question. How is Marxism Jewish? “No, hardly any of “you guys” (“those guys”) push libertarian ideas at all. In fact the only people who are even influenced at all by classical liberalism are myself and James Bowery. At this point you may have noticed that the readers of this site do not, in fact, constitute a monolithic bloc of seething national socialists and Jew-haters!” If it walks like a duck.. [my emphasis] Did you, Slavsky, consume excessive quantities of Vodka before submitting this comment? LOL! 127
Posted by Slavyanski on Sun, 07 Oct 2007 16:17 | # Way to duck the question! Marx was not a Jew. Maybe if you read On the Jewish Question by Karl Marx, you would learn something about how Marx saw Jews. Even if you consider him to be a Jew, Marx’ philosophy was based on Hegel, and Locke, and his economic ideas came from Smith and Ricardo. 128
Posted by Svigor on Sun, 07 Oct 2007 16:18 | # The ole appeal to nature/naturalistic fallacy trope, so fresh, so new! Wikipedia says: Several problems exist with this type of argument that makes it a fallacy. First of all the word “natural” is often a loaded term, usually unconsciously equated with normality, and its use in many cases is simply a form of bias. That doesn’t apply in this case. It’s pretty obvious from Social Identity Theory, inter alia, that ethnocentrism is natural. Second, “nature” and “natural” have vague definitions and thus the claim that something is natural may not be correct by every definition of the term natural; a good example would be the claim of all-natural foods, such as “all-natural” wheat, the claimed wheat though is usually a hybridised plant that has been bred by artificial selection.<i> This is a rewording of the first reason. <i>Lastly, the argument can quickly be invalidated by a counter-argument that demonstrates something that is natural that has undesirable properties (for example ageing, illness, and death are natural), or something that is unnatural that has desirable properties (for example, many modern medicines are not found in nature, yet have saved countless lives). It cannot be so quickly invalidated in this case; in fact, if my long experience is any guide, it cannot be so invalidated at all. But, Slavsky, you’re welcome to make the argument. It is neither an appeal to nature, nor a naturalistic fallacy to declare a) human nature, and b) human groups that comport themselves according to human nature insofar as is practicable will be better off than those that do not, ceteris paribus. It is simple logic. 129
Posted by ben tillman on Sun, 07 Oct 2007 16:18 | # How is Marxism Jewish?[/l] Its goal was to replace the gentile ruling class with a Jewish ruling class by cultivating and exploiting class conflict. 130
Posted by ben tillman on Sun, 07 Oct 2007 16:20 | # How is Marxism Jewish? Its goal was to replace the gentile ruling class with a Jewish ruling class by cultivating and exploiting class conflict. 131
Posted by Slavyanski on Sun, 07 Oct 2007 16:25 | # “Its goal was to replace the gentile ruling class with a Jewish ruling class by cultivating and exploiting class conflict.” Ha ha…that’s cute. That’s why the Bolsheviks had the lowest amount of Jews as opposed to the Jewish Bund and the Mensheviks. 132
Posted by Svigor on Sun, 07 Oct 2007 16:25 | # I’m not ducking your questions, you simpleton. I’m making fun of you. I have no interest in debating anything with you. Before I debate anyone, I assess his character and estimate the potential upside (chance of his admitting defeat when defeated, recognizing points when I win them, responding honestly, etc., etc., etc.). My best guess is you aren’t worth the trouble. Now, it is often the case (or rather, has been in the past) that potential adversaries fail this test, and I engage them anyway. Usually this is because they seem formidable, i.e. a challenge. You do not qualify. 133
Posted by Svigor on Sun, 07 Oct 2007 16:27 | # So, your argument is that the Communism wasn’t jewish, because the Mensheviks and the Jewish Bund were more jewish than the Bolsheviks? I just want to make sure I’ve got your logic all sorted out. =D 134
Posted by Slavyanski on Sun, 07 Oct 2007 16:29 | # “That doesn’t apply in this case. It’s pretty obvious from Social Identity Theory, inter alia, that ethnocentrism is natural.” Clearly it isn’t, because humans have been miscegenating since the dawn of time whenever they come into contact. They have often united with other ethnicities against their own as well, and still do.
The problem is you need to define this “nature”. “It is neither an appeal to nature, nor a naturalistic fallacy to declare a) human nature, and b) human groups that comport themselves according to human nature insofar as is practicable will be better off than those that do not, ceteris paribus. It is simple logic. “ It is an appeal to nature, and you are not defining this human nature. If the we agree that there is some kind of eternal “human nature”, we should conclude that your anti-miscegenation views are against it, given human history. 135
Posted by Svigor on Sun, 07 Oct 2007 16:32 | # Slavsky, if you’re going to engage a gallery (often a difficult proposition, to be sure), you’ll need to keep discipline. I did not announce that Communism was or is jewish. I did not even dispute your assertions on same. Ergo, it’s absurd for you to accuse me of “ducking the question,” especially as you fail to respond to my criticism of points you have made. 136
Posted by Slavyanski on Sun, 07 Oct 2007 16:34 | # “I’m not ducking your questions, you simpleton. I’m making fun of you. I have no interest in debating anything with you. Before I debate anyone, I assess his character and estimate the potential upside (chance of his admitting defeat when defeated, recognizing points when I win them, responding honestly, etc., etc., etc.). My best guess is you aren’t worth the trouble.” Yes, we are all familiar with the old “I’m too good to debate you” canard, used whenever you are getting trounced by someone with more experience than you. If you want I’ll accept this as your formal surrender. Turn in your sidearm.
I just want to make sure I’ve got your logic all sorted out. “
137
Posted by Svigor on Sun, 07 Oct 2007 16:45 | # Me: That doesn’t apply in this case. It’s pretty obvious from Social Identity Theory, inter alia, that ethnocentrism is natural. Slavsky: Clearly it isn’t, because humans have been miscegenating since the dawn of time whenever they come into contact. They have often united with other ethnicities against their own as well, and still do. The first three words of your reply are in no way supported by any of those following. Me: It cannot be so quickly invalidated in this case; in fact, if my long experience is any guide, it cannot be so invalidated at all. But, Slavsky, you’re welcome to make the argument. Slavsky: The problem is you need to define this “nature”. Nah. Like I said, I’m not interested in debating you. Me: It is neither an appeal to nature, nor a naturalistic fallacy to declare a) human nature, and b) human groups that comport themselves according to human nature insofar as is practicable will be better off than those that do not, ceteris paribus. It is simple logic. Slavsky: It is an appeal to nature, and you are not defining this human nature. No, it isn’t an appeal to nature. Re-asserting your error won’t make it any more correct. Whether I have defined human nature or not is irrelevant to the simple logical proposal I have made above. If the we agree that there is some kind of eternal “human nature”, we should conclude that your anti-miscegenation views are against it, given human history. “Eternal” human nature is your straw man. Feel free to get all sweaty wrestling with it. My views are not “anti-miscegenation,” at least, almost certainly not in the sense you think. Discipline Slavsky, discipline! That aside for the moment, it is obvious that people mate assortively, and miscegenation is the exception, not the rule. Just look at America; adjusted for diversity and population sizes, she’s probably the high water mark for miscegenation. What’s the white/non-white rate? 3%? So, the high water mark of miscegenation in recorded history is a resounding rejection of miscegenation! 138
Posted by Slavyanski on Sun, 07 Oct 2007 16:53 | # Well if you can’t even define your beliefs, I guess you do have a reason not to debate. So I will not engage you further unless you want to actually define your claims. 139
Posted by ben tillman on Sun, 07 Oct 2007 16:53 | # Marx was not a Jew. Maybe if you read On the Jewish Question by Karl Marx, you would learn something about how Marx saw Jews. No, you wouldn’t. In that essay, Marx argued for Emancipation by telling the gentiles that Emancipation would cause the disappearance of negative traits that gentiles ascribed to the Jews. The characterization of Jews in that essay reflected the views of his readers rather than his own. 140
Posted by Svigor on Sun, 07 Oct 2007 16:54 | # Tillman stated that the Jews controlled Communism and they intended to replace the gentile ruling class with the Jewish ruling class. Well a pretty crappy job they did, didn’t they? The standard anti-semitic myth is that Bolshevism was dominated by Jews. Yet when we actually look at the facts, we see that Jews were a small minority in the Bolshevik party prior to 1917, and that most Jews of Russia supported two other groups, one of which(the Bund), was based on Jewish interests. Jews never had a dominating position in the Soviet government, and those Jews who did have positions of power at the time were in opposition to those two factions that had the most Jewish support. From 1917 on the amount of Jews that were in high positions of government rapidly declined. Ah, so you weren’t attempting to refute Ben’s statement that Marxism was jewish because it was a jewish plot to replace Russia’s non-jewish ruling class with a jewish one, only the supporting statement. I wasn’t aware we were breathing such rarified air, forgive me.
Your assertions about jewish power in the Soviet Union are open for debate. I’m not interested in debating them, though. 141
Posted by Svigor on Sun, 07 Oct 2007 17:00 | # It is neither an appeal to nature, nor a naturalistic fallacy to declare a) human nature, and b) human groups that comport themselves according to human nature insofar as is practicable will be better off than those that do not, ceteris paribus. It is simple logic. See the wriggling he’s done in responding to this simple, self-evident logic? He can’t even agree that the sky is blue. No point in dedicating your Sunday morning to this one folks. 142
Posted by Slavyanski on Sun, 07 Oct 2007 17:12 | # “Your assertions about jewish power in the Soviet Union are open for debate. I’m not interested in debating them, though.” Right, because you can’t. Neither can Tillman it seems. If Tillman wants to assert that Communism indeed was about replacing a gentile ruling class with a Jewish one, let him bring forth the evidence. 143
Posted by Guessedworker on Sun, 07 Oct 2007 18:40 | # The problem is you need to define this “nature”. Here’s Frank Salter’s own definitons of GI and EGI:-
I trust that will serve as a working definition for you. The “nature” we are talking about here is the ultimate interest of you and I. Proximate interests are arrayed below this, of which it is arguable that social justice may be objectively one such, which is why more organically-organised societies tend to it - but only tend to it. To make it the overiding organising principle, however, would relegate EGI and invite maladaptiveness (such as miscegenation). I agree that ben phrased the (American?) elite in terms too Jewish for most of the world. I cleave to the view that the power elite is global, not national ... indeed it is crucially anti-national, and engaged in the destruction of nation throughout the West (hence the immigration, hence the formation of blocs, hence the political monoculture). I have written about it at some length here. By the way, MR is not a locus of single opinion. We welcome everyone who can think about the great issues of our day, as they affect European Man. Some opinions tend to rise to the surface because they happen to be true. One, as ben suggests, is that economic Marxism is a theoretic path to hyper-individualism. If your principle interest is in hyper—individualism there is no reason why you should not pursue it, providing you do no harm to anyone else. If your principle interest is in the welfare of your own people you should be reading us instead. If your principle interest is in the welfare of all men, you might start by reading Lynn & Vanhanen. 144
Posted by Svigor on Mon, 08 Oct 2007 03:07 | # LOL. Let’s apply some of Slavsky’s “logic” to another question: does family loyalty exist? No, of course not! Family members often betray one another, so family loyalty clearly does not exist! People often use outsiders against relatives to gain ground in family competition, so clearly family loyalty is a chimera; clearly the tendency is against family loyalty in all humans, in general. How about national loyalty? Clearly, there is no tendency in humans toward national loyalty, rather the opposite is true; as we all know, people have been marrying across national lines as long as there have been nations, and people have always been selling out their countrymen for personal gain, so obviously there’s no general human tendency toward national loyalty! Man, you really can learn a lot from a dummy! 145
Posted by Slavyanski on Tue, 09 Oct 2007 10:40 | # So well have you arranged your assumptions that you cannot write one post without some major strawman. I have not denied the genetic relations between various groups. My question is how is it relevant, how is it a good concept on which to build society- considering that it, unlike the family, has never been such a factor in history. In fact it would have been impossible for thousands of years since most of this is based on genetic evidence/ 146
Posted by Lurker on Tue, 09 Oct 2007 16:58 | # I just posred this on another thread but it could go here too: Slavyanski - if jews are just indviduals then, only differentiated by class and have no separate identity from anyone else, how do they still exist? At some point, as a group, they must be making choices that are ‘wrong’ in a market sense or from a class point of view. In other words they may have group interests that differ from, in this case, the white majority. Where the needs of these two groups conflict is it not at least possible that jews might pursue a strategy that is good for them and harmful to whites? You would the first to admit that the reverse was true. Is that insane? Is it at least remotely possible? 147
Posted by Fr. John on Fri, 12 Oct 2007 15:58 | # “Seven to eight million Germans—both military personnel and civilians—died during and after World War II.” To put all this arguing in perspective… Just as the ADL and Foxman (even Bush, begging not to acknowledge it as ‘genocide’) have been at great pains to keep the term ‘Holocaust’ or ‘race genocide’ all to their Clustering selves, in the matter of Armenia, and the almost successful attempt by the Islamo/Jewish “New Turk” movment to annihilate them in 1915-1918…. So, too, could we say that the WEST is guilty of a “holocaust” of their own, if ‘MORE than six million’ (bowing east to Mecca, while nodding my phylactery-bound head to the ground like a bobbing chicken, 10,000 times) GERMANS were killed by the Allies AFTER WWII, as Sunic notes above???? No? I thought not. Now, draw the obvious conclusion. WHo rules, who controls, who must be overthrown? Yup. Deicides all….. 148
Posted by Fred Scrooby on Tue, 19 Feb 2008 01:23 | # What exactly is the Jews’ game (the Jews running Bush’s foreign policy) in supporting the Kosovar Moslems over the Serbs? The foreign policy of the Bush Administration’s Jewish neocons is summed up in the following three principles: 1) Israel’s well-being comes first; 2) the weakening of all Euro racial/ethnocultural nationalisms (including the U.S.‘s) comes second, with primary emphasis on the stronger among them (you weaken the strongest first, then the rest can be weakened at your leisure); 3) where 1 and 2 conflict, 1 takes precedence; where 1 isn’t at stake the coast is clear to pursue 2. So, based on the above three principles, U.S. Jewish neocon support of Kosovo over Serbia must somehow 1) advance Israel’s well-being or, if Israel’s well-being isn’t at stake, must 2) weaken Euro nationalisms (with primary emphasis on the stronger among them). It obviously weakens Euro nationalisms; in regard to whether it advances Israel’s well-being, I can’t see how it would. So it must be a case where 1 isn’t at stake, leaving the Jews free to pursue 2. The same sort of analysis must somehow explain this wariness in regard to China which we see popping up from time to time among the U.S. Jewish neocons: since one wouldn’t imagine they’re particularly anxious at this stage to dismantle China’s racial/ethnocultural nationalism, what’s putting them on their guard against China must be a perception that China is a future threat to Israel. As regards the U.S. Jewish neocon love-affair with Turkey, no mystery there: forcing Turkey into the E.U. against Europe’s wishes both advances Israel’s well-being in a number of ways and helps weaken Euro racial/ethnocultural nationalism (helps weaken the racial/ethnocultural nationalism of all Euro nations together in one fell-swoop as a matter of fact, so the Jews must see this as their master stroke). 149
Posted by Fred Scrooby on Tue, 19 Feb 2008 12:50 | # We have this press-release from the League of the South News Service:
150
Posted by Fred Scrooby on Tue, 19 Feb 2008 12:55 | # Sorry that link didn’t embed — you can read the full press-release here. 151
Posted by Friedrich Braun on Tue, 11 Mar 2008 04:21 | # I have recently met Dr. Sunic in person and he has since sent me many of his articles or essays. Most notably, a French translation of the above article that I posted on my blog: Post a comment:
Next entry: Preemptive Defense
|
|
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— Ukraine, Israel, Taiwan … defend or desert by Guessedworker on Sunday, 14 April 2024 10:34. (View) Patriotic Alternative given the black spot by Guessedworker on Thursday, 14 March 2024 17:14. (View) On Spengler and the inevitable by Guessedworker on Wednesday, 21 February 2024 17:33. (View) Twilight for the gods of complacency? by Guessedworker on Tuesday, 02 January 2024 10:22. (View) — NEWS — Moscow’s Bataclan by Guessedworker on Friday, 22 March 2024 22:22. (View) Soren Renner Is Dead by James Bowery on Thursday, 21 March 2024 13:50. (View) Collett sets the record straight by Guessedworker on Thursday, 14 March 2024 17:41. (View) CommentsAl Ross commented in entry 'Soren Renner Is Dead' on Thu, 02 May 2024 04:26. (View) Al Ross commented in entry 'Soren Renner Is Dead' on Thu, 02 May 2024 03:35. (View) Al Ross commented in entry 'Soren Renner Is Dead' on Thu, 02 May 2024 03:12. (View) Thorn commented in entry 'Soren Renner Is Dead' on Thu, 25 Apr 2024 15:19. (View) James Marr commented in entry 'Soren Renner Is Dead' on Thu, 25 Apr 2024 11:53. (View) Thorn commented in entry 'Soren Renner Is Dead' on Wed, 24 Apr 2024 22:36. (View) James Marr commented in entry 'Soren Renner Is Dead' on Wed, 24 Apr 2024 14:20. (View) |
Posted by Wild Bill on Sun, 30 Sep 2007 01:23 | #
In partial answer to Mr. Sunic’s question-
In reference to the murder of the German military personnel and civilians after the war; the reason there is no play in the consciousness of “the people pf the west”, in addition to the main brainwashing media’s steering of empathy, is because the facts demonstrate just who the murderers really are.
I heard one country club retired fly boy say that “those people had to be killed because there was not enough food to go around”. This, no doubt, helped him to sleep at night.
Another fellow, a well regarded mathematician for a major aero space contractor, remarked, “All those people should have been killed because they went to war against us.” He obviously had no qualms about any of it.
Another reason for the lack of consciousness is the general irresponsibility of the general population. The acknowledgment of anything so serious would necessitate that they stop pretending they are somehow “good people” because
1) they directly participated in the crime
2) must now do something to fix it
The last thing the cowards of our time will do is admit being responsible for anything, particularly something to save the life of the White Race.