The problem of the Establishment mentality – Part 3

Posted by Guessedworker on Wednesday, 08 April 2015 16:35.

In this third and penultimate part of my essay on the Rotherham Syndrome I am going to expand on the disconnection between philosophy (and philosophically-derived politics) and thinking that comes out of ethnic or racial conflict.  In particular, I will focus on the dynamics of absolutism and its ascription of human value.

A petty history

A few years ago I came across the story, I think in a television history, of the last civilian to be hanged in the Third Reich.  I don’t remember his name.  I cannot find a link to the story on-line, so I hope I have it right.  But my memory is that this unfortunate man was a resident of a small south-western German town which lay in the path of the advancing US Army.  I suppose it must have been early- to mid-April 1945.

The war was already lost, of course.  That knowledge had been building among the people since the defeat at Stalingrad and Goebbel’s Sportspalast Speech of 18 February 1943 (which changed the tone of the propaganda from a war of conquest to one of national survival).  The general thrall to a military dictator and the whole mesmerising, deceitful dream of German greatness and glory was dissolving in the acid of the military reality.  By April 1945, with the Allies fighting on German soil, the general will of German civilians would have been for the killing and destruction to be brought to an end, and for Germany to find its way into whatever future was available to it.  But the Allies were only interested in complete and unconditional surrender.  Every last German town would fall, this little one included.  This was not going to be where the Allies would first be held and then pushed back.

Of course, duty to the Führer and the Fatherland would be done.  The order from Berlin was to fight to the last man.  Conducting successful operations as ordered is what every army exists to do, even when the army consists of young boys and old men, as it may easily have done here.  There would be a defence, and it would be an honourable and determined one – the exact quantity of honour and determination in turn determining the extent of general ruin and civilian casualties.

This one fellow, however, took it upon himself to speak out in public against the prospect of general ruin and civilian or, indeed, military casualties.  Now, this was no coward’s resort.  At the high-point of a national anxiety scarcely imaginable for us today, he took it upon himself to plead the cause of personal and national survival.  His character, his intellect, his prior attitude towards NS orthodoxy we can never know.  His precise words, likewise, are lost.  But their meaning had to be: better that realism prevail and German lives be given their true value and not lost to militarism and falsehoods.  The preservation of that life would be something to give to Germany’s future.  What was there for Germany in death?

But there were ideologues in the town’s civilian authorities, and they still believed fervently in their Führer’s vision and words, and probably even in the ultimate triumph of the National Socialist cause.  The Führer himself, back in February 1942, had said, “We have to put a stop to the idea that it is a part of everybody’s civil rights to say whatever he pleases.”  Roland Freisler had categorised offences such as the spreading of alarm, despondency and defeatism as “Volk Treason”.  Thousands of men and women were dragged before his extra-constitutional People’s Courts in what were effectively show trials, with the verdict pre-determined in many instances.  Ninety per cent of the convicted received the death sentence.

Judicial death was a commonplace in Germany.  Freisler favoured the guillotine, which alone accounted for 16,500 executions over the last hundred months of NS rule – the same number who died by that means in revolutionary France.  As there, hangings, shootings, and the axe were also used by the German courts.  But the majority of deaths in the justice system occurred among those simply detained in the camps system.  For example, the persecution of Jehovah’s Witnesses, generated by their refusal to perform military service, brought 250 executions but almost five times that many simply never emerged from the camps in 1945.

Inevitably, the petty Freislers in the town interpreted the unfortunate man’s pleadings in “Volk-Treasonous” terms.  With indecent haste they arrested and summarily tried him.  Then they led him out into the morning light and hung him as an example to others – completely pointlessly as it turned out, because two or three days later the Americans rolled over the local Wehrmacht resistance and took control of the town.  As the front-line troops moved on, the occupying force moved in, and quickly learned the facts.  How it ended for those who took this man’s life I don’t recall hearing.  Until the numbers became unmanageable (which they very quickly did), anyone in any kind of authority in newly occupied towns was placed under military arrest and investigated by Allied officers.  If such people were found to be party members and willing agents of the NS system, they were subject to detention and denazification.  Some 90,000 were imprisoned.  But a great number more were handed derisory fines or just reclassified because without them at their stations the civil writ could not run.  The ideologues probably survived, as Germany did, without their ideology.

Well, this salutary tale of war psychosis holds meaning for nationalists.  Both the contestations of the ideologues and of their victim were patriotic and particular.  Both were informed by an existential desperation.  But there similarity ends.  The ideologues were moved by fealty and service to a proposition: NS and its values and symbolism.  Accordingly, they were dogmatic, idealistic, obsessive, conformist (in part, perhaps, through fear of censure from above), sectarian and absolutist enough to interpret opposition as an existential threat.  If I am not interpolating too much into this drama, their victim, meanwhile, was moved by a direct concern for the suffering and survival of the folk ... for the acting, feeling, living people.  Perhaps we can speculate that he was compassionate, humanistic, forward-thinking, pragmatic, realistic in every way but politically.  He certainly should have been all those things.

But at this point in my investigation of (let us not forget) the Rotherham Syndrome, I will set aside the unfortunate victim and focus on the propositionalism and absolutism of the ideologues, because these are abstracted directly from the Establishment ideology and mind of the time; and that has something to tell us about the Establishment ideology and mind in Britain (and elsewhere) today.

Power, the proposition, absolutism

National socialism is the determination to create a new man. There will no longer exist any individual arbitrary will, nor realms in which the individual belongs to himself. The time of happiness as a private matter is over.
A quote by Adolf Hitler, from Joachim C. Fest’s Hitler p.533.

To propose in respect to a people’s life and being … to build upon a confected image ... to concern oneself with Man as other than he is (and can only truly be) ... to conceive him as mere ideological desiderata, if the proposal is for one’s brother, and as fit only for slavery if it is not … to do this is to drive everything to the extremes, and to leave no space in the centre for the being itself.  It completely distorts the relationship of ruler to the ruled, rendering it conflicted and oppressive – one of a ministry over the people rather than to them.  The rulers becomes detached, the people objectified.  Re-introduce the rulers to the human truth, whatever that may be, and the new orthodoxy … the ground on which they stand … that part of the basis of their power which is non-political ... is cut away.  Confronted with such a challenge, absolutists will respond instantly and reflexively with oppression, more than likely violently so.  After all, did the challenger not place himself outside the fraternal category of the original proposition, when there can be no other?  And did he not make himself into an enemy of das Vaterland and all that is great and noble in it?  Did he not reduce himself to a being of no human account, and therefore quite fitted to the ultimate sanction?

In the end, absolutism always concerns itself with the dehumanisation and expunging of its opponents.  It knows no other way.

In the case of the NS hierarchy, and all the minions that laboured after it in the lower reaches of the state machine, the proposition was that the German people must approximate this model of the heroic man, supreme among men, not because Germans were heroes or supreme per se - they were not, they were just Germans, which is quite sufficient - but because a future of expansion by conquest and of idolating German mastery was the NS value nonpareil.  It was a Jewish ambition.

The imposition of a false philosophical model on the life of a people need not, of itself, have an obliterative action.  By their sheer permanence, our evolutionarily-derived characteristics (most fundamental among them the instinctive bias for fitness traits) can subjugate even radical progressive ideas.  Conservative forces in the culture can mitigate their worst effects.  Thus, notwithstanding the radical and reductive nature of its model of faith in salvation by God’s grace, or the violence and suppression which has marked long periods in its history, the fifteen centuries or more of Christianity had a muted effect on the functioning of the European racial type.  It was only when the historical force known as modernism was embraced by Rome in the Second Vatican Council (1962–1965), and self-indulgent decadence replaced morality, that Catholicism began to act from a universalism which is anti-white by default.

Likewise, only in the past two decades has Anglicanism completely thrown itself overboard in the pull of the modernist tide, finding in biblical authority a universalism that is actually a singular focus on the non-white Other, and unfailingly selecting against white Americans’ natural, shared interest in their own good.  Actually, it is worse than that.  There is simply no such principle in Anglican faith practise as “the good” or “bad” for whites as a people.  Good is only conceivable in terms of deeds done for all the “helpless”, “suffering” peoples dispossessing and replacing them:

K. That synod urge the Christian Reformed Church, through its assemblies and agencies, to affirm the need to reach out in hospitality and compassion to immigrant people and that synod further encourage churches to display this ministry concern through actions that include but are not limited to the following:

1. Prayerful study and discussion of issues related to the causes that motivate people to immigrate to other lands so as to deepen understanding of the circumstances under which many people live.

2. Mindful attention to the plight of both documented workers and people without status and to reach out in love to those who seek assistance for themselves and for their children in terms of financial assistance, food, clothing, and shelter.

In Britain, the Anglican congregation traipses along several steps behind its leaders, parts of it in genteel revolt.  The leaders are really just The Guardian at prayer.  Multiracialising Britain equals Christian love, even in the face of the most graphic evidence of what this “love” means to many, many thousands of the colonisers.  It is that simple.

The root of this religious betrayal is the conviction that “all human beings are of absolute equal and infinite value” in England as in heaven.  This is moral absolutism, ie, it is supposed true at all times for all people in all circumstances, and there can be no other truth.  Context, logic, and nuance are driven out.  False parallels arise, child-like thinking takes over.  Before you know it you get Archbishop of Canterbury The Most Reverend Justin Welby declaring:

“My grandfather came here from Germany as a Jew 100 years ago, a bit more. On my mother’s side they were Huguenots.

“The British are a very mixed bunch, there are very few of us who trace ourselves back to the pre-Roman times.”

So because he had immigrant forebears … ah, no that would be self-referential and, anyway, a non-sequitur.  So, erm … yes, because hardly any British people can trace their ancient tribal origins, there is no difference in kind, moral cause, or in right between ethnic Britons on their own soil and anybody else who happens to wash up one fine morning at Heathrow Airport.

Well, that’s not quite true, because there is one significant difference.  Welby’s Christian flock must effortlessly conclude that during an aggressive colonisation of white lands by non-whites, it is always the white victim who, should he dissent, is to be condemned:

“And what we are seeing is an upsurge in minor racist anti-Semitic, anti-Islamic, anti-foreigner, xenophobic …comments being made, things being said, which are for people who come from those backgrounds seriously uncomfortable and really quite frightening.”

I suppose we should be grateful for progress.  During the witch-burning hysteria, which peaked from the mid-16th to the mid-17th centuries, the same strict, absolutist thinking produced Malleus Maleficarum and the bull of Pope Innocent VIII to “hammer” the thousands of women who were riding through the air on broomsticks every night to copulate with the devil and bring down God’s church.  In every age, the projection of evil onto an Other is the moral facilitator of evil itself.

The added dimension of ethnic conflict

So we come to the political realm.  As with Christianity, for three centuries, classical liberalism’s Lockeatine misapprehensions had little really negative effect on the capacity of European peoples - certainly those living in Europe - to stand upon their own existential ground, to self-identify and self-prefer, and to protect and preserve themselves.  Even the upheaval and violence of 1789, in which 40,000 died, did not disturb Nature’s equilibrium (the demise of the Bourbons actually led to romantic nationalism in an age when no formulation for a politics of ethnic interests existed).  In truth, revolutionary liberalism could not greatly damage the French people because the fissure it generated was intra-ethnic and not inter-ethnic.  The same was broadly true of the communism of post-revolutionary Russia, which Stalin deftly attired with nationalist sentiments as the Battle of Stalingrad (23rd August 1942 – 2nd February 1943) sapped the life out of the Red Army.

To repeat, it is no easy thing for conventional philosophy and philosophically-derived politics to overthrow the will to life.  It does not readily cause human meaning and human value to be withdrawn from the subject people and to be invested only in the racial or ethnic Other.  On the contrary, that meaning and value has its point of genesis in the evolutionary process ... in the natural selection of traits for fitness.  It is an amour propre made collective, and comes to my mind, at least, every time I hear the words “positive discrimination”.  Thanks to the work of Frank Salter, thinking nationalists in the English-speaking world tend to characterise it today in terms of genetic interests: the investment one has in those groups in which the greatest number of one’s genes are present, beginning with family and decreasing outward through tribe, ethnic group, sub-race, race, species, and, eventually, all organic life.

But thinking born of ethnic conflict does not deal in this humane and properly universalistic coinage.  It is singular in its moral focus, adrenal in its action and urgency.  It is more virile than mere liberal nostra.  It outlasts and out-punches them.  It must, for its cause is also the cause of Life – for that is Nature’s constant - but life for itself at any cost to the life of the Other.  It is unwavering, absolute in its commitment to that and, in extremis, knows no conscience in its decision.

That is the character which the official mind, the Establishment mind in the West, has taken on and, of course, it has taken it on as an extended phenotype of the racial Other, especially the Jewish Other.  To understand how this might have been possible, we need to consider the crisis of the European elites in the aftermath of war and in the decades which followed; how moral and intellectual failure allowed the Jewish proposition free rein; how economism succeeded to the estate of the only effective measure of Man; and how the absolutism of the New Left, the cultural left - the revolutionary left of our time – worked itself out in the official mind.

That will be the subject of the fourth and final part of this essay.



Comments:


1

Posted by hooked Salmon on Wed, 08 Apr 2015 21:18 | #

Amazing piece until the bitter end when you are like a salmon hooked through the nose by the word “right” as if it has some property which you cannot resist. Pathetic blood trickling by the cold wriggling specimen that’s had its run..

I’d ask you to explain this to me, but I’m afraid I might rather you not do…

English unions must have been murder, impervious bastards with a license to kill and a reversed sense of justice, merit and genetic union..

 


2

Posted by Guessedworker on Wed, 08 Apr 2015 22:27 | #

Daniel, the “right” in question in the only use of the word in this piece is that of indigenous right.  I’m not talking about the seating arrangements for the revolutionary parliament of 1789, or any general distribution of political sentiment.

On that score, however, I have no particular investment in the use of the terms “left” and “right”.  They refer to a political universe I escaped a long time ago.  We all have.  However, when I am not talking to other nationalists, I try talk in terms that people understand.  It doesn’t mean I see nationalism in those terms.  On the contrary, these days I see its axialities as being existential <> palingenetic and conservative <> progressive.  I believe all our thinking is contained within the space these axes afford.


3

Posted by Graham_Lister on Wed, 08 Apr 2015 23:15 | #

Interesting essay GW. Look forward to the final part. Lots of interesting things to be teased out on the nature of ideological zealotry plus the individual, social & cultural basis for mass conformity even in the face of brutal realities (such as in your WW2 example).


4

Posted by DanielS on Thu, 09 Apr 2015 00:05 | #

Posted by Guessedworker on April 08, 2015, 05:27 PM | #

Daniel, the “right” in question in the only use of the word in this piece is that of indigenous right.  I’m not talking about the seating arrangements for the revolutionary parliament of 1789, or any general distribution of political sentiment.

I’m not talking about 1789 either, or seating arrangements at The French Court.

Nor is it a trivial matter; it rather sorts out the unions of people in ordinary language - indigenously: and that is, of necessity, left.

It is a disservice to speak otherwise.

No less the fool of Jews than Kevin MacDonald for all the otherwise good you two speak.

On that score, however, I have no particular investment in the use of the terms “left” and “right”. 

Good, so don’t invest in identification with the “right”, it is where the Jews want you to be.

They refer to a political universe I escaped a long time ago.  We all have. 

In original tradition of the French court and in subsequent abuse by Jewish journalese (as Neil calls it), but not in organizational utility - to “escape” that is to be flushed out from accountability to our people just as the YKW and the rogue objectivists would have it. 

However, when I am not talking to other nationalists, I try talk in terms that people understand. 

I understand you. They do. All the more reason, as you are so articulate otherwise. It is such a good piece that you are in a perfect position to defy that one essential move, of the Jews, that has had our people fighting against what is best for us, our organization in our own own interests - the White left.  They/we will understand

It doesn’t mean I see nationalism in those terms.  On the contrary, these days I see its axialities as being existential <> palingenetic and conservative <> progressive.  I believe all our thinking is contained within the space these axes afford.

The right always refers to people who want to believe they are acting on the basis of pure facts, above social group classification, accountability and ecology thereof.

This was an amazing piece of yours, I am honored to have a piece there beside it. I would be in remiss to not try to encourage you to dodge this last Jewish trick. They don’t want you to call yourself left for a reason. They’d be happy with a self designation of “right” or “the terms are meaningless” for a reason.

Finally, and very importantly, the Hitlerists would love to claim the mantle of the White Left. They will if you/we let them and then the glow of “understanding” will return to the faces of the people for the wrong leaders, not for true leaders concerned for our people in decent ecological relation, but imposters.

It is important to claim and use the organizational function of the left as it provides empathic background (care for the people), conversational reception and the opportunity to get it right, with the corrections for justice as you see fit and need for your interlocutor to understand.

Don’t let the Hitlerists have it. They will be happy to take it and it will misdirect people to their sake, blind to his ihhuman, a-racial, right wing underpinnings.

It was a big part of what made Hitler popular and it was dishonest stewardship of the people taken by a fundamentally right-wing man.


5

Posted by Graham_Lister on Thu, 09 Apr 2015 00:18 | #

I too think the terms left and right are pretty much bankrupt, but sadly nearly everyone thinks in such terms even if they tend to be arguing about very minor differences within liberal ideology.

Speaking of which do you think this is a left-wing or right-wing quote?

About modernity in general—about what it is that has made us moderns no longer stuff for the social—I doubt there is anything new to say. The topic, like the thing itself, is exhausted: not over (never over), just tired to death. All that needs restating here . . . is that the arrival of societies oriented toward the future, as opposed to a past of origins, heroisms, established ways, is a fact of history not nature, happening in one place and time, with complex, contingent causes.

Personal religion (that strange mutation) and double-entry book-keeping being two of them. And by modernity is meant very much more than a set of techniques or a pattern of residence and consumption: the word intends an ethos, a habitus, a way of being a human subject. I go back to the sketch I gave in a previous book:

‘Modernity’ means contingency. It points to a social order which has turned from the worship of ancestors and past authorities to the pursuit of a projected future—of goods, pleasures, freedoms, forms of control over nature, new worlds of information. The process was accompanied by a terrible emptying and sanitizing of the imagination. For without the anchorage of tradition, without the imagined and vivid intricacies of kinship, without the past living on (most often monstrously) in the detail of everyday life, meaning became a scarce social commodity—if by ‘meaning’ we have in mind agreed-on and instituted forms of value and understanding, orders implicit in things, stories and images in which a culture is able to crystallize its sense of the struggle with the realm of necessity and the realities of pain and death. The phrase Max Weber borrowed from Schiller, ‘the disenchantment of the world’—gloomy yet in my view exultant, with its promise of a disabused dwelling in the world as it is—still sums up this side of modernity best . . .

‘Secularization’ is a nice technical word for this blankness. It means specialization and abstraction, as part of the texture of ordinary doings; social life driven by a calculus of large-scale statistical chances, with everyone accepting or resenting a high level of risk; time and space turned into variables in that same calculus, both of them saturated by ‘information’ and played with endlessly, monotonously, on nets and screens; the de-skilling of everyday life (deference to experts and technicians in more and more of the microstructure of the self); available, invasive, haunting expertise; the chronic revision of everything in the light of ‘studies’.

This does no more than block in the outlines: descriptively, there would be many things to add. But from the present point of view only two motifs need developing. First, that the essence of modernity, from the scripture-reading spice-merchant to the Harvard iPod banker sweating in the gym, is a new kind of isolate obedient ‘individual’ with technical support to match. The printed book, the spiritual exercise, coffee and Le Figaro, Time Out, Twitter, tobacco (or its renunciation), the heaven of infinite apps. Second, that all this apparatus is a kind or extension of clockwork. Individuality is held together by a fiction of full existence to come. . .


6

Posted by DanielS on Thu, 09 Apr 2015 00:39 | #

Posted by Graham_Lister on April 08, 2015, 07:18 PM | #

I too think the terms left and right are pretty much bankrupt,

It is not bankrupt at all, it pays handsomely. Like a cat, it lands on its feet every time once you get past the aversion to identifying as “the left”, an aversion which I completely understand.


but sadly nearly everyone thinks in such terms even if they tend to be arguing about very minor differences within liberal ideology.

Well, the fact that as unionized peoples it readily sorts us from liberals is one of the major benefits to calling ourselves “left.”


Speaking of which do you think this is a left-wing or right-wing quote?

Let me have a look.


  About modernity in general—about what it is that has made us moderns no longer stuff for the social—I doubt there is anything new to say. The topic, like the thing itself, is exhausted: not over (never over), just tired to death. All that needs restating here . . . is that the arrival of societies oriented toward the future, as opposed to a past of origins, heroisms, established ways, is a fact of history not nature, happening in one place and time, with complex, contingent causes.

Well, I don’t think the public is sufficiently articulate of what modernity is and why it is bad to say that the topic is exhausted, but the sources of which this statement speaks does make a good point.

Is that right or left? I would say that it is of a people and therefore that it is left. It could be treated as “right” but then it would rupture the human ecological system and instigate its dissolution.

  Personal religion (that strange mutation) and double-entry book-keeping being two of them. And by modernity is meant very much more than a set of techniques or a pattern of residence and consumption: the word intends an ethos, a habitus, a way of being a human subject.

left

 
I go back to the sketch I gave in a previous book:

  ‘Modernity’ means contingency. It points to a social order which has turned from the worship of ancestors and past authorities to the pursuit of a projected future—of goods, pleasures, freedoms, forms of control over nature, new worlds of information. The process was accompanied by a terrible emptying and sanitizing of the imagination. For without the anchorage of tradition, without the imagined and vivid intricacies of kinship, without the past living on (most often monstrously) in the detail of everyday life, meaning became a scarce social commodity—if by ‘meaning’ we have in mind agreed-on and instituted forms of value and understanding, orders implicit in things, stories and images in which a culture is able to crystallize its sense of the struggle with the realm of necessity and the realities of pain and death. The phrase Max Weber borrowed from Schiller, ‘the disenchantment of the world’—gloomy yet in my view exultant, with its promise of a disabused dwelling in the world as it is—still sums up this side of modernity best . . .

Beautiful statement and should be allowed to stand unprovoked by anything that I might pose clumsily beside it, but…

Left.


  ‘Secularization’ is a nice technical word for this blankness. It means specialization and abstraction, as part of the texture of ordinary doings; social life driven by a calculus of large-scale statistical chances, with everyone accepting or resenting a high level of risk; time and space turned into variables in that same calculus, both of them saturated by ‘information’ and played with endlessly, monotonously, on nets and screens; the de-skilling of everyday life (deference to experts and technicians in more and more of the microstructure of the self); available, invasive, haunting expertise; the chronic revision of everything in the light of ‘studies’.

  This does no more than block in the outlines: descriptively, there would be many things to add. But from the present point of view only two motifs need developing. First, that the essence of modernity, from the scripture-reading spice-merchant to the Harvard iPod banker sweating in the gym, is a new kind of isolate obedient ‘individual’ with technical support to match. The printed book, the spiritual exercise, coffee and Le Figaro, Time Out, Twitter, tobacco (or its renunciation), the heaven of infinite apps. Second, that all this apparatus is a kind or extension of clockwork. Individuality is held together by a fiction of full existence to come. . .

Leftist critique - it points to alienation and a social solution. It’s good, coming from the right place and having proper targets of criticism.


7

Posted by }lMLe5%o:@'#VH3 on Thu, 09 Apr 2015 14:31 | #

DanielS: “No less the fool of Jews than Kevin MacDonald for all the otherwise good you two speak.”

What does this mean?


8

Posted by White Left on Thu, 09 Apr 2015 15:31 | #

It means that when they designate the enemy “the left” and our people “the right” they are falling into the Jew’s trap.

“A left” is a unionization of peoples.

If you were to say that a unionization, a “left”, of other peoples is being deployed against us, I would accept that.

If you were to say that their organizing proprietors were Jewish interests, Marxist in origin and call them a Red Left, I would accept that.

That they organize (“unionize”) various groups against White men, whether feminists, blacks, gays, etc.. might suggest the transitional term “liberal leftist” as provisional, since their interests are unionized, they are leftist with an agenda of liberalizing our borders (which our liberals are supposed to accept).

But none of this is a unionization of Whites - thus, none of it is a “White left”

Therefore it is inappropriate to call our enemies “THE Left.”

It is not our left, which would be the organization of our people in obligation, privileges and rewards, in a sense of accountability to borders, citizenship and genetic/social capital.

It keeps an eye on would-be elite traitors and rank and file traitors as well, while giving them incentive to participate (because the system is meaningful, accountable, rewarding and relatively fair).

There is probably very little, if anything, that either GW or MacDonald would have to sacrifice in what they seek and even represent by designating themselves of the White left.

But they would immediately designate themselves ones of the people, who cared for the people. While setting theirs and our sights on our most powerful and destructive adversaries.


Having watched Jewish interests operate, I am confident they want us to identify as right wing, if not far right wing in order to scare even our own people and keep us from organizing. Scaring them for good reason because there is no accountability in the right and keeping them from organizing because the right’s objectivist quest is inherently unstable for its reflexive effects as they continually rupture contextual order.  While the left is stabilizing it can be too stable - but that is the more easily correctable problem.


9

Posted by Guessedworker on Thu, 09 Apr 2015 16:01 | #

Daniel: If you were to say that it organizing proprietors were Jewish interests, Marxist in origin and call them a Red Left, I would accept that.

I actually referred to:

the New Left, the cultural left - the revolutionary left of our time

... so how is that inappropriate, by your rules?

I think also that the association of “the right” with individualism and “the left” with socialisation is questionable.  “The right” is the house of tradition, patriotism, social conservatism as well as economism and hyper-individualism.  For every “right-wing” libertarian there is a “left-wing” anarchist; and we should not forget that the final product of the radical “left-wing” paradigm is not endless socialisation but the unfettered will.  “The left” just consists of naturally bossy bastards who take it unto themselves to direct “the masses” towards the “breaking of all the bounds” in the manner it sees fit for them.

Both terms are bankrupt.  Perhaps we should speak of white consciousness instead.


10

Posted by DanielS on Thu, 09 Apr 2015 17:28 | #

Posted by Guessedworker on April 09, 2015, 11:01 AM | #

Daniel: If you were to say that it organizing proprietors were Jewish interests, Marxist in origin and call them a Red Left, I would accept that.

I actually referred to:

  the New Left, the cultural left - the revolutionary left of our time

... so how is that inappropriate, by your rules?


Ok. Putting “New” there helps.  But we still need a bit more prerogative to distinguish a leftist perspective as being in our interests, thus I am arguing against the general tendency to call “the left” our “enemy.”

I think also that the association of “the right” with individualism and “the left” with socialisation is questionable. 

It might be questionable to some but those misunderstandings are easily correctable and it winds up nicely hanging together looked at this way. We are like union organizers/representatives of our social groups.

“The right” is the house of tradition, patriotism, social conservatism

It has had those associations, but there is nothing contradictory between unionization of the peoples and tradition, patriotism and social conservatism. On the contrary, it is means by which these can be operationalized.


as well as economism and hyper-individualism. 

Well these, along with objecivism tends to be where it becomes destabilizing, obstructive of organization and operationalization.

For every “right-wing” libertarian there is a “left-wing” anarchist;

A left wing anarchist is a contradiction of terms.

As I am teasing out its common denominator, the term left is about unionization of the peoples.

Whereas anarchy is about overthrowing the overarching systemic operation.

and we should not forget that the final product of the radical “left-wing” paradigm is not endless socialisation but the unfettered will.

“radical left wing” is the Jewish project, it is not White Leftism, not a White union; it is Liberalism as it applies to Whites (along with “unfettered will” in its perverted Jewish form)

  “The left” just consists of naturally bossy bastards who take it unto themselves to direct “the masses” towards the “breaking all the bounds” in the manner it sees fit for them.

Well, the Jewish left and Jewish thinkers would direct and prescribe liberalism to break all bounds under the guise of leftism and that is the trick to be undone.

One of the few things that we are trying to be particularly bossy about is our borders. If you want to procreate with non-Europeans you are out of the union. We cannot boss people into breeding as we wish, but neither can they boss us into accepting the consequences of their choices.That’s one prime example. Therefore etc.

Both terms are bankrupt.  Perhaps we should speak of white consciousness instead.

When I see the way White left consistently functions as an organizational device of our people, shows the means to provide incentive for our people to participate in their interest and defense while keeping an eye on traitors, particularly the most potentially destructive traitors, it is far from bankrupt.

Other than having to take a moment for a brief explanation to anyone who was to ask what you mean by White left? You would lose nothing of what you seek and gain a consistently functioning organizational tool and systematization.

We would have the attraction of social compassion and cooperation and we would lose the right wing stigma of objectivist indifference to social accountability.

I take it you want to create a union of English peoples.


11

Posted by Graham_Lister on Thu, 09 Apr 2015 22:54 | #

One of the many reasons I am not a ‘right-winger’ or a Tory.

How British Jews built Thatcherism see http://www.haaretz.com/opinion/how-british-jews-built-thatcherism.premium-1.516009


12

Posted by canuck on Sat, 11 Apr 2015 12:04 | #

Excellent essay. But it’s not hard for the non-brainwashed to recognise an invasion when they see it. The propositions are simple:

a. The colonisers are NOT English, nor can they ever become English, because to be English one must be white (not that being white is enough, obviously).

b. Because the colonisers are forever alien, and because still more objectionably they are allowed citizenship and to vote, as more are admitted, their political influence must grow.

c. Eventually, when the natives are outnumbered by the colonisers, the conquest will be complete. Even if the colonisers never brutalize the natives, the latter are still at the mercy of the former. That is what conquest is (sometimes brutal, sometimes less so).

So, do the natives have the moral right to resist colonisation? Really, what idiot would think they do NOT have that right? Some Christian who says welcome the invader is less a Christian than a traitor (or perhaps only a fool, but who cares finally?).


13

Posted by craius on Sat, 11 Apr 2015 18:21 | #

a. The colonisers are NOT English, nor can they ever become English,

It’s not easy to argue this on historical grounds is it?

The native Britons weren’t “English” when colonized by the Anglo-Saxons-Jutes. They in turn had Normans and other Scandinavians launch invasions… And those are just the larger scale elements. Throughout the history, there’s always been pockets of foreigners come in and become bonafide “English”. That’s the nature of every large Kingdom.

I mean, people instinctively know what’s happening now isn’t right (is a bridge too far) but still, there isn’t a clear way to prove this is there?

 

 


14

Posted by pre-1948 Native English on Sat, 11 Apr 2015 18:33 | #

GW has made cogent arguments on the basis of the pre-1948 English native born population of England being definitively English.

Incidentally, regarding “the borders” to be defended, one fundamental border is there, regarding the native English people as defined.


15

Posted by Psychopaths' method of power / rule on Wed, 15 Apr 2015 09:30 | #

Mike Cross - Mechanisms of Guilt, Consumerism & Low Birth Rates

Mike Cross is the author of the Freedom from Conscience book series that discusses psychopaths and their relation to politics, society and personal relationships


http://www.redicecreations.com/radio/2015/04/RIR-150410.php


16

Posted by Non Sequitur on Wed, 15 Apr 2015 18:16 | #

Non Sequitur: they don’t want you to say it, therefore, it must be true and good -


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_FAGTHm7yiQ


17

Posted by Meme weeds on Thu, 16 Apr 2015 08:09 | #

Jews creating meme weeds

The Truth Will Live is a Blonde Jewish, Neoreactionary, Iconoclast, Youtuber from the Midwest.

Topics include:

The Torah Talk Show she co-host with Luke Ford that relates modern day issues to Jewish Religious Texts

She likes to read Radix, the Gottfried (meme weedest) tutored site; the weed of “the left is liberal and universal” being a gnarly old weed that they nastily cling-to.

She also endorses Jared Taylor

In addition to that, in this show Stark (who is guilty of fostering this weed) and “Truth will Live” also create a false middle and extremes regarding White treatment of non-Whites.

“One extreme is to do the Christian services bit, helping Africans to no end. The other extreme is to not care.” She says that is wrong and extreme because they cannot take care of themselves well enough and it is the White man’s burden to help them.

She suggests that people will hate Whites if we leave others alone - “only care about ourselves” -

That is NOT true. The other extreme is to exploit and kill them; for that, they will hate us.

She is apparently projecting the Jewish meaning of “only caring about themselves” onto Whites..

In “a conversation she had with a black friend, they discussed how Whites would lose their identifying characteristic if they are not universalists.” ..... ? I guess you have to be black to understand how a system can be self destructive by definition and in perpetuity… or Jewish to try to get people to believe that..

Jewess Alana Mercer was promoting the same bit about this being insurmountable White nature.
.....................

In line with that:

Slattery flattery of Duke: “the left has always been universal”


How can a union be universal? It is exclusionary by definition. You are in the union or you are not. There are people who are in the union and people who are not.

For that matter, how can a union be liberal?

Is it not conservative of member interests?


18

Posted by internationally criminalized antisemitism sought on Thu, 16 Apr 2015 16:05 | #

Israel Launches Initiative to Have Antisemitism Recognized as an International Crime

Attorney Alan Baker, Israel’s former ambassador to Canada and a legal adviser to the Foreign Ministry wants antisemitism to be treated as an international crime. In a new Israeli initiative, Baker is proposing that international courts be used to combat global hate crimes against Jews.

Baker has drafted an international convention calling on the “Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Antisemitism.” The Convention, which is drafted in the manner of classical international anti-terrorism treaties and those for other crimes, will allow countries to cooperate and exchange information with others, in order to extradite those suspected of acts that meet the definition of antisemitism, Israel’s NRG reported in Wednesday.


19

Posted by Helvena on Fri, 17 Apr 2015 01:05 | #

Fest believes in the gas chambers.  The man is dishonest.  If he were an honest man he would have pointed out that the bolsheviks were mass murders whereas the National Socialist were a government trying to keep control in a very dangerous neighborhood.  There were NO National Socialist mass murders!  Fest worked for the americans after the war which means in his twisted mind american propaganda was just fine.  Guesswork, you can thank the Fests of the world for the grooming of your little peasant girls today.


20

Posted by skinned their knees on Fri, 17 Apr 2015 05:13 | #

You certainly are a die-hard, Helvena: “No NS mass murderers, just playing a rough neighborhood.”


21

Posted by helvena on Sat, 18 Apr 2015 00:36 | #

And you have been listening to the winners for too long wingnut.


22

Posted by the nutzies have spoken on Sat, 18 Apr 2015 07:54 | #

Since the internet has opened the gates to hear from the losers, we’ve heard enough from them, in WN - it is about all we hear: their incontinence, their Jewish-like unanimity rising to near definitive representation of WN (as dishonest and with evil intentions); with that, they are turning normal and healthy people away from the most normal and healthy cause - that is defending our interests, not only the evil, supremacist interests of Nutzies.


23

Posted by A grammar of Optima contra Bowden on Sat, 18 Apr 2015 11:29 | #

Brilliant polemic by Jonathan Bowden, critiquing the massive and profound psychological effects of cultural Marxism on Western Europe and The US.

Courtesy of Counter-Currents

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aR4MvD9IEAE

The accompanying imagery is well chosen too.

Very worthwhile, but for all its brilliance, it does not refute my hypothesis, as his would falsely presume (along with other false presumptions) that a leveling to the weak and defenseless is implied by corrections of Aristotlean optima.


And while it is true that accountability can be taken too far as it was in Marxist controlled countries; and in its “soft” totalitarian form in The West.. whereof the PC mind control of which he speaks…. there are other examples and preparatory grounds for accountability taken too far, as in scientistic objectivism and the intimidation implied in Christianity: ” If you ... Jesus said that whoever looks on someone with lust has already committed”

.....let alone intimidation through fear of hell, etc.

I have broached this matter of the possibility of accountability being taken too far (as in the case of intimidation to the point of self censorship), but have not gotten anyone to join me in discussion yet.

Nevertheless, it would seem that the matter could be mediated by rules of cultural norms: we do not call people to account for x, y and z. We might for p and q.


24

Posted by Importance of Naming The Red Left on Sat, 18 Apr 2015 14:03 | #

....and his argument would only be made more useful and coherent by identifying his grievance as being with the hard and soft Red/Marxist/Jewish controlled Left.

As opposed to The White Left(s) which they set liberalism against, to instigate scabbing and bribing of elitist betrayal.

It seems that it sometimes takes some very smart people (in the logical sense) to function on and around premises with flaws.

It can work in their favor for a time, as in the case of gentrification, whereupon perhaps some of the slower and less fit cannot cope with the means to make enough money to enter.

However, among other problems with that game is that the Red Left (read as synonymous with the anti-White left) has become adept (as one might, when threatened with extinction) at displaying heart, if not pandering to the disenfranchised; and with that, have been adept at equipping the disenfranchised with critiques to bust the happenstance unions of these “objectivist” elitists.

Moreover, a union of unions of the White Left would provide means to incentivize loyalty of otherwise disenfranchised Whites to defend Whites*, whereas they would otherwise be incentivized by the Red Left to betray Whites.

* Even to defend the salient differences and just rewards of those who are doing better, particularly as their excellence helps foster and defend the overall pattern of the union.


25

Posted by helvena on Sat, 18 Apr 2015 14:57 | #

Wingnut, you and other “healthy”, “normal” people have been so conditioned by allied propaganda that any defense of the Reich, meaning any killing that happen is assumed to be mass killing and not defensive.  Please tell me which incident you consider mass killing by the NS. And then provide me with the Allied equivalent to Dunkirk.


26

Posted by DanielS on Sat, 18 Apr 2015 15:00 | #

Numbnutz, I don’t play cards with card game tricksters.  “Look here, not there”


27

Posted by helvena on Sun, 19 Apr 2015 11:50 | #

LOL, you’re out gunned playing in a schoolyard.  Why don’t you admit what you’re really worried about is offending the jews, not the normal, everyday joe but the the jew.  You’re try to keep the back door of white nationalism open for the jew.  You’re making a Faustian bargain.


28

Posted by DanielS on Sun, 19 Apr 2015 12:15 | #


Posted by helvena on April 19, 2015, 06:50 AM | #

LOL, you’re out gunned playing in a schoolyard.  Why don’t you admit what you’re really worried about is offending the jews, not the normal, everyday joe but the the jew.  You’re try to keep the back door of white nationalism open for the jew.  You’re making a Faustian bargain.

How the hell can you be so dishonest? Merely scroll down this page and say that I am trying to not offend Jews? Or that I am “worried” about doing so?

I make no bargain with them. I don’t need to. I am on the moral high ground.

There is not an open door to Jews here. I have been clear on that and remain clear. It is obvious to all but someone as insane as you are and only deniable in your Jewy chutzpah.


29

Posted by helvena on Sun, 19 Apr 2015 13:19 | #

Simmer down DanielS.  I would appreciate in the future if when you reply to me you use your regular handle instead of made up ones because it does influence my tone if I know to whom I’m speaking.  I only guessed that Numbnutz was me.  I am a regular person.  In my high school and college years I was a philo-semite.  It wasn’t until I became aware of the Palestinian situation that I started investigating the WWII German perspective and that has brought me to where I’m today.  Sane and clear thinking, thank very much.  The German interests were/are OUR interests, be very, very clear on that.  As long as the jews can point to the mythical evil nazi, the racist, they have a very strong emotional weapon.  Tell the truth and their weapon melts away.  It certainly doesn’t work on me anymore.

Political labeling is useless today.  This is one of the tools of the marxist and jews, to reduce us to Babel so that we can’t communicate even when we want to.


30

Posted by DanielS on Sun, 19 Apr 2015 14:17 | #

I am calm and comfortable. I like all Europeans, advocate them as a genus and in the maintenance of their discreet species. I had a conversation with a guy from Cornwall the other day. He’s been in Poland for over a decade and confirmed my experience - he’s never heard a Polish person conversing about how they did not like Germans, etc.

German interests are OUR interests, and among OUR interests, yes. However, the Nazis were a different matter: they displayed an affectation something like an allergic reaction. But they were not only victims, they were not perfectly innocent and their plans were not perfectly conceived. Yes, they were provoked. Yes, they circulated some good ideas and had their reasons and its valid to mention these things. But it is not valid to try to pretend that they were perfectly innocent and perfectly well founded, nor something to rally behind. Their platform is to be rejected on balance as too narrow, supremacist and conventionally militaristic etc. We need to work together not against each other. That is impossible where people are lording Hitler’s world view.

On the other hand, there doesn’t need to be any conflict in coordination of other Europeans with advocacy of Germans and German nationalism in Germany and in German diaspora.

Finally, what you say here isn’t true:

“Political labeling is useless today.  This is one of the tools of the marxist and jews, to reduce us to Babel so that we can’t communicate even when we want to”

It is the confusion of terms that the Jews use to keep us disorganized, not the clarifications that I propose and you willfully ignore and obfuscate with contentions to impose Duke and Hitler.


31

Posted by helvena on Sun, 19 Apr 2015 18:31 | #

Well, we’re narrowing the gap and that’s good.  I own a book by Burton H. Klein GERMANY’S ECONOMIC PREPARATIONS FOR WAR.  In it Klein makes the case that Hitler was more concerned with butter than guns because the economy was geared toward consumer goods NOT rearmaments.  Once war was inevitable(1939) matters changed. The Germans were a discipled army.  There was no gratuitous killing, they wouldn’t waste the time or effort for it, let alone the dishonor of it.  They had military objectives and they planned for the most effective way to achieve them.  Were they choirboys NO, they were fighting a war and they did it with efficiency, effect and honor, UNLIKE the allies.  I will not deny the Germans the truth to soothe the feelings of allied soldiers that committed fratricide because they were lied to by their treacherous jewish governments.  Hitler was right.  It’s about time people like you accept this, lick your wounds and realize there is no dealing with the devil.  Read A. James Gregor and he’ll put to bed this “Nazi supremacy” propaganda you’re spouting.

For christ’s sake DS you and guessworker can’t even on which “ism” means what. 

Now, I’m going to go and enjoy the beautiful Spring weather we’re having. bye, bye


32

Posted by DanielS on Sun, 19 Apr 2015 19:23 | #

Well, we’re narrowing the gap and that’s good.  I own a book by Burton H. Klein GERMANY’S ECONOMIC PREPARATIONS FOR WAR.  In it Klein makes the case that Hitler was more concerned with butter than guns because the economy was geared toward consumer goods NOT rearmaments.  Once war was inevitable(1939) matters changed. The Germans were a discipled army.  There was no gratuitous killing, they wouldn’t waste the time or effort for it, let alone the dishonor of it.  They had military objectives and they planned for the most effective way to achieve them.  Were they choirboys NO, they were fighting a war and they did it with efficiency, effect and honor, UNLIKE the allies.  I will not deny the Germans the truth to soothe the feelings of allied soldiers that committed fratricide because they were lied to by their treacherous jewish governments.  Hitler was right.  It’s about time people like you accept this, lick your wounds and realize there is no dealing with the devil.  Read A. James Gregor and he’ll put to bed this “Nazi supremacy” propaganda you’re spouting.

For christ’s sake DS you and guessworker can’t even on which “ism” means what.

Now, I’m going to go and enjoy the beautiful Spring weather we’re having. bye, bye

I understand that you are geared to believe that Hitler was perfect but he wasn’t. He wasn’t right enough. He was a catastrophe. You don’t understand that the nationalists between Germany and The Soviet Union (e.g., Roman Dmowski) were aware of the J.Q. and sufficiently anti-Soviet as well. It is not convenient, popular and profitable to apprise people like yourself of the outlook of these nations between Germany and Soviet Russia. Nevertheless, I am glad for your enjoyment of this Spring day.


33

Posted by helvena on Mon, 20 Apr 2015 12:52 | #

Germany isn’t any worse off today having been under Hitler than the usa is having been ruled by joosevelt or england is today by having had booshill or france by petain.  How on earth can you say Hitler was a catastrophe?  He at least had the balls to fight back, to resist?  BTW, isn’t that what this site is about?  Why do we have to give our location now when we want to post a comment?

Poland has had a sad history, far too much jewish influence and lack of foresight.


34

Posted by DanielS on Mon, 20 Apr 2015 14:43 | #

If Hitler hadn’t so vastly overcompensated on the racialist bit, then we’d all have a hell of a lot better chance to make proper use of discriminatory classifications on behalf of our peoples; instead it has become a taboo as “racism” and people have been understandably scared-off for what that nut, Hitler, tried to pull-off; making a taboo of racial discrimination in addition to the 55 million dead as a result of his aggrandizing plans are catastrophe enough.

As far as Poland having “a sad history”, its history is not particularly well known in the west. Many glorious moments and elegant people. One of the saddest parts of its history is how Nazi Germany (and prior German regimes, as well), tried to wipe-out Polish history and culture - as in the planned destruction of Warsaw. But you know, I really don’t want to talk about this.

There are plenty of places to go for people who want to put a positive spin on Hitler: I hear Jay going into his typically perverted bit, talking to Don Black right now over at Stormtrooper radio, always this BS about how perfect and innocent Hitler was. Renegade, same BS, Daily Stormer, plenty of places pretending to care about the truth, but only wanting to put a halo over Herr Hitler. There ought to be at least one place that actually does care for the truth. Let it be here.


What’s really sad is not being able to be rid of people who can’t see Hitler’s obvious inappropriateness to efforts to coordinate European interests (Table Talk is enough for any normal person to reject him), move beyond him and get to so many important things to discuss; one example that you are now in the process of burying: the matter of accountability and where accounts requested may or may not be taken too far: that is the kind of thing we should be talking about Not why I don’t like Hitler.


35

Posted by helvena on Mon, 20 Apr 2015 17:06 | #

I’m sure there were happy moments and elegant people but that doesn’t erase the fact that Poland is a battle ground.

Daniels, you need to get the jew out of your head.  How much of Poland was left after the soviets occupied Poland? Have they ever really gotten out??? Are they still teaching in Poland that the Germans did the Katyn massacre?  You can thank the jewish resistance for the burning of Warsaw.  (If the Germans has been in to burning cities they would have burned Paris.) These same jewish resisters cheered the soviet entrance into Poland and abused the defeated Polish soldiers. General Juliusz Rómmel of the Polish Army issued an unauthorised order to treat them like an ally; before it was too late….The Red Army achieved its targets, vastly outnumbering Polish resistance and capturing some 230,000 Polish prisoners of war.[4][18] The Soviet government ostensibly annexed the territory under its control and in November 1939 made the 13.5 million Polish citizens under occupation into new subjects of the Soviet Union. The Soviets immediately began a campaign of mass persecution in the newly acquired areas. This included the NKVD-staged elections,[19] conducted in the atmosphere of fear and terror,[19][20] the results of which the Soviets used to legitimize its annexation of eastern Poland. The Soviets quelled opposition through summary executions and thousands of arrests.[21][22] The Soviet Union sent hundreds of thousands of people from this region to Siberia and other remote parts of the Soviet Union in four major waves of deportation between 1939 and 1941 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soviet_invasion_of_Poland  Remember the role of the jews in the Soviet.

The fact remains that Poland would be in a healthier condition today had the Germans won.


36

Posted by helvena on Mon, 20 Apr 2015 17:18 | #

As long as the second world war is brought up time and time again by the jews it is in ALL of our interests to get the facts straight and the truth out.  If you have a problem with that DanielS then it is just that, your problem.  It will be a lot easier to assess accountability if we have the facts straight.


37

Posted by Table Talk should end the talk on Mon, 20 Apr 2015 18:01 | #

I’m sure there were happy moments and elegant people but that doesn’t erase the fact that Poland is a battle ground.

Daniels, you need to get the jew out of your head.

That’s a projection

Poland was a battle ground at times. Is not now, except maybe in your mind.

  How much of Poland was left after the soviets occupied Poland? Have they ever really gotten out???

This is so ridiculous: I am looking out my window at a cafe lined street. A town center which is a pedestrian zone of optimal size. It is a lovely place to live.

Are they still teaching in Poland that the Germans did the Katyn massacre?

No they are not. Everyone knows that Soviets did that; that has been commonly understood for decades.

  You can thank the jewish resistance for the burning of Warsaw. 

Well, the Nazis never ever did anything wrong.

(this is so boring)

If the Germans has been in to burning cities they would have burned Paris.

That doesn’t follow. Hitler’s animus was directed Eastward.


These same jewish resisters cheered the soviet entrance into Poland and abused the defeated Polish soldiers.

The Soviets and Jews were no friends of Poles either, nobody said that they were.


General Juliusz Rómmel of the Polish Army issued an unauthorised order to treat them like an ally; before it was too late….The Red Army achieved its targets, vastly outnumbering Polish resistance and capturing some 230,000 Polish prisoners of war.[4][18] The Soviet government ostensibly annexed the territory under its control and in November 1939 made the 13.5 million Polish citizens under occupation into new subjects of the Soviet Union. The Soviets immediately began a campaign of mass persecution in the newly acquired areas. This included the NKVD-staged elections,[19] conducted in the atmosphere of fear and terror,[19][20] the results of which the Soviets used to legitimize its annexation of eastern Poland.

We know. How many times do I have say that the Soviets weren’t friends either.

The Soviets quelled opposition through summary executions and thousands of arrests.[21][22] The Soviet Union sent hundreds of thousands of people from this region to Siberia and other remote parts of the Soviet Union in four major waves of deportation between 1939 and 1941 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soviet_invasion_of_Poland  Remember the role of the jews in the Soviet.

This is all a simple false either/or: The Soviets were bad to Poles therefore the Nazis were good to them. It doesn’t follow.


The fact remains that Poland would be in a healthier condition today had the Germans won.

The fact remains that Poland and the world would be better if Nazi Germany had not invaded eastward to expand upon its already HUGE territory and fight against people who had already shown abundant willingness to fight the Soviets. Nazi Germany didn’t care; wanted their lands and what people they could make use of, e.g., kidnapping their children or using them as forced labor, the rest out of the way. No, Poland wouldn’t be better off, it would not exist had the Nazis won.


Posted by helvena on April 20, 2015, 12:18 PM | #

As long as the second world war is brought up time and time again by the jews it is in ALL of our interests to get the facts straight and the truth out.
If you have a problem with that DanielS then it is just that, your problem.  It will be a lot easier to assess accountability if we have the facts straight

So why do you continue to mangle the facts by pretending that Hitler and his regime were so thoroughly commendable? This is not the place for you slant on “the truth” Helvena. It’s old hat in WN and discredited.

You play card games. Look at the bad things the Soviets did, not the bad things Nazi Germany did.

Really, one need not move beyond Table Talk. If one still defends Hitler on balance after that, then they are screwed-up beyond repair.


38

Posted by helvena on Mon, 20 Apr 2015 18:57 | #

Finally, and most revealingly, what about the words of Hitler himself? From 1941 through late 1944, he conducted long private sessions with friends and party intimates. These discussions—monologues, actually—have been published as “Hitler’s Table Talk” (see Hitler 2000). Among a wide range of topics, he makes some 16 references to Jews and the Jewish question, over a period of about three years.19 Every one of these passages refers, in the German original, to evacuation and removal; not one refers to killing, gassing, or mass murder. For example:

“If any people has the right to proceed to evacuations, it is we… We consider it a maximum of brutality to have liberated our country from 600,000 Jews. And yet we have accepted…the evacuation of our own compatriots!” (8-11 Aug 1941—six months before the first so-called extermination camp was opened.)
“The Jew, that destroyer [of culture], we shall drive out (setzen wir ganz hinaus)” (17 Oct 1941).
“I prophesied to Jewry that, in the event of war’s proving inevitable, the Jew would disappear from Europe (aus Europa verschwinden)... Let nobody tell me that, all the same, we can’t send them to the [Russian] morass!” (25 Oct 1941).
“This sniveling in which some of the [German] bourgeois are indulging nowadays, on the pretext that the Jews have [had] to clear out (auswandern müssten) of Germany, is typical of these holier-than-thou’s. Did they weep when, every year, hundreds of thousands of Germans had to emigrate…?” (19 Nov 1941).
“One must act radically. When one pulls out a tooth, one does it with a single tug, and the pain quickly goes away. The Jew must clear out of Europe (Der Jude muss aus Europa heraus)… For my part, I restrict myself to telling them they must go away (Ich sage nur, er muss weg)… But if they refuse to go voluntarily, I see no other solution but extermination (die absolute Ausrottung).” (25 Jan 1942).
“The Jews must pack up, disappear from Europe (Der Jude muss aus Europa hinaus)!” (27 Jan 1942).
“[The Jew] bears in mind that if his victims suddenly became aware of [the damage he causes to society], all Jews would be exterminated (erschlagen werden).20 But this time, the Jews will disappear from Europe (aus Europa verschwinden).” (3 Feb 1942).
“We shall regain our health only by eliminating (eliminieren) the Jew.” (22 Feb 1942).
“Until Jewry…is exterminated (ausrottet), we shall not have accomplished our task.” (30 Aug 1942).
“I have already cleared the Jews out of Vienna (Der Juden habe ich aus Wien schon heraus)…” (25 Jun 1943).
Hitler obviously had no reason to hold back his language when speaking amongst such close colleagues. If he had truly wanted to kill the Jews, he would have said so—more than once, and in no uncertain terms. Instead we find not one instance of such talk. Perhaps this is why so few of our traditional historians cite these monologues of Hitler; such passages are hard to explain, on the standard view.

The lesson here is clear. Simplistic translations are highly misleading, as are all the implicit references to mass murder. One must seek out the original German text, find the words that Hitler, Goebbels, and others actually used, and put them into proper context. Our traditional historians never bother to do this; it seems not to serve their larger purposes.

http://inconvenienthistory.com/archive/2014/volume_6/number_3/the_great_holocaust_mystery.php

DanileS, did you say you were Polish?


39

Posted by helvena on Mon, 20 Apr 2015 19:04 | #

And this DanielS

Among the many fraudulent historical documents that have been cited over the years by “conformist” historians of the Third Reich era, Irving said, have been the fake wartime diaries of Gerhard Engel, Hitler’s army adjutant, and of Felix Kersten, masseur and confidant of Himmler. Similarly unreliable is the diary of Mussolini’s foreign minister Galeazzo Ciano, which American officials doctored after the war. Completely fake are Hitler’s supposed “table talk” remarks from February and April 1945. Irving related that the Swiss lawyer Francois Genoud, now dead, admitted privately that he had fabricated them.

http://ihr.org/news/050427_meeting.shtml


So NO DanielS, HITLER’S TABLE TALK isn’t a reliable source for NS policy or how Hitler honestly felt, it is reliable hearsay.


40

Posted by helvena on Mon, 20 Apr 2015 19:22 | #

http://www.fpp.co.uk/Hitler/docs/Testament/byGenoud.html

In 1979, Genoud phoned Mr Irving at his Paris hotel, and said: “I have a gift for you.” He handed him a package. It contained a copy of the complete typescript of the Testament. The package gift from Genoud raised a new problem. Every page was heavily amended and expanded in somebody’s hand-writing. Mr Irving, astonished, asked Genoud whose was the writing. Genoud admitted it was his own. Later still, he admitted in conversation with Mr Irving that the entire typescript was his own confection, saying: “But it is just what Hitler would have said, isn’t it?”


Now DanielS if you still want to believe then I must file you under “willful idiots”


41

Posted by helvena on Mon, 20 Apr 2015 19:24 | #

In 1979, Genoud phoned Mr Irving at his Paris hotel, and said: “I have a gift for you.” He handed him a package. It contained a copy of the complete typescript of the Testament. The package gift from Genoud raised a new problem. Every page was heavily amended and expanded in somebody’s hand-writing. Mr Irving, astonished, asked Genoud whose was the writing. Genoud admitted it was his own. Later still, he admitted in conversation with Mr Irving that the entire typescript was his own confection, saying: “But it is just what Hitler would have said, isn’t it?”

http://www.fpp.co.uk/Hitler/docs/Testament/byGenoud.html

Now DanielS if you still want to believe then I must file you under “willful idiots”


42

Posted by Don't even need Table Talk. on Mon, 20 Apr 2015 20:47 | #

Helvena, this site has an established policy of rejecting Hitler with there being sufficient proof that he is insufficient as an umbrella figure to represent Whites; on the contrary, he is misguiding, divisive and immoral.

I will address your card games for the last time here, then you must go to the Hitler sites to practice your childish worship.

As for your first card trick, number 38:

So Hitler wanted to clear the Jews out. The Nazis were not the only ones who wanted to do this.

That is all that needs to be said bout this spam of yours which is number 38, until the end, where you ask if I said I was Polish. The answer is, that my mother was of Polish extraction, and so what? I am not supposed to defend against Nazi slander?


number 39

So NO DanielS, HITLER’S TABLE TALK isn’t a reliable source for NS policy or how Hitler honestly felt, it is reliable hearsay.

Now DanielS if you still want to believe then I must file you under “willful idiots”

Even if the version that Carolyn Yeager, Ray Goodwin and Hadding Scott (three people who are as faithful to Hitler and as diligent in concern to place Hitler in the light of the highest criteria as you are) read and are quoted as saying is reliable*, we don’t even need Table Talk: Hitler’s Mein Kempf and the Nazis’ prosecution of war against neighboring nations was enough to put him aside as catastrophic. He sought eastward expansion at the expense of Slavs and all his actions show a logical following through of that plan.

And if several passages in Table Talk are the least reliable, it is thoroughly condemnatory of Hitler. In addition to those three, Greg Johnson and Lindtner treat Table Talk as reliable, at least in parts - that would be condemnatory of Hitler for anyone who had any regard for Slavic peoples (for just one thing).

* And since you are citing Irving as authoritative, he is known to agree with the Nazi Generals who advised Hitler to Not invade Poland in defiance of The British warning that it would mean their declaration of war.


Enough of your card games Helvena. The truth condemns Hitler in too many ways to waste more time on him here debating his general merit: thumbs down.


43

Posted by helvena on Tue, 21 Apr 2015 00:49 | #

Take your ball and go home then DanielS but the truth does NOT condemn Hitler for those interested in seeking it.


44

Posted by DanielS on Tue, 21 Apr 2015 00:52 | #

That’s not the experience of truth for those who truly seek it, Helvena. It is you who might take your ball and go home.


45

Posted by Hadding criteria for truth on Tue, 21 Apr 2015 07:55 | #

Apparently that satisfies Hadding’s criteria for “truth” : truth - his mother was Polish = therefore “she* taught him to hate Germans.” More Hadding “truth” - “Hating Germans” = He doesn’t approve of Hitler -  unanimity with Hitler = “truth”

*...and when he thought my father was the Polish one, then it was he who “taught me to hate Germans.”

Of course he doesn’t know either of my parents from Adam or what they taught me.

.....his “weapon the truth.”


46

Posted by Graham_Lister on Tue, 21 Apr 2015 08:17 | #

Daniel,

There are some people that are so morally corrupt and intellectually dishonest as to be unworthy of inclusion in any discussion.

Defenders and lovers of Hitler and his regime are such people. Anyone that can be ‘on the side’ of a regime and persona that via the regime’s hyper-aggressive aims of geo-political expansion and general hubris - driven mostly by the insane megalomaniac’s psychology - precipitated events resulting in the deaths of some 60 million Europeans is beyond reason or moral seriousness.

Of course many ordinary and decent Germans suffered the consequences of that regime and are equally to be mourned.

Danny I have told you before don’t engage with such low-level, low-quality people. It’s an enormous waste of time and energy. Don’t feed the trolls. It’s pointless and simply a source of stress and frustration. You might as well attempt to argue with a believer in Voodoo that their little icons are in fact not magical items at all etc. People ultimately choose to believe whatever they want to. But the truth will always be the truth regardless of the acknowledgment (or not) of certain personality types.


47

Posted by DanielS on Tue, 21 Apr 2015 08:25 | #

Thank You Graham, I agree


48

Posted by DanielS on Thu, 23 Apr 2015 07:39 | #

I ran into a German guy last night. We had a long talk during his stop-over to catch a train on his way to a three week vacation in Bieszczady - which is an area of undulating hills and low mountains (reminiscent of West Virginia) in the South-East corner of Poland. There, a student association initiated a community where people come to build small houses:

http://www.chatki.com.pl/foto_utulnie.html


During his vacation he will build, enjoy music around campfires, drinking vodka til 3 in the morning.



Post a comment:


Name: (required)

Email: (required but not displayed)

URL: (optional)

Note: You should copy your comment to the clipboard or paste it somewhere before submitting it, so that it will not be lost if the session times out.

Remember me


Next entry: We Are Their Slaves!
Previous entry: Dark Side of Self Actualization & Incommensurate GenderAgendas

image of the day

Existential Issues

DNA Nations

Establishment Problem

Categories

Links

Endorsement 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

Comments

DanielS commented in entry 'Rioting in Rinkeby, Sweden - my friend driven out by muslims' on Tue, 21 Feb 2017 08:33. (View)

Jez leads protest of politically motivated firings commented in entry 'A familiar face in the crowd. Well, not crowd exactly.' on Mon, 20 Feb 2017 11:55. (View)

Alt-Right Politics commented in entry 'Alt Right Uncritically Effusive for Trump's Parallels in Russia and France' on Mon, 20 Feb 2017 07:24. (View)

Celebrate Tynwald Day commented in entry 'Solstice in the Deep of European Rebirth' on Mon, 20 Feb 2017 04:50. (View)

Britons murdered since death of Stephen Lawrence commented in entry 'A Nation Rejoices: Justice at Last!' on Mon, 20 Feb 2017 03:51. (View)

DanielS commented in entry 'Martin Schulz is 'the new Donald Trump'. Is there somehow a meaning to be found in this nonsense?' on Sun, 19 Feb 2017 21:08. (View)

DanielS commented in entry 'EP President Schulz: Germany exists only in order to ensure the existence of the Jewish people.' on Sun, 19 Feb 2017 20:18. (View)

Kumiko Oumae commented in entry 'Regarding Trump's Statement on "Fake News", Political Cesspool Advocates Jailing Critics of State' on Sun, 19 Feb 2017 17:10. (View)

Kumiko Oumae commented in entry 'Regarding Trump's Statement on "Fake News", Political Cesspool Advocates Jailing Critics of State' on Sun, 19 Feb 2017 14:30. (View)

Political Cesspool advocates Jailing vocal dissent commented in entry 'Regarding new-found U.S. patriotism of Alt-Right & so-called WN: TRI-COLORED TREASON - by David Lane' on Sun, 19 Feb 2017 06:29. (View)

Kumiko Oumae commented in entry 'Alt Right Uncritically Effusive for Trump's Parallels in Russia and France' on Sun, 19 Feb 2017 00:04. (View)

DanielS commented in entry 'On The Regnery Circus Big-Tent-O-Sphere, Featuring Richard Spencer as its Ring-Master' on Sat, 18 Feb 2017 08:23. (View)

South African mother found... commented in entry 'Petition for White South Africans to return to Europe' on Sat, 18 Feb 2017 07:11. (View)

Guessedworker commented in entry 'On The Regnery Circus Big-Tent-O-Sphere, Featuring Richard Spencer as its Ring-Master' on Sat, 18 Feb 2017 06:39. (View)

Evidence Vetrano targeted because White commented in entry 'Black violence is the norm rather than the exception' on Sat, 18 Feb 2017 05:11. (View)

"Keep Quiet" commented in entry 'TRS founder Michael ‘Enoch’ Peinovich was exposed as being a Russian Jew.' on Sat, 18 Feb 2017 03:45. (View)

Fried Chicken & Corn Bread commented in entry 'Black history 'stolen' in Birth of a Nation, 're-appropriation' in Guess Who's Coming to Dinner?' on Sat, 18 Feb 2017 03:33. (View)

DanielS commented in entry 'On The Regnery Circus Big-Tent-O-Sphere, Featuring Richard Spencer as its Ring-Master' on Fri, 17 Feb 2017 14:39. (View)

DanielS commented in entry 'On The Regnery Circus Big-Tent-O-Sphere, Featuring Richard Spencer as its Ring-Master' on Fri, 17 Feb 2017 13:11. (View)

Guessedworker commented in entry 'On The Regnery Circus Big-Tent-O-Sphere, Featuring Richard Spencer as its Ring-Master' on Fri, 17 Feb 2017 11:33. (View)

DanielS commented in entry 'On The Regnery Circus Big-Tent-O-Sphere, Featuring Richard Spencer as its Ring-Master' on Fri, 17 Feb 2017 06:28. (View)

DanielS commented in entry 'On The Regnery Circus Big-Tent-O-Sphere, Featuring Richard Spencer as its Ring-Master' on Fri, 17 Feb 2017 03:17. (View)

DanielS commented in entry 'What if we're not 'the bad guys'?' on Fri, 17 Feb 2017 02:35. (View)

Guessedworker commented in entry 'On The Regnery Circus Big-Tent-O-Sphere, Featuring Richard Spencer as its Ring-Master' on Fri, 17 Feb 2017 01:28. (View)

Just Sayin' commented in entry 'What if we're not 'the bad guys'?' on Thu, 16 Feb 2017 20:55. (View)

Kumiko Oumae commented in entry 'Donald Trump gives Benjamin Netanyahu everything he wants.' on Thu, 16 Feb 2017 16:41. (View)

pedro commented in entry 'Donald Trump gives Benjamin Netanyahu everything he wants.' on Thu, 16 Feb 2017 14:11. (View)

(((Alternative Right)))'s Love Child commented in entry 'Tillerson, Putin, Sakhalin, Fukushima: Why would Japan Hate Trump's outreach to Russian Federation?' on Thu, 16 Feb 2017 13:49. (View)

AltRight features talk with Tommy Robinson commented in entry 'Where and How (((The Alternative Right))) is Drawing "Friend-Enemy" Lines of a Coming Revolution' on Thu, 16 Feb 2017 13:42. (View)

Guessedworker commented in entry 'Donald Trump gives Benjamin Netanyahu everything he wants.' on Thu, 16 Feb 2017 11:43. (View)

DanielS commented in entry 'Donald Trump gives Benjamin Netanyahu everything he wants.' on Thu, 16 Feb 2017 07:35. (View)

DanielS commented in entry 'What if we're not 'the bad guys'?' on Wed, 15 Feb 2017 06:59. (View)

Just Sayin' commented in entry 'What if we're not 'the bad guys'?' on Tue, 14 Feb 2017 19:23. (View)

Kumiko Oumae commented in entry 'What if we're not 'the bad guys'?' on Tue, 14 Feb 2017 17:39. (View)

Just Sayin' commented in entry 'What if we're not 'the bad guys'?' on Tue, 14 Feb 2017 17:27. (View)

affection-tone