← Autodidact Archive · Original Dissent · Robbie
Thread ID: 10351 | Posts: 37 | Started: 2003-10-08
2003-10-08 22:30 | User Profile
British Anti-Germanism Deepens Expatica 10-8-3
(DPA) -- For some German students, the experience of living and studying in Britain has turned into a nightmare with many finding themselves victims of anti-German attacks. Thomas Matussek, Germany's ambassador to Britain, has embarked on a campaign to improve his country's image on the most anti-German turf in Europe.
Stefana Bosse is a German teenager living in London ó and in fear. She never sits on the upper level of the city's red double-decker buses, and carefully scans the other passengers before she gets on. And she never speaks German in public.
Two years ago on the bus, a group of British kids threw hamburgers and lettuce at her and pulled her hair. One girl spat in her face, she says, calling her a Nazi. "I've learned to hide the fact that I'm German," says Stefana, aged 14.
Such stories are common among young Germans in the UK. Asked their nationalities, many claim they are Swiss or Scandinavian. Last fall, two teenagers from Guetersloh were beaten up in a London suburb because they were German.
That was enough to send Thomas Matussek, Germany's ambassador to Britain, on a campaign to improve his country's image on the most anti-German turf in Europe.
His task is a tough one: words such as Nazis, Krauts, Fritz and Blitz are common in newspaper stories. Television is awash with programs about the Nazi era. In history classes, an estimated 80 percent of high school students study the Nazis, yet learn next to nothing about contemporary Germany.
The German ambassador, a boyish-looking anglophile who peppers his German with English phrases, wants to change that. "It is in Britain's own interest to know what is happening on the continent," he says.
Matussek served in London once before, during Britain's economically troubled 1970s. "When I came back this time, 95 percent had changed for the better ó but the image of Germany had become worse."
Matussek's mission sheds light on a big stumbling block to an ever-closer European Union. Half a century after World War II, national resentments still abound.
Statesmen in Brussels are debating the adoption of a constitution for Europe, but many Europeans don't want such close ties to old enemies. Italian Prime Minister Berlusconi recently likened a German lawmaker in the European Parliament to a Nazi concentration-camp guard. Another Italian official, who has since been sacked, lambasted the Germans as "stereotyped blonds with a hyper-nationalist pride."
The English have loathed the French for centuries. The French ridicule the Belgians for their alleged provincialism. The Germans say Poles are sloppy and steal their cars. But one of the few sentiments that unites all Europeans is a suspicion of Germany, the continent's leading power. And nowhere is that dislike as strong as in Britain.
"Of course, we don't like the Germans. Why should we? They're awful people. Why shouldn't Silvio make jokes about their Nazi past?" said an article in the London tabloid Daily Mail this month, after the Italian jibes against Germany.
Titled "Sour Krauts", the piece showed a picture of two men in Nazi uniforms and said Germans had no style, their women were fat and ó a big issue for Britons ó they beat them to the best spots on Mediterranean beaches.
The Evening Standard sent a reporter to a beach in Majorca to investigate European stereotypes. The result: a large picture of a robust German blonde on a beach chair. "Just 7am and Helga claims the beach," said the headline.
"What you find here isn't so much hostility as a high degree of disinterest, ignorance and outdated cliches," says Matussek.
The ambassador launched his mission when the German students were beat up in October. At that time, he unleashed his anger in British newspapers and talk shows, protesting what he considers an obsession with Hitler in British classrooms.
Since then, he has brought German conductors to London. He helped organise exhibits of German art and got Chancellor Gerhard Schroeder to open one of the shows with British Prime Minister Tony Blair days before the Iraq war.
In his office, Matussek keeps a stack of pink and blue postcards from a campaign encouraging Britons to learn German.
They carry catchwords designed to evoke a positive image of Germany - including "Autobahn," "Einstein" and "5:1," a self-deprecating reference to Germany's sensational soccer loss to England in a 2001 World Cup qualifier. "Learn German - there's nothing to lose," says the punch line.
"We wanted to attack a favorite stereotype: that Germans have no sense of humour," says Nina Lemmens, who heads the German Academic Exchange Service in London and helped create the postcards.
Matussek is taking his campaign to British schools. This month in Birmingham, he patiently explained to students why they should learn German, why Germany stayed out of the Iraq war, and that German unemployment isn't caused by the euro.
"I realised that I knew a lot about World War II but nothing about modern Germany," says Romony Snape, a 15-year-old student there.
Germany's image problem in England began soon after Germany's birth as a unified country and rival power in the 19th century, and peaked during World War II, when German bombs rained down on London.
Years after the war came the BBC comedy classic "Fawlty Towers," where hotel owner Basil Fawlty, preparing for the arrival of German tourists, keeps telling his staff "Don't mention the war," only to goose-step around and repeatedly mention the war. ("Don't mention the beach towels," echoed a recent headline in The Times, which devoted an entire page to Italy's German-bashing.)
"The truth is that Britain, not Germany, is the nation that is the prisoner of its past," said the Guardian newspaper last fall.
When the two countries meet on the soccer field, British tabloids happily evoke military images. Before a game in the Euro '96 tournament, they ran headlines such as "Let's Blitz Fritz."
The Daily Mirror said "ACHTUNG! SURRENDER ... For you, Fritz, ze Euro 96 Championship is over." The broadside caused such an uproar that the paper issued an apology, and sent the German team a hamper full of goodies from Harrods.
There is another reason for Germany's unpopularity: Europe. Britain has long been reluctant to get entangled with the continent, and observers say its dislike of Germany often masks a dislike of European integration as a whole. "
Anti-Germanism is strengthened by Germany's leadership role in a Europe that Britain does not want," says Thomas Kielinger, London correspondent for the German newspaper Die Welt.
With such obstacles, Matussek's mission is daunting. A first defeat came in December, when he failed to rally German businessmen to change the image of the country's best-known companies.
"We can't change our image but we can try to use it to our advantage," says Dieter Grotepass, general manager for Lufthansa AG in Britain, which declined to join the makeover.
Like car companies that stress German engineering prowess, the airline is playing up qualities deemed typically German, such as punctuality and reliability. "We can't try to make Lufthansa French or sexy," he says.
This month, Matussek hosted a conference discussing how Germany could turn itself into an alluring brand name, a la the UK's "Cool Britannia" makeover. Unlike other governments, Berlin has never made such marketing efforts, for fear of evoking Hitler and the Holocaust.
Like others at the conference, London Times Berlin correspondent Roger Boyes is skeptical. "The last time Germany was good at branding itself," he said, "was under the Nazis."
é copyright 2003 Expatica Communications BV
[url]http://213.159.10.102/germany.asp?pad=199,223,&item_id=34637[/url]
2003-10-09 07:25 | User Profile
[QUOTE]In history classes, an estimated 80 percent of high school students study the Nazis, yet learn next to nothing about contemporary Germany.[/QUOTE]
And I would dare say they learn nothing about the Nazis either, if their teachings are as bad as some of the ones I had to undergo in America.
2003-10-09 08:10 | User Profile
[QUOTE=Sertorius]And I would dare say they learn nothing about the Nazis either, if their teachings are as bad as some of the ones I had to undergo in America.[/QUOTE] Only English men, especially their upper class whites, are the only more ignorant white folks on history than U.S. white's. Sir Hartley Shawcross died in August of this year.. He was the youngest A.G. in English history in 1945 when lead the British leagal anti white team at the Semitic Nuremburg trials. I read that he stated that upper crust of British fools did not understand Bolshevism terror and it's very serious threat to the WEST, A.K.A. WHITES. Sir, Shawcross, admitted, stated, that Uncle Adolfo tried earnestly to get France and England to help destroy Stalin's USSR.. With JEWISH Control of ENGLANDS money, and the criminal Royal's in England, we the U.S. wold not have suffered the loss of a half million men, and have the OPEN BORDER'S of TERROR upon U.S. now. Hey, this is off subject, I listen to Classical mostly, but when I don't is this great give it a try.. [url]www.steelradio.com[/url] God Bless the Confederacy and memory of all those wonderful patriots who fought with such fidelity, and devotion, yet they were heart broken to believe it was happening to them, I think.. Night
2003-10-09 16:22 | User Profile
[quote=Leland Gaunt] We are indeed still at War with them (No peace treaty!) and their damned "B.A.O.R" (British Army of the Rhine!!!) still holds maneuvers in our Lüneburger Heide and ruins our beautiful nature.
I say the Germans of today should study the heroic sacrifices of their ancestors to rid themselves of Napoleon's yoke. Then maybe they can be proud to be Germans once again! [url]http://members.tripod.com/Gary13_Shively/BKhome.htm[/url]
** WHERE is the German's fatherland? The Prussian land? The Swabian land? Where Rhine the vine-clad mountain laves? Where skims the gull the Baltic waves? Ah, no, no, no! His fatherland 's not bounded so!
Where is the German's fatherland? Bavarian land? or Stygian land? Where sturdy peasants plough the plain? Where mountain-sons bright metal gain? Ah, no, no, no! His fatherland's not bounded so!
Where is the German's fatherland? The Saxon hills? The Zuyder strand? Where sweep wild winds the sandy shores Where loud the rolling Danube roars? Ah, no, no, no! His fatherland 's not bounded so!
Where is the German's fatherland? Then name, then name the mighty land! The Austrian land in fight renowned? The Kaiser's land with honors crowned? Ah, no, no, no! His fatherland 's not bounded so!
Where is the German's fatherland? Then name, then name the mighty land! The land of Hofer? land of Tell? This land I know, and love it well; But, no, no, no! His fatherland 's not bounded so!
Where is the German's fatherland? Is his the pieced and parceled land Where pirate-princes rule? A gem Torn from the empire's diadem? Ah, no, no, no! Such is no German's fatherland.
Where is the German's fatherland? Then name, oh, name the mighty land! Wherever is heard the German tongue, And German hymns to God are sung! This is the land, thy Hermann's land; This, German, is thy fatherland.
This is the German's fatherland, Where faith is in the plighted hand, Where truth lives in each eye of blue, And every heart is staunch and true. This is the land, the honest land, The honest German's fatherland.
This is the land, the one true land, O God, to aid be thou at hand! And fire each heart, and nerve each arm, To shield our German homes from harm, To shield the land, the one true land, One Deutschland and one fatherland!
-- Ernst Moritz Arndt: "The German Fatherland" [url]http://www.fordham.edu/halsall/mod/arndt-vaterland.html[/url] **
2003-10-09 18:09 | User Profile
Who controls the press in England? The World? Who benefits from Whites hating other Whites? That's why!
2003-10-09 18:39 | User Profile
You all think hate for Germans is big in England? It is bigger in America. I have first hand experience in that. Some people just have instilled hatred for anyone or anything which is german.
2003-10-09 20:52 | User Profile
[QUOTE=Ritter]You all think hate for Germans is big in England? It is bigger in America. I have first hand experience in that. Some people just have instilled hatred for anyone or anything which is german.[/QUOTE]
Ritter, this is quite true, because many Americans are profoundly ignorant and raised on a diet of jewish lies and defective history lessons. The zionist media has a hate campaign against France and things French. The zionist media has a hate campaign against 'Old Europe' too, because of their so called "pusillanimous" attitudes towards joining the 'coalition' in the illegal invasion in Iraq. I think this hate campaign is also because Europeans are not overtly kissing the ass of Sharon in Israel like George Bush and Tony Blair pucker up.
2003-10-10 03:19 | User Profile
There is only one group of people who benefit from having whites at each other's throats other differences from the past. I won't play their game.
2003-10-10 04:29 | User Profile
[QUOTE=Leland Gaunt]The anglo-saxon world never did like us and NEVER will. I find the pathetic attempts of the so called "German Goverment" to gain sympathy with their stupid PR campaigns the typical reaction for a bunch of spineless traitors. Allready Churchill said, that either you have the Germans at your throats or to your feet. That young Germans deny their nationalety because they are ashamed of it, is scandalous. 60 years ago any German youth would have defended the honour of his Fatherland. I have no sympathy whatsoever for these cretins. What the hell are they doing in London anyway? They are nothing but "Bundesbürger" [ A widely used word meaning "Federal Citizen" which replaces the Word "German". In our media you will hardly hear anyone talk of "Germany" or "Germans". It's democtratic newspeak to keep the word "German" out of the mind of the masses. Instead of "Deutschland" they say "Bundesrepublik" = "Federal Reupublik" and instead of "Germans" - "Bundesbürger". It's like in Russia under communism, where they replaced "Russian" with "Soviet citizen". ] and not real Germans. [/QUOTE]
You're being a little hard on the Anglo-Saxons Leland. I could make a much better argument from your accounts that Germans hate the german nationality much more than the english do. In any sense, its all passe anyway. Nationality doesn't mean anything in either country anymore, thanks to Frankfurt School leftism/deconstructionism. Its getting to be illegal to fy the Union Jack in Britain, and illegal to fly the even the silly black, red and gold FRG flag in Germany.
These stories sound scary, but I suspect they're much less violence on account of nationality in Britain than violence on account of soccer (football for you digitaly impaired) rivalries.
Leland, I'm just surprised with all the hoopala that they haven't changed the historic national anthem of Germany. There must be plenty who want to do that you'd think.
Anyway historically the Germans were not viewed as enemies of the British at all - it was the hated French. Up until WWII British aristocrats used to love to go hunt with their Junker friends. This hateful thing sounds like something more from the cantakerous lower classes, sort of like I said almost like soccer hoologanism
2003-10-10 07:40 | User Profile
[QUOTE=Ritter]You all think hate for Germans is big in England? It is bigger in America. I have first hand experience in that. Some people just have instilled hatred for anyone or anything which is german.[/QUOTE]
I can't imagine anyone attacking me for claiming German blood.
But I'd like to meet those who would.
2003-10-11 00:33 | User Profile
There is a fellow at my work who likes to talk about some video-game called Allied Assault. Everyday I have to hear of his progress "killin' Germans" as he works his way through the levels of the game. By ancestry he is part German and part Scandinavian, which is to say, part German and part Germanic, yet still he goes on about "killin' Germans". First time he said it, I said, "Yeah, maybe you even killed some of your own relatives."
2003-10-11 14:57 | User Profile
A year ago I was in the City Museum of London. The museum showed the history of the London city from the Roman times up to the Victorian times at the turn of the century a hundred years ago. When I was at the place of the Anglosaxon period there was a British mum with her let's say nine year old son standing in front of a graphical presentation of the Saxon siege of the city. Son and mother were blond and blue eyed and the son was asking his mother what the headline "The Anglosaxons period, advance of the dark ages" meant. The mother was telling her child that back then the Brits had a Roman level of civilization and invaders from Germany were pushing Britain back civilizationally until the British reached the Roman level of civilization back again in the 19th century. Brits consider themselves as Romanized Celts rather than West Germanic peoples. The Germans never realized that and thus did wrong decisions in their foreign policy choices.
But after the endless GermanPolish melee I do not want to set up a BritGerman feud as well. But I found this on the internet and found it quite interesting.
The article is heavily antichristian. But this discussion board so far has survived antichristian attacks.
[I]
Dietrich Schuler
The hour of creativism
"Christianity is a trick to turn the strong into the slaves of the weak."
Humanism and Anti-Germanism
Due to a completely wrong world view in its isolation from the spirit of life, Christianity developed a view of man whose disastrous consequences have become visible only in this century.
The superstition that all men are created equal, irrespective of national origin, race, sex, level of intelligence and character has led to the equalizing "humanism" that levels off all men to the same lowest denominator, so subsequently thought out to the end will lead to the disappearance of the type "man" altogether. An alledgedly all compassing "human dignity" is preached as if the christian spirit has fallen from heaven, although this spirit is just another expression of a negating state of mind.
This human dignity is endowed to everyone according to christian and christoid opinion no matter whether the aforementioned person is a tramp at the level of an animal, a sex killer or some other serious criminal or a genial inventer, a great physician or a pioneering economic leader. Yes, the more the human level sinks the louder sound the cries from all sources about the "untouchable human dignity". Why not a deer's dignity, a horse's dignity, a lion's dignity? Because it is taken for granted that the fictitious equality and human dignity is applied to all, but on the other hand the visible incapability of inumerable people, tribes and races cannot be ignored, the christian conscience is particularly concerned about the plight of losers, the incapable, the failed, the mentally ill and the groups at the bottom of society, as these people must be victims of a naturally evil world in general and a glaringly social injustice in particular. So even here it turns into an inversion. The more ungifted some tribe might be on the great ball called earth, the louder they scream for his well deserved development aid, the more it rises in the moral judgement of christianity and the worldly ideologies based on it. This is the reason for the hardly even more increasable cult of the colored man in the present times. On the other hand the ambitious is always subject to suspicion. Because he is doing fine it is suspected that he is in love with the evil world and that one in him. Such is it that disturbs the circles of the christian anti-instinct, and this is the source of the nondeniable antigermanism in the world. Because the German has not lost entirely his industriousness despite so many catastrophies and reeductation, he has been declared the ultimate evil, the entity the world propaganda and every runaway hater can vilify without any social sanctions. All the sacrifices he makes for others will not help him, the more he gives the more he sacrifices himself the more he will be hated and scolded. The christian antiinstinct has become the basic state of mind in the world, and its moral obligation always requires to side with the good for nothings and nonworthy losers. And that is why you will never read in a single newspaper a single word stating that the misery and chaos of the "developing countries" might be the result of their own fault.
In addition it comes that the Christian concept of man is dishonest in itself. Its ambiguity lies in its elevation of man as the only species among millions of others as the image of God, but presses him however at the same time to the level of a serf, a worm, to the nothing. Everything outside of human nature is not considered in Christianity. It can be raped and exploited, and this is an important comment to the ecological catastrophe that the earth has to suffer. The pronounced esteem for nature and animals one can observe in many parts of Europe has nothing to do with Christianity and is typically Germanic in its origin. It is a tragic misery made possible by the long duration of Christianity that characteristics are constantly assigned to Christianity which are not based on it at all. As already has been mentioned since the Europeans have adopted the Nazarean teachings they constantly associate their most sacret believes with this religion: A reverse theft with the worst consequences. Christianity despises the nonhuman world, it is hardly existent for it. Everything is dedicated with the genuine desert mentality to the only existent God and his humanism. Simply put: Christianity behaves racist towards plants and animals, but egalitarian within the realm of humankind.
It would be now a rough misunderstanding to assume that we creatists want to expand the much critisized equality cult to the realm of plants and animals, which would be utter nonsense in its entirety. Humans clearly as a species certainly possess a superior rank in nature and therefore also determined privileges, what does not relieve him however of his obligation to bear full responsibility and concern for this nature. Second creatism claims that many representatives of the human species can fall far below the level of an animal because the more highly a species actually ranks the more diverse the possibilities for their degeneration will become. Pets such as cat and dog can degenerate more strongly than an ant. And third creatism believes that the hierarchical basic principle of nature likewise applies to humans like everywhere else and that it is actually wrong to talk of only one kind of people.
Due to the reversal of values and the anti-instinct which is inherent in it and out of necessity Christianity while breaking in from the south had to be anti-Germanic. [B]The young noneducated peoples in the north of Europe, Teutons, Celts, Slavs and Balts embodied everything that ran contrary to Christian basic believes: This life cult, heathen joy of existence, complete impartiality toward the Sexus and due to that therefore a high moral conduct, strength, military spirit, loyality and natural superiority. Otherworldliness met this life ethics. In particular the Christian messengers spread right from the beginning hate against Germanness, which they devalued as heathen barbarianism. [/B] A picture was drawn by mindless bull horn and bear skin wearers who would be nothing else than robbers, boozers and killers without a culture. What has already be sown 1200 years ago has borne its full lethal fruit only in the 20th Century. The major effect of anti-German propaganda before, during and after the two world wars, even coming from the the Germans themselves, is rooted in this. So far only the surface has been scratched of the war and atrocity agitation of the 20th Century. European history seen through the eyes of the collective psychology and their laws regarded, can be drawn briefly in such a way: [B]The peoples and tribes who had arrived once in the course of centuries and thousands of years as Teutons or Indoeuropeans from the European center and the north into the peripheral zones of Europe and who formed numerous states there, experienced a sense of transplantation that gradually developed into a hate against their own old centre in the heart of Europe. Because in the border states they had been in connection with other cultures. [/B] The breaking in Christianity supplied the mental weapons for the fight of these peoples against their own origin. [B]In particular the German-English contrast became the actual tragedy of Europe in the 20th Century. People never knew in Germany that the Englishmen always considered themselves as a part of the Christian latin world, but never as Teutons. The prominent men of the 3rd Reich made a tragic mistake. The British wanted to be Celts, Romans or even descendants of Israeli tribes, but under no circumstances Teutons. With respect to the refusal and devaluation of Germanness as a "teutonic" barbarianism they were no different from the Frenchmen or Italians, although England retained half of its Germanic language. [/B]
Everywhere the "ex Oriente lux" prevailed, i.e. the conception that all culture, civilization itself originates from the Orient. [B]The fact is crucial that the Christianization of Germany essentially started from France and England. In romanized Gaul and romanized Britain the later Germanic tribes of the Angels, Saxons, Franks, Burgunders, Wikingers and Normans settling there christianized and romanized too. [/B] All these recent, still infant Teuton tribes had not been up to the refined dialectic spirit of the Orient. Are they up to it today?
[B]The fact that the socalled "Apostel of the Germans", Bonifatius, was an Anglosaxon named Winfried has never been understood in its whole symbolic meaning, let alone appreciated. Likewise Lioba, a relative of Winfried, was an Anglosaxon. Then the Isish-Scottish monks were involved. From 1914 to 1945 England has for the second time felled the Donar's oak. [/B] It has alway been fellow Teutons who chained their comrades. And with this spirit of Bonifatius the Popes and the ultramontanist parties conducted an anti-German, Reich-hostile policy. In the same way the alienated Western Franks led the Christianization of the European center. The notorious words of the bishop of Reims still come to mind when he led the baptism of the Frankish king Chlodwig that shed a light on what happened with the arrival of Christianity: "bend your head proud Sugambrian, burn the ideals which you prayed to, and what you burned pray to!" And in such a way late emperor Charlemagne broke the resistance of the freedom loving heathen Saxons and let their noblemen get butchered. It is not a coincidence that it was a French cleric who coined the key word "Vandalism" by that not only this Teuton tribe but all Teutons have been constantly insulted. It is the same spirit of Bonifatius that let the papal Nuntius Alexander explain at the Reich Council at Worms: "if the Germans set themselves free from the Roman yoke then we will ensure that they will put each other to death." Thus spoken 100 years before the 30 years war. The sarcastic arrogant tone that nearly always stepped out in England and France, as soon as there is talk about anything German goes back to the time of Christianization. And this anti-Germanism has already spread to the south and the east, in particular to catholic Poland. As a basic tendency it is prevalent today in the whole world.
The allied atrocity agitation of the two world wars in which the German was disparaged as a Hun, barbarian, Boche and a Kraut, thus frightening to the light, was only the brightly up-blazing hell flame of 1500 years of nonstop anti-Germanism expired... It would be however a total mischaracterization of the deep layer of this anti-Germanism if one ignores its Christian root. [B]Thus e.g.... the Jesuit Vaugham in London demanded in 1915 from the pulpit down the "crusade of entire mankind against Prussia Germany": "we are ready to give our lives for the Christian faith, for the fall of Thor and Odin, that Prussian militarism esteems more highly than Christ." [/B] Here the origins become completely clear, and also in 2nd World war Eisenhower led his well know "crusade in Europe". In the First World War Horatio Bottomley, the then most popular journalist of England in his "John bulletin" spoke only of the "Germ Huns", thus hunnic vermin. The French historian J. Bainville, who wrote the "history of two peoples" that had hundreds of editions, stated still in 1921 that the contribution of Germany to human culture was "zero" until Goethe. Apparently this educated Frenchman had heard neither of Kopernikus nor Kepler, nor of a Duerer. Nor of Nikolaus of Kues, Albertus Magnus, Bach, Haendel, Joh. Gutenberg or Regiomontanus...
The always religiously colored, christian derived anti-Germanism is whole and irrational. The reality is not possible for it at all. [B]The expression of Lord Vansittart is extremely characteristic of the most drilled Germanhater, to be for Europe always means to be against Germany. Naturally the exact opposite is correct, and it will take still another while, until also the stupidest ones notice that the destruction of the German people means inevitably not only the end of Europe, but the entire white race.[/B] Since however Jesus was not the Christos, his wrong theory in the end had to lead to the complete mental aberration and misconception of reality. While the opposite side led a crusade against the German people, innumerable ordinary Germans believed in both world wars that they defended Christianity against bolshevism and western immorality. The folling events proved then drastically on which side the 'Christian God' stands. On 11th January 1918 e.g. the New Yorker Herold issued a lecture of the Evangelists at Sunday, in which it said: 'you know, o Lord that no nation is as infamous, mean, greedy, lustful and bloodthirsty as our enemies. Take your powerful arm, o God, and smash the hungry wolfish huns (Germans), their catch teeth of dripping blood, and we will praise you. Amen!' Which despicableness - and how much stupidity - speaks from this pious drivel: Thus Germany had been put down in the 1st World war. And ever more clearly the terrible certainty meets us: Christianity is our misfortune!
If "world propaganda" can succeed to turn certain peoples, systems or statesmen into monster figures of a black satanic force then facts play no more role: The "Satan" is always guilty. One only has to think here of the hysteria which was provoked world-wide against the Saddam Hussein's Iraq, that was not coincidentally continuously compared with Hitler. The entire hate campaign of 1990/91 applied even far more to Germany than to the insignificant Iraq. The principle is always the same whether it about the "chopped off children hands" of the 1st World war or about the alleged burned babies in Kuwait. The opponent is an incarnation of evil, all aggressions of the good and fair however is holy-spoken from the beginning on. The enemies of the bad are sacred, they cannot do injustice. The mechanized lie rolls every resistance down; no reality can do anything against it. "Mankind" will remain a stupid herd of sheep that finally knows about good and evil: The logical consequence of 2000 years of Christianity, of eastern revelation religion at all. The American form of democracy is styled into a salvation theory where no doubt is permitted. In the 20th Century no policy was operated from the anglo-saxon side based on rational criteria, but at the most a political theology with an anti-German basic attitude. Yes, the entire anti-Germanism is a religious prejudice, and this solidified itself from generation to generation according to a kind of dogma. Germany has been branded as 'the empire of evil'.
[B]With the puritan faith the chosen myth of the old testament merged perfectly with the anglo-saxon spirit both in Great Britain and in the USA. [/B] Before and during the 2nd World war official Germany looked on the Reich hostile publicity working of the Jews in the world. The fact however that e.g. the anglican church exceeded the Jews in anti-German meanness in many ways was mostly overlooked or one did not want to admit it... Hitler was the only foreign statesman who could be considered as a genuine friend of England, its Empires and British supremacy and therefore was dreaming of a federation between Germany and England, while Roosevelt and Stalin wanted to liquidate all European colonial empires, what they implemented in the post war era. In the meantime even the Russian colonial empire faded away. [B]The natural proclivity to rule of Anglo-Saxons has long withered away in favor of Yahwism and has been completely whiped out.[/B] ... Thus today even small demands like ... the natural demand for the equalization of the German language with English and French in the EU committees are sufficient in order to kindle the simmering anti-Germanism immediately into the brightest glow.
The fact of Christian humanism against Germanness has however still another, i.e. internal component, which affects the soul of the German even more. Because since his Christianization the German carries a deep scar in the middle of his heart. This split becomes visible during our whole history, it divides the people, its tribes, the parties and each individual German, if he did not overcome Christianity. And if we do not want to perish miserably we must remove the poisonous apple from Snow-white's throat. The tremendous fact is that the German bore this agonizing split of the soul for over 1500 years since. His Thulean soul never disappeared completely and always was in a struggle with the strange Christian spirit. [B]More than even among the Scandinavians has the consciousness of the Germanic birth never expired completely from the German mind and it is still alive and a certain pride in his nordic origin still lingers on in the German. The transplanted peritheral peoples on the other hand erased all things Germanic from their consciousness, considered themselves as Latins and otherwise mediteranian Christian with a pronounced front position against the Germanic center of Europe. [/B] And even our dropped brothers, the Swiss and the Dutchmen, adopted a foolish hostility toward the Reich. And the Christian spirit pressed against our own Thulean soul, pushing it back, suspecting it and making the Germans in disagreement with themselves, so that they bent ever more to inferiority complexes and submissiveness, although no other people of the world exceeds it in creative strength.
Every talent was missing among the German to put his own achievements into the public eye the way the Frenchmen would do it. He rather hid them as if it would be something embaressing to put them out. He distrusted even his creative acts because the Christian moral always taught the reservation against ones own nature and the German with his earnest takes things more conscientiously. So what Johannes Scherr wrote in the last century about the German catholic, applies to the German Christian in general - here not in the sense of the organization of same name during the 3rd Reich:
"... from this it explained that the honest German catholic in the highest results of the German culture sees something strange, even something hostile. That is very sad but it is like that. And because of that, Germany's pride and fame in its science and its literature cannot be shared by a honest German catholic who finds that even annoying. So he cannot be a convinced Patriot, but at best a Tyrolean, a Bavarian, a Swabian, or a Westphalean one. The ideal unity of the nation in the German soul is not existent for him."
Scherr was even catholic baptized. Even as an all-German Patriotism developed and strengthened in the decades up to 1914, then nevertheless the two world wars were lost before they began: They were psychologically lost. Old heroic courage of the German soldier could not change it. For the allied world that pretended to fight for democracy as a symbol of heavenly Jerusalem, there could not be a Central European mission. The hypocrisy of the allies was considered honesty for the world, the honesty of the Germans was only regarded as hypocrisy. How could the conventional demand of the Germans in 1914 that they also deserved "a place at the sun" succeed against the salvation teachings of its adversaries?
And in such a way the disaster of 1945 met the Germans with full force. Their Thulean soul was put on narcosis. The German only saw himself with self hate. He became a reverse chauvinist. The German became his own enemy. The guilt syndrome, a characteristic with a typically christoid origin, suppresses any reason. The reeducated German was turned into a mad dog, which barks at its own shade nonstop. Everyone who makes only the quietest attempt to speak for the German people and the historical truth will be met by Christians and patent democrats falling on him like a hornet swarm. It is as if one takes their dearest toy away from them. The "Zeitgeist" turns with all means against the truth, in particular if truth speaks in favor of the German people. The anti-Germanism which advanced both from the outside and from the inside overwhelmed the Germans nearly in their entirety. Only the hardest core resists.
Dietrich Schuler, Die Stunde des Kreatismus. Von der notwendigen ÃÅberwindung des Christentums (1993),
Dietrich Schuler, The hour of creatism. Of the necessary overcoming of Christianity (1993) [/I]
2003-10-11 18:31 | User Profile
Very interesting article Jamestown! Do you agree with it?
I agree with parts of the article. What I do not agree with is the line that Christianity is to blame for our demise. Europe has been Christian for a thousand years and all attempts of Asian and African invaders have failed to take Europe until the Christian order has been destroyed by the French Revolution. The invasion of Europe is the result of the ideological foundation of the French Revolution, not the Christian faith. How many lefties are Christian anyway. Heiner Geisler and Rita Süßmuth are two Christian politicians who want a multiethnic society but most multicultists are on the atheist left.
I agree that the British consider themselves rather part of Roman civilization and not part of barbarian civilization even though the British people are basically Celtoteutonic rather than latin. The British Empire considered itself the heir of Rome, not Germania. Furthermore the American Republic was modelled after the Roman Republic too.
Here is some more:
A Document: quote:
URGENT
Secretaryof State.
I hope that you will instruct Mr. Mallet that he is an no account to meet Dr. Weissauer. The future of civilisation is at stake. lt is a question of we or they now, and either the German Reich or this country has got to go under, and not only under, but right under. I believe it will be the German Reich. This is a very different thing from saying that GERMANY has got to go under; But the German REICH and the Reich Idea have been the curse of this World for 75 years, and if we do not stop it this time, we never shall, and they will stop us. The enemy is the German Reich and not merely Nazism, and those who have not learned this lesson have learned nothing whatever, and would let us in for a sixth war even if we survive the fifth. I would far sooner take my chance of surviving the fifth. All possebility of compromise has now gone by, and it has got to be a fight to a finish, and to a REAL finish. I trust that Mr. Mallet will get the most categorical instructions. We have had much more than enough of Dahlerus, Goerdeler, Weissauer and Company.
6th September 1940,
Vansittard
The traditional enemy of Britain has been France. For half a millenium the British were fighting French power and even allying themselves with the Prussians in both the seventh years war (Indian wars) and the Napoleonic wars. Only after 1871 the British considered the Germans the prime enemy as Germany was suplanting France as the major key player. Once the Germans were out the Russians became the prime target of the Anglosaxon world and still is so. States fight for power, Nietsche called them cold monsters. That is how the world works. It is all about power and influence. People are just little puppits in the game.
2003-10-11 22:40 | User Profile
What is it about the unique psychology of Whites that causes them to hate their own kin much more than any other race would hate themselves? Is this a congenital problem in Whites? Is it purely cultural indoctrination? could any other race be indoctrinated into hating their own kin to the same degree Whites have? If its congenital for Whites, does this mean there is no future for Western people? Are there any biological or cultural solutions to reverse White self-hatred or potential for self-hatred? The only thing I have come across is [url]http://home.comcast.net/~neoeugenics/host.htm[/url]
Conservative
2003-10-12 06:29 | User Profile
[QUOTE=Bardamu]There is a fellow at my work who likes to talk about some video-game called Allied Assault. Everyday I have to hear of his progress "killin' Germans" as he works his way through the levels of the game. By ancestry he is part German and part Scandinavian, which is to say, part German and part Germanic, yet still he goes on about "killin' Germans". First time he said it, I said, "Yeah, maybe you even killed some of your own relatives."[/QUOTE]
Bardamu,
It is apparent that your co-worker has the maturity and the mind of a six year old. That person doesn't have a clue of the actual history of that period. Your comeback is what he deserved for making such an ignorant comment...
2003-10-12 06:34 | User Profile
And you, Leland, by your comment here:
[QUOTE]The good thing is that in multiplayer-modus you can play Germans..... and kill Yankees![/QUOTE]
have demonstrated that you aren't much above the level of the nitwit I quoted above.
2003-10-12 07:16 | User Profile
Jamestown.
I believe that this is one of the most profound things that I have ever read.
[QUOTE]Brits consider themselves as Romanized Celts rather than West Germanic peoples. The Germans never realized that and thus did wrong decisions in their foreign policy choices.[/QUOTE]
This one statement explains quite a bit of the 20th century. I think though, I'd describe this to the upper classes of Britian more than to the average Brit. As you note, the feud between Germany and Britain didn't exist until after the Franco-Prussian War and I think that a good part of that was due to competition between the two over colonies and more important, Germany's standing as an economic competitor. The British government started embracing destructive free trade policies while the Germans operated under the Zollverrein,which I believe gave them a big advantage. German businesses were giving the Brits quite a bit of competition which played right into the hands of those who would hold such views as I quoted from your post above. "Those," in this case being the plutocrats that hold sway not only in Britain, but America as well.
Perhaps it is to Germany's and Europe's ultimate loss that Crown Prince Frederick William died and the mantleship of Kaiser went to Wilhelm II who couldn't grasp what v. Bismarck attempted to do with a Russian alliance to deal with the problem above.
[QUOTE]But after the endless GermanPolish melee I do not want to set up a BritGerman feud as well. But I found this on the internet and found it quite interesting.[/QUOTE]
I don't think you'll have a problem here. This is rather thought provoking, to say the least and I thinks sheds a great deal of insight to something that is not well understood at all. It does help us realize who our real enemies are.
2003-10-12 12:52 | User Profile
This one statement explains quite a bit of the 20th century. I think though, I'd describe this to the upper classes of Britian more than to the average Brit. As you note, the feud between Germany and Britain didn't exist until after the Franco-Prussian War and I think that a good part of that was due to competition between the two over colonies and more important, [B]Germany's standing as an economic competitor[/B].
The last is crucial. Germany surpassed Britain as a steal producer in 1900.
The British government started embracing destructive free trade policies while the Germans operated under the Zollverrein,which I believe gave them a big advantage.
The Zollverein (German Customs Union) was necessary to shield German business from British competition. Particularly in the textile industry, Britain was pushing the German industries into bankruptancy.
[url]http://www.ohiou.edu/~Chastain/rz/zollvrn.htm[/url]
The British lost a market.
German businesses were giving the Brits quite a bit of competition which played right into the hands of those who would hold such views as I quoted from your post above. [B]"Those," in this case being the plutocrats that hold sway not only in Britain, but America as well.[/B]
Such plutocrats existed in Germany as well and they were no better than their American and British contemporaries. The Krupp family was selling grenades and shells both to the German and British governments in WWI. Payment was arranged with the British by measuring the German blood toll on the battle field. So Krupp's profits directly related to the number of German soldiers killed. The official propaganda was celebrating Krupp as the "Waffenschmiede der Nation" i.e. Weapon smiths of the nation. The left states that the working class has no fatherland. But they are wrong. It is the capitalists that do not have a country.
Perhaps it is to Germany's and Europe's ultimate loss that Crown Prince Frederick William died and the mantleship of Kaiser went to Wilhelm II who couldn't grasp what v. Bismarck attempted to do with a Russian alliance to deal with the problem above.
Bismarck was one of the smartest statesmen the Germans ever had. But maybe he was too smart for the Germans and so they didn't listen to him. Bismarck said that the ultimate problem with Germany is that it is too strong to fit into a European power concert but too weak to dominate Europe completely. So he came to the conclusion that the Germans must always play down their power in order to avoid suspicion from their neighbours. At the same time Germany must ensure that the other powers are at each others throats so that they cannot form an alliance. Bismarck never wanted German colonies or a German fleet. The Berlin conference in 1885 has been staged by Bismarck in order to ensure that the division of Africa among Europe's powers will largely benefit France and Britain so that a colonial war between these two powers might occur, something that almost happened during the Fashoda incident.
[url]http://www.bbc.co.uk/worldservice/africa/features/storyofafrica/11chapter3.shtml[/url]
Bismarck knew that the rest of Europe will do anything to destroy the second empire. Bismarck was fully aware of the vulnerability of his creation. But Kaiser Wilhelm was more popular and so the Germans jumped into the same imperial mess like the other European powers.
2003-10-13 07:44 | User Profile
[QUOTE=Leland Gaunt]How would you know that Friedrich Wilhelm would have been a better monarch? And what makes you think, that it would have changed the determination of our enemys to destroy us?
For one thing I think he was a far more intelligent man than Wilhelm. Perhaps it wouldn't "have changed the determination of our enemys to destroy us," but I think he would have had a better chance than Wilhelm in stopping the people in the background that wanted that war. I don't think he would have gotten involved so deeply with Austro-Hungary for one thing.
Kaiser Friedrich III was married to Princes Victoria of England who allways was against Bismarck and tried to intrigue against him her entire life. He was also known as a liberal Monarch who was against Bismarcks iron-fist policy against the social-democrats. That Wilhelm II dismissed Bismarck was due to a large part of the influence of his mother.
The dismissing of Bismarck is all the more reason that I think that Wilhelm was in over his head. I will note that Bismarck co-opted some of the things the Social Democrats wanted, like social security for example.
1905 Wilhelm II met with Czar Niklas at Bjoerkoe and he persuaded him to sign an alliance with Germany. This treaty was of course imeadiatly canceled after the Czar returned home. They just didn't want it.
I will have to look into this in some detail for the explanation.
I also find it a rather stupid excuse to blame so called German "Expansionism" and colonial-policy as the main reason for western hostility. Hitler made the exact same mistake. He thought if one kisses up to the Brits and leave them their empire, they would just leave us alone. One should read Hitlers second book. He blames the Kaisers Naval policy as a reason for Englands fear. I wonder why England never attacked the USA because of it's large navy?
In the first place I didn't blame German expansionism for anything here. I simply pointed out that the British (and the French for that matter) didn't like it. The Germans weren't doing anything that no one else was doing at the time. As for the British attacking the U.S. for what? If there is stupidity it is in that statement.
I think the real reason sits much deeper and is of spiritual, cultural source. We all know today that Thatcher tried to prevent unification in 1989. So what reason could they have had then?[/QUOTE]
I remember Thatcher trying to prevent the reunification and I hold that act of hers in contempt. The only reason I can think of for such irrational behavior is what Jamestown posted above.
2003-10-13 07:57 | User Profile
Jamestown,
I found what you wrote about the Krupp family to be quite interesting and equally disgusting. In a way I shouldn't be surprised to find out about the war profiteering with both side. I'd like to see more on this if you have something handy. What you typed here is quotable:
The left states that the working class has no fatherland. But they are wrong. It is the capitalists that do not have a country.
If that isn't the God's truth I don't know what is.
The comments about Bismarck I am in complete agreement with. He did understand the realities of modern statesmanship for that period of history. Like Frederick, his services were lost at an inopportune time.
2003-10-13 15:07 | User Profile
[QUOTE=Bardamu]There is a fellow at my work who likes to talk about some video-game called Allied Assault. Everyday I have to hear of his progress "killin' Germans" as he works his way through the levels of the game. By ancestry he is part German and part Scandinavian, which is to say, part German and part Germanic, yet still he goes on about "killin' Germans". First time he said it, I said, "Yeah, maybe you even killed some of your own relatives."[/QUOTE]
Reprehensable. I saw the movie 'SPR' and, though it was brilliantly produced and was very popular with the junior enlisted soldiers, they actually got angry with me when I defended the Germans in the movie (actually, I defended [I]how they were portrayed[/I], but that mattered little to the button-pressing generation. They could not tell the difference). I won't go into a in-depth slam critique of SPR for fear of being accused of an attempted thread hijacking, but a couple of problems I had with the movie (and thus: the game, and thus: anti-German sentiment in the US) were:
1) The German sniper in the tower. A SS senior NCO Sniper which had lived through 4 years of continuous combat would [I]NEVER, EVER, UNDER ANY CIRCUMSTANCES[/I] put himslef in a position without a way out (bell tower) or in such a obviously novice position enwhich he would actually assist the Allies in killing him (mortar or artillery to take out the building.. we thought little of such things as 'saving cultural heritage' back then). Not to mention that he was SS, and a mean old sniper, and heartless, and the 'good guy' got him. He shot Kaparzo (however you spell his name), a low-ranking nobody, instead of the Captain, despite that the Captain was in plain view the whole time with bright shiny insignia designating him as an [I]officer on his helmet!!![/I] and everyone was looking to him for direction. Senior SS NCO's do not make such mistakes. He would have nailed the OIC from a different position and instantly displaced to a pre-planned secondary position to further harass the enemy. (Trust me, I know. I went through enough specialized schools that teach such things). Killing a blue-eyed, blonde-haired German SS NCO Sniper in a sensational manner was meant to evoke an emotional response that, largely, was bought off as truth to 99% of the vast majority of Ami's. A pox on Speilberg.
2) The stupid attack at the bridge. Germans roll in with all this firepower and [I]do not prep[/I] (recon by fire) the obvious positions that could hide antitank weapons, soliders or scout/snipers? [I]Including the bell tower??[/I] And these guys were supposed to be anything close to any good? The Wehrmacht and [I]Schützstaffel[/I] did not give out free Panther G's, Tiger I's and Marder SP antitank guns to just anyone with the right paperwork. Those were dear, and were reserved for the better SS units. They would have wiped out the tower, prepped the town by firing point blank into the buildings to soften up the resistance (wasn't it mentioned that they had been there before and, therefore, knew what to expect?) and then come at them from two sides (see: Fighting techniques of the Panzergrenadier).
3) The one and only German with any speaking lines was protrayed as a coward and blackguard, willing to say anything to save his own skin. The rest were cardboard cutouts willing to drop their weapons at the first inkling of resistance (skinny bastard at the bridge disarming 6 SS, some NCO's, some with automatic weapons instead of K98's...long lines of beaten German soldiers abjectly marched past the victorious Airborne troops and being taunted with [I]"Jüden....Jüüüden"[/I] as they filed past). How nice. How dehumanizing. And we're supposed to believe that these were the same troops that largely took on the world singlehandedly and [I]almost won[/I]?? Riiiiight. And my ass is a banjo.
I will concede that that quality of German troops had declined through attrition by the time the US got onto Continental Europe, but I didn't define these Germans in the movie as substandard. Speilberg made them out to be some of the best the Wehrmacht and SS could cough up, and he protrayed them as inept buffoons and caricatures that were seemingly intent on getting themselves killed in the most idiotic way possible. And it contributed to a new wave of anti-German thought and emotion.
It [I]IS[/I] a brilliantly produced movie. I did enjoy it, despite the flaws. Seeing the old hardware in action again was moving. Seeing the courage of men under fire is inspiring, but I knew it to be what it was: A blatant slam against the Teutonic peoples that was designed to illicit a direct emotional response against Germans and a secondary sympathetic emotion for the Jews (after all, weren't we all taught that the Holocaust killed millions of Jews? It must be true. Teacher said so.)
Ausonius
2003-10-13 15:25 | User Profile
[QUOTE=Sertorius]Jamestown,
I found what you wrote about the Krupp family to be quite interesting and equally disgusting. In a way I shouldn't be surprised to find out about the war profiteering with both side. I'd like to see more on this if you have something handy. What you typed here is quotable:
If that isn't the God's truth I don't know what is.
The comments about Bismarck I am in complete agreement with. He did understand the realities of modern statesmanship for that period of history. Like Frederick, his services were lost at an inopportune time.[/QUOTE]
My Great-grandfather immigrated in 1905 from Karlsruhe. He built, through mostly his own bullheadedness and force of will, 3 bookbinderies. Two in Germany and one here in the US, in Cincinnati. During WWI, he tried to stay out of the troubles, but anti-german sentiment almost caused him to lose the factory here in the US. One of the ones in Germany was burned to the ground (I never did learn how it happened, it's one of those things lost to hisotry). He used what money he had left to rebuild the one lost in germany, and gave much of his money back to the German state to help those hurt by the war. The factory here in the states did well after the war.
Then came WW2. In the true spirit of America, he was producing Field Manuals and Technical Manuals for both the German Army and the US Army. Before anyone slams old Gramps for this one, think on this: Did not the US trade with both England and France during their repeated and largely useless wars with each other? We did, and stayed out of the fighting until Britian started hijacking our sailors off US-flagged ships and pressing them into service. They backed off when we threatened Canada, knowing they could not fight a 2-front war.
Great-Gramps made money off of both sides, until both factories in Germany were bombed flat and the one in the US went into receivership (apparently, having an ethnic German making field manuals was not politically correct), and he died a pauper. His obituary in the German-speaking Cincinatti newspaper in 49 ran a whole page, siting him as a writer, philanthopist, poet and family man. He was not a National Socialist. He was a German, a patriot and a capitalist, and he was ruined for it. Thanks a bunch, you witless bastards who ruined my family. Hope you got a warm spot in Hell.
Ausonius
2003-10-13 16:25 | User Profile
[QUOTE=Leland Gaunt]@ Ausonius
I would like to add folowing points to your critique of this "movie".
1) The sniper in the tower could not have been seen from that angle the american was in. He was not directly at the window, but in the back of the room and behind a cover. Also the yankee sniper couldn't see him from where he fired and asked himself "Where would I be if I were him....". He not only couldn't see him, he shot him on a wild guess and "around a corner" because he could have never looked into that window from that angle.
2) Any sniper would have taken out the most dangerous threat to himself first - namely the other sniper.
3) I'm not so sure anymore, but the sniper shot at the Yanks after they mowed down his comrades behind that toppling wall. How stupid - why didn't he shoot at them while they were screaming around.
4) The previously mentioned scene was simply ridiculous. Our men would have shot imeadiatly and not engaged in a screaming duel and then let themselves get mowed down.
5) The episode with the Radar-Station where the medic dies. Does someone realy believe that an america captain asks his men who wants to take part in the charge rather than order it? Now I wonder: What is a single german MG42 nest with 4 people sitting there all alone. Where is their flan cover? Shouldn't their comrades to the left or right be in yelling distance and able to cover them? If not, what IDIOT would waste those 4 men as sitting ducks in the midst of a field "guarding" an obviously abandoned radar-station?
That MG was sourounded by the corpses of dead american paras. so they were not able to take them out, but Tom Hanks and his crew did? And what kind of animals could just sit there and eat while there is the stench of decaying corpses around them? That was a very clever move of spielberg to portrait us as monsters.
6) The whining german coward, which in the end kills Tom Hanks, does not return to his unit but simply joins an SS-detachment. Do these hollywood jews have any idea how a military works, specialy such a diciplined army as our Wehrmacht? I also wonder why he didn't return to his unit and report to his commanding officer that americans destroyed their MG-Post and sneaking around behind our lines. And why no one was sent out to catch or destroy them.
7) they portraied our soldiers like Russians. all with a shaved head and charging in mass waves, letting themselves get mowed down, regardless of our losses, running down the same street, seeing their comrades fall before them and not returning fire?
8) It was like a tag game. They were just chasing the american who ran - turned around and shot a dozen of our men and then ran again. I didn't see any of our soldiers fire while running. Oh yes, one american tripped and fell down and then a SS soldier shot him while running by.
9) the sceene with the Tiger tank was so stupid. One american ran up to the drivers eyslit and fierd into it, causing a fountain of blood to squirt out of it. Impossible - tiger tanks had armoured glass. and why didn't the bow-mg of the tank fire at them. Was it just decoration.
10) The sceene at the bridge, where tom Hanks is shooting at the tank with his pistol. All of a sudden a mustang apears and bombs the tank. funny that the Bridge and Tom Hanks would survive the blast of an exploding Tiger-tank. And even more funny, that no one heard or saw that plane coming. So it takes 1 mustang and an entir SS regiment starts running? Yeah, sure. They should have just named the film "Sgt. Rock - the Movie"-
What was for me most disgusting and disapointing, that in the theatre the audience was cheering the Allies. Just goes to show what a sick people we are.[/QUOTE]
Leland,
Apt observations. But a minor correction or two:
[QUOTE]lso the yankee sniper couldn't see him from where he fired and asked himself "Where would I be if I were him....". He not only couldn't see him, he shot him on a wild guess and "around a corner" because he could have never looked into that window from that angle. [/QUOTE]
Jackson stated: "That's where I'd be.." and pointed towards the tower. You should have heard the snorts of derision when he said that (I was just finishing up Sniper School in Virginia at the time... One of our Instructors actually stopped the tape and said: "This is why movies are such bullshit.." then proceeded to rip the scene to shreds). Any sniper worth his salt would NOT have chosen the tower, even a piker. Maybe as a diversion, by placing a dead comrade with a loaded rifle in his hands there, then tying a string to the trigger and fired it at random from the "real" position to attract attention away from himself (while warm and comfy nearby, maybe in the roof itself, shooting from a loophole made by removing one of the many clay roof tiles on the church). Such tricks are old news, having been performed as far back as 1914, and were even standardized training methods in the various sniper schools of the day.. they still are.
[QUOTE]He not only couldn't see him, he shot him on a wild guess and "around a corner" because he could have never looked into that window from that angle. Any sniper would have taken out the most dangerous threat to himself first - namely the other sniper [/QUOTE]
True, but if Jackson could not see him, then the sniper could not see Jackson, if he were "around a corner". Hence, he would have nailed the OIC and displaced instantly, not some low-level nobody standing there with his arm up like the Statue of Liberty. The distance, as I recall, was about 450 yards. The human eye is capable of resolving an image of one square inch at 100 yards. The German was using (likely) a 6-power Hendsolt scope on that rig he was using, letting him resolve images out to 800 yards. Hanks's character would have been [I]clearly[/I] visible as being an officer due to the big-ass bright shiny white officer's rank on his helmet. The Germans were well aware of our rank structure and would have been looking for such a thing. Being an observer to your own fight gets you killed. He would have displaced after his man was down.
[QUOTE]The episode with the Radar-Station where the medic dies. Does someone realy believe that an america captain asks his men who wants to take part in the charge rather than order it? Now I wonder: What is a single german MG42 nest with 4 people sitting there all alone. Where is their flan cover? Shouldn't their comrades to the left or right be in yelling distance and able to cover them? If not, what IDIOT would waste those 4 men as sitting ducks in the midst of a field "guarding" an obviously abandoned radar-station?[/QUOTE]
Apt. I would have used the dead para's as bait, then set up a couple of friendly devices for anyone who disturbed the station and came poking around... but that's just me. A good MG team is valuable... more valuable than most folks realize and would have been better used elsewhere. The Station was already out of action, staying there was a waste of time.
Your other arguments have merit and I agree. There were major flaws in it and I hope that the alleged "military advisor" to the movie either quit due to taking such liberties over realism or was fired for making a stink... if he stayed on, I'd like to know who he was, so I can avoid movies where he has an influence.
Ausonius
2003-10-13 16:40 | User Profile
Leland I totally agree with you about "Saving Private Ryan" and their idiotic protrayl of the Waffen-SS. My favorite has always been "the Dirty Dozen" were crackpot morons take out at least 50 to 100 Whermacht soldiers in a single raid.
My grandfather never did like World War 2 movies, he always said they were nothing but :dung: ! Ironically he also used to say that the German soldiers were far more competent and better fighters they would protray on film. So even many American vets think WW2 movies are stupid.
2003-10-13 23:26 | User Profile
[QUOTE=jamestown]I agree that the British consider themselves rather part of Roman civilization and not part of barbarian civilization [/QUOTE]
And what did an empire ruled by a "Kaiser" consider themselves?
[QUOTE=jamestown]Furthermore the American Republic was modelled after the Roman Republic too. [/QUOTE]
Yes, the Americans adopted some symbolism from the Indo-European Roman [B]Republic[/B] (while acknowledging their Anglo-Saxon ancestors as the source of their principles of government). On the other hand, ****-ups like Hitler, and German-American traitors like Francis Parker Yockey worshipped at the altar of the Orientalized, multiracial Roman Empire.
2003-10-13 23:29 | User Profile
[QUOTE=Leland Gaunt]The anglo-saxon world never did like us and NEVER will. [/QUOTE]
Why do they hate us? Why are we poisecuted so?
2003-10-18 01:25 | User Profile
Excellent article, although the translation is rather poor.
Question:
Is the author affiliated with "Creativity"? See [url]http://www.whiteplanet.org/[/url]
[QUOTE=jamestown]A year ago I was in the City Museum of London. The museum showed the history of the London city from the Roman times up to the Victorian times at the turn of the century a hundred years ago. When I was at the place of the Anglosaxon period there was a British mum with her let's say nine year old son standing in front of a graphical presentation of the Saxon siege of the city. Son and mother were blond and blue eyed and the son was asking his mother what the headline "The Anglosaxons period, advance of the dark ages" meant. The mother was telling her child that back then the Brits had a Roman level of civilization and invaders from Germany were pushing Britain back civilizationally until the British reached the Roman level of civilization back again in the 19th century. Brits consider themselves as Romanized Celts rather than West Germanic peoples. The Germans never realized that and thus did wrong decisions in their foreign policy choices.
But after the endless GermanPolish melee I do not want to set up a BritGerman feud as well. But I found this on the internet and found it quite interesting.
The article is heavily antichristian. But this discussion board so far has survived antichristian attacks.
[I]
Dietrich Schuler
The hour of creativism
"Christianity is a trick to turn the strong into the slaves of the weak."
Humanism and Anti-Germanism
Due to a completely wrong world view in its isolation from the spirit of life, Christianity developed a view of man whose disastrous consequences have become visible only in this century.
The superstition that all men are created equal, irrespective of national origin, race, sex, level of intelligence and character has led to the equalizing "humanism" that levels off all men to the same lowest denominator, so subsequently thought out to the end will lead to the disappearance of the type "man" altogether. An alledgedly all compassing "human dignity" is preached as if the christian spirit has fallen from heaven, although this spirit is just another expression of a negating state of mind.
This human dignity is endowed to everyone according to christian and christoid opinion no matter whether the aforementioned person is a tramp at the level of an animal, a sex killer or some other serious criminal or a genial inventer, a great physician or a pioneering economic leader. Yes, the more the human level sinks the louder sound the cries from all sources about the "untouchable human dignity". Why not a deer's dignity, a horse's dignity, a lion's dignity? Because it is taken for granted that the fictitious equality and human dignity is applied to all, but on the other hand the visible incapability of inumerable people, tribes and races cannot be ignored, the christian conscience is particularly concerned about the plight of losers, the incapable, the failed, the mentally ill and the groups at the bottom of society, as these people must be victims of a naturally evil world in general and a glaringly social injustice in particular. So even here it turns into an inversion. The more ungifted some tribe might be on the great ball called earth, the louder they scream for his well deserved development aid, the more it rises in the moral judgement of christianity and the worldly ideologies based on it. This is the reason for the hardly even more increasable cult of the colored man in the present times. On the other hand the ambitious is always subject to suspicion. Because he is doing fine it is suspected that he is in love with the evil world and that one in him. Such is it that disturbs the circles of the christian anti-instinct, and this is the source of the nondeniable antigermanism in the world. Because the German has not lost entirely his industriousness despite so many catastrophies and reeductation, he has been declared the ultimate evil, the entity the world propaganda and every runaway hater can vilify without any social sanctions. All the sacrifices he makes for others will not help him, the more he gives the more he sacrifices himself the more he will be hated and scolded. The christian antiinstinct has become the basic state of mind in the world, and its moral obligation always requires to side with the good for nothings and nonworthy losers. And that is why you will never read in a single newspaper a single word stating that the misery and chaos of the "developing countries" might be the result of their own fault.
In addition it comes that the Christian concept of man is dishonest in itself. Its ambiguity lies in its elevation of man as the only species among millions of others as the image of God, but presses him however at the same time to the level of a serf, a worm, to the nothing. Everything outside of human nature is not considered in Christianity. It can be raped and exploited, and this is an important comment to the ecological catastrophe that the earth has to suffer. The pronounced esteem for nature and animals one can observe in many parts of Europe has nothing to do with Christianity and is typically Germanic in its origin. It is a tragic misery made possible by the long duration of Christianity that characteristics are constantly assigned to Christianity which are not based on it at all. As already has been mentioned since the Europeans have adopted the Nazarean teachings they constantly associate their most sacret believes with this religion: A reverse theft with the worst consequences. Christianity despises the nonhuman world, it is hardly existent for it. Everything is dedicated with the genuine desert mentality to the only existent God and his humanism. Simply put: Christianity behaves racist towards plants and animals, but egalitarian within the realm of humankind.
It would be now a rough misunderstanding to assume that we creatists want to expand the much critisized equality cult to the realm of plants and animals, which would be utter nonsense in its entirety. Humans clearly as a species certainly possess a superior rank in nature and therefore also determined privileges, what does not relieve him however of his obligation to bear full responsibility and concern for this nature. Second creatism claims that many representatives of the human species can fall far below the level of an animal because the more highly a species actually ranks the more diverse the possibilities for their degeneration will become. Pets such as cat and dog can degenerate more strongly than an ant. And third creatism believes that the hierarchical basic principle of nature likewise applies to humans like everywhere else and that it is actually wrong to talk of only one kind of people.
Due to the reversal of values and the anti-instinct which is inherent in it and out of necessity Christianity while breaking in from the south had to be anti-Germanic. [B]The young noneducated peoples in the north of Europe, Teutons, Celts, Slavs and Balts embodied everything that ran contrary to Christian basic believes: This life cult, heathen joy of existence, complete impartiality toward the Sexus and due to that therefore a high moral conduct, strength, military spirit, loyality and natural superiority. Otherworldliness met this life ethics. In particular the Christian messengers spread right from the beginning hate against Germanness, which they devalued as heathen barbarianism. [/B] A picture was drawn by mindless bull horn and bear skin wearers who would be nothing else than robbers, boozers and killers without a culture. What has already be sown 1200 years ago has borne its full lethal fruit only in the 20th Century. The major effect of anti-German propaganda before, during and after the two world wars, even coming from the the Germans themselves, is rooted in this. So far only the surface has been scratched of the war and atrocity agitation of the 20th Century. European history seen through the eyes of the collective psychology and their laws regarded, can be drawn briefly in such a way: [B]The peoples and tribes who had arrived once in the course of centuries and thousands of years as Teutons or Indoeuropeans from the European center and the north into the peripheral zones of Europe and who formed numerous states there, experienced a sense of transplantation that gradually developed into a hate against their own old centre in the heart of Europe. Because in the border states they had been in connection with other cultures. [/B] The breaking in Christianity supplied the mental weapons for the fight of these peoples against their own origin. [B]In particular the German-English contrast became the actual tragedy of Europe in the 20th Century. People never knew in Germany that the Englishmen always considered themselves as a part of the Christian latin world, but never as Teutons. The prominent men of the 3rd Reich made a tragic mistake. The British wanted to be Celts, Romans or even descendants of Israeli tribes, but under no circumstances Teutons. With respect to the refusal and devaluation of Germanness as a "teutonic" barbarianism they were no different from the Frenchmen or Italians, although England retained half of its Germanic language. [/B]
Everywhere the "ex Oriente lux" prevailed, i.e. the conception that all culture, civilization itself originates from the Orient. [B]The fact is crucial that the Christianization of Germany essentially started from France and England. In romanized Gaul and romanized Britain the later Germanic tribes of the Angels, Saxons, Franks, Burgunders, Wikingers and Normans settling there christianized and romanized too. [/B] All these recent, still infant Teuton tribes had not been up to the refined dialectic spirit of the Orient. Are they up to it today?
[B]The fact that the socalled "Apostel of the Germans", Bonifatius, was an Anglosaxon named Winfried has never been understood in its whole symbolic meaning, let alone appreciated. Likewise Lioba, a relative of Winfried, was an Anglosaxon. Then the Isish-Scottish monks were involved. From 1914 to 1945 England has for the second time felled the Donar's oak. [/B] It has alway been fellow Teutons who chained their comrades. And with this spirit of Bonifatius the Popes and the ultramontanist parties conducted an anti-German, Reich-hostile policy. In the same way the alienated Western Franks led the Christianization of the European center. The notorious words of the bishop of Reims still come to mind when he led the baptism of the Frankish king Chlodwig that shed a light on what happened with the arrival of Christianity: "bend your head proud Sugambrian, burn the ideals which you prayed to, and what you burned pray to!" And in such a way late emperor Charlemagne broke the resistance of the freedom loving heathen Saxons and let their noblemen get butchered. It is not a coincidence that it was a French cleric who coined the key word "Vandalism" by that not only this Teuton tribe but all Teutons have been constantly insulted. It is the same spirit of Bonifatius that let the papal Nuntius Alexander explain at the Reich Council at Worms: "if the Germans set themselves free from the Roman yoke then we will ensure that they will put each other to death." Thus spoken 100 years before the 30 years war. The sarcastic arrogant tone that nearly always stepped out in England and France, as soon as there is talk about anything German goes back to the time of Christianization. And this anti-Germanism has already spread to the south and the east, in particular to catholic Poland. As a basic tendency it is prevalent today in the whole world.
The allied atrocity agitation of the two world wars in which the German was disparaged as a Hun, barbarian, Boche and a Kraut, thus frightening to the light, was only the brightly up-blazing hell flame of 1500 years of nonstop anti-Germanism expired... It would be however a total mischaracterization of the deep layer of this anti-Germanism if one ignores its Christian root. [B]Thus e.g.... the Jesuit Vaugham in London demanded in 1915 from the pulpit down the "crusade of entire mankind against Prussia Germany": "we are ready to give our lives for the Christian faith, for the fall of Thor and Odin, that Prussian militarism esteems more highly than Christ." [/B] Here the origins become completely clear, and also in 2nd World war Eisenhower led his well know "crusade in Europe". In the First World War Horatio Bottomley, the then most popular journalist of England in his "John bulletin" spoke only of the "Germ Huns", thus hunnic vermin. The French historian J. Bainville, who wrote the "history of two peoples" that had hundreds of editions, stated still in 1921 that the contribution of Germany to human culture was "zero" until Goethe. Apparently this educated Frenchman had heard neither of Kopernikus nor Kepler, nor of a Duerer. Nor of Nikolaus of Kues, Albertus Magnus, Bach, Haendel, Joh. Gutenberg or Regiomontanus...
The always religiously colored, christian derived anti-Germanism is whole and irrational. The reality is not possible for it at all. [B]The expression of Lord Vansittart is extremely characteristic of the most drilled Germanhater, to be for Europe always means to be against Germany. Naturally the exact opposite is correct, and it will take still another while, until also the stupidest ones notice that the destruction of the German people means inevitably not only the end of Europe, but the entire white race.[/B] Since however Jesus was not the Christos, his wrong theory in the end had to lead to the complete mental aberration and misconception of reality. While the opposite side led a crusade against the German people, innumerable ordinary Germans believed in both world wars that they defended Christianity against bolshevism and western immorality. The folling events proved then drastically on which side the 'Christian God' stands. On 11th January 1918 e.g. the New Yorker Herold issued a lecture of the Evangelists at Sunday, in which it said: 'you know, o Lord that no nation is as infamous, mean, greedy, lustful and bloodthirsty as our enemies. Take your powerful arm, o God, and smash the hungry wolfish huns (Germans), their catch teeth of dripping blood, and we will praise you. Amen!' Which despicableness - and how much stupidity - speaks from this pious drivel: Thus Germany had been put down in the 1st World war. And ever more clearly the terrible certainty meets us: Christianity is our misfortune!
If "world propaganda" can succeed to turn certain peoples, systems or statesmen into monster figures of a black satanic force then facts play no more role: The "Satan" is always guilty. One only has to think here of the hysteria which was provoked world-wide against the Saddam Hussein's Iraq, that was not coincidentally continuously compared with Hitler. The entire hate campaign of 1990/91 applied even far more to Germany than to the insignificant Iraq. The principle is always the same whether it about the "chopped off children hands" of the 1st World war or about the alleged burned babies in Kuwait. The opponent is an incarnation of evil, all aggressions of the good and fair however is holy-spoken from the beginning on. The enemies of the bad are sacred, they cannot do injustice. The mechanized lie rolls every resistance down; no reality can do anything against it. "Mankind" will remain a stupid herd of sheep that finally knows about good and evil: The logical consequence of 2000 years of Christianity, of eastern revelation religion at all. The American form of democracy is styled into a salvation theory where no doubt is permitted. In the 20th Century no policy was operated from the anglo-saxon side based on rational criteria, but at the most a political theology with an anti-German basic attitude. Yes, the entire anti-Germanism is a religious prejudice, and this solidified itself from generation to generation according to a kind of dogma. Germany has been branded as 'the empire of evil'.
[B]With the puritan faith the chosen myth of the old testament merged perfectly with the anglo-saxon spirit both in Great Britain and in the USA. [/B] Before and during the 2nd World war official Germany looked on the Reich hostile publicity working of the Jews in the world. The fact however that e.g. the anglican church exceeded the Jews in anti-German meanness in many ways was mostly overlooked or one did not want to admit it... Hitler was the only foreign statesman who could be considered as a genuine friend of England, its Empires and British supremacy and therefore was dreaming of a federation between Germany and England, while Roosevelt and Stalin wanted to liquidate all European colonial empires, what they implemented in the post war era. In the meantime even the Russian colonial empire faded away. [B]The natural proclivity to rule of Anglo-Saxons has long withered away in favor of Yahwism and has been completely whiped out.[/B] ... Thus today even small demands like ... the natural demand for the equalization of the German language with English and French in the EU committees are sufficient in order to kindle the simmering anti-Germanism immediately into the brightest glow.
The fact of Christian humanism against Germanness has however still another, i.e. internal component, which affects the soul of the German even more. Because since his Christianization the German carries a deep scar in the middle of his heart. This split becomes visible during our whole history, it divides the people, its tribes, the parties and each individual German, if he did not overcome Christianity. And if we do not want to perish miserably we must remove the poisonous apple from Snow-white's throat. The tremendous fact is that the German bore this agonizing split of the soul for over 1500 years since. His Thulean soul never disappeared completely and always was in a struggle with the strange Christian spirit. [B]More than even among the Scandinavians has the consciousness of the Germanic birth never expired completely from the German mind and it is still alive and a certain pride in his nordic origin still lingers on in the German. The transplanted peritheral peoples on the other hand erased all things Germanic from their consciousness, considered themselves as Latins and otherwise mediteranian Christian with a pronounced front position against the Germanic center of Europe. [/B] And even our dropped brothers, the Swiss and the Dutchmen, adopted a foolish hostility toward the Reich. And the Christian spirit pressed against our own Thulean soul, pushing it back, suspecting it and making the Germans in disagreement with themselves, so that they bent ever more to inferiority complexes and submissiveness, although no other people of the world exceeds it in creative strength.
Every talent was missing among the German to put his own achievements into the public eye the way the Frenchmen would do it. He rather hid them as if it would be something embaressing to put them out. He distrusted even his creative acts because the Christian moral always taught the reservation against ones own nature and the German with his earnest takes things more conscientiously. So what Johannes Scherr wrote in the last century about the German catholic, applies to the German Christian in general - here not in the sense of the organization of same name during the 3rd Reich:
"... from this it explained that the honest German catholic in the highest results of the German culture sees something strange, even something hostile. That is very sad but it is like that. And because of that, Germany's pride and fame in its science and its literature cannot be shared by a honest German catholic who finds that even annoying. So he cannot be a convinced Patriot, but at best a Tyrolean, a Bavarian, a Swabian, or a Westphalean one. The ideal unity of the nation in the German soul is not existent for him."
Scherr was even catholic baptized. Even as an all-German Patriotism developed and strengthened in the decades up to 1914, then nevertheless the two world wars were lost before they began: They were psychologically lost. Old heroic courage of the German soldier could not change it. For the allied world that pretended to fight for democracy as a symbol of heavenly Jerusalem, there could not be a Central European mission. The hypocrisy of the allies was considered honesty for the world, the honesty of the Germans was only regarded as hypocrisy. How could the conventional demand of the Germans in 1914 that they also deserved "a place at the sun" succeed against the salvation teachings of its adversaries?
And in such a way the disaster of 1945 met the Germans with full force. Their Thulean soul was put on narcosis. The German only saw himself with self hate. He became a reverse chauvinist. The German became his own enemy. The guilt syndrome, a characteristic with a typically christoid origin, suppresses any reason. The reeducated German was turned into a mad dog, which barks at its own shade nonstop. Everyone who makes only the quietest attempt to speak for the German people and the historical truth will be met by Christians and patent democrats falling on him like a hornet swarm. It is as if one takes their dearest toy away from them. The "Zeitgeist" turns with all means against the truth, in particular if truth speaks in favor of the German people. The anti-Germanism which advanced both from the outside and from the inside overwhelmed the Germans nearly in their entirety. Only the hardest core resists.
Dietrich Schuler, Die Stunde des Kreatismus. Von der notwendigen ÃÅberwindung des Christentums (1993),
Dietrich Schuler, The hour of creatism. Of the necessary overcoming of Christianity (1993) [/I][/QUOTE]
2003-10-18 03:13 | User Profile
[QUOTE=Leland Gaunt] What was for me most disgusting and disapointing, that in the theatre the audience was cheering the Allies. Just goes to show what a sick people we are.[/QUOTE]
Germans were cheering the scene where their compatriots got killed? It's REALLY sick.
2003-10-18 04:43 | User Profile
FB, do you ever lay off the anti-Christian ranting? :wallbash:
2003-10-18 04:53 | User Profile
Jamestown,
Although these atheist leftists have ostensible abandoned their belief in a supernatural Christian world-view, they havenââ¬â¢t surrendered their Christian sense of morality and ethics with their attended universalism and radical egalitarianism.
These so-called atheist leftists diligently toiling for the destruction of Germans, and of everything German, are unconsciously adopting Christian precepts and values in a secular milieu. Anyway you look at it, a German (and by extension European) revival entails a clean break from Christianity and its bastard children of secular universalism and radical egalitarianism.
[QUOTE=jamestown]I agree with parts of the article. What I do not agree with is the line that Christianity is to blame for our demise. Europe has been Christian for a thousand years and all attempts of Asian and African invaders have failed to take Europe until the Christian order has been destroyed by the French Revolution. The invasion of Europe is the result of the ideological foundation of the French Revolution, not the Christian faith. How many lefties are Christian anyway. Heiner Geisler and Rita Süßmuth are two Christian politicians who want a multiethnic society but most multicultists are on the atheist left.
I agree that the British consider themselves rather part of Roman civilization and not part of barbarian civilization even though the British people are basically Celtoteutonic rather than latin. The British Empire considered itself the heir of Rome, not Germania. Furthermore the American Republic was modelled after the Roman Republic too.
The traditional enemy of Britain has been France. For half a millenium the British were fighting French power and even allying themselves with the Prussians in both the seventh years war (Indian wars) and the Napoleonic wars. Only after 1871 the British considered the Germans the prime enemy as Germany was suplanting France as the major key player. Once the Germans were out the Russians became the prime target of the Anglosaxon world and still is so. States fight for power, Nietsche called them cold monsters. That is how the world works. It is all about power and influence. People are just little puppits in the game.[/QUOTE]
2003-10-18 04:55 | User Profile
[QUOTE=perun1201]FB, do you ever lay off the anti-Christian ranting? :wallbash:[/QUOTE]
Say it with me:
"I may not agree with what you say, but I will defend to the death, your right to say it."
-Voltaire
2003-10-18 05:00 | User Profile
[QUOTE=friedrich braun] Although these atheist leftists have ostensible abandoned their belief in a supernatural Christian world-view, they haven’t surrendered their Christian sense of morality and ethics with their attended universalism and radical egalitarianism.
I don't know how many times I've refuted this claim. And as I said in the thread "Reply to Edward Clark", I said that the egalitarians like Rousseau and the Jacobins looked to the Roman Republic and Sparta for examples, not Christian Europe.
Anyway you look at, a German (and by extension European) revival entails a clean break from Christianity and its bastard children of universalism and radical egalitarianism.[/QUOTE]
Ok what about Frederick Barbarossa? The Teutonic Knights? Martin Luther? just to name a few "Germans".
2003-10-18 05:07 | User Profile
[QUOTE=perun1201]I don't know how many times I've refuted this claim. And as I said in the thread "Reply to Edward Clark", I said that the egalitarians like Rousseau and the Jacobins looked to the Roman Republic and Sparta for examples, not Christian Europe.
Ok what about Frederick Barbarossa? The Teutonic Knights? Martin Luther? just to name a few "Germans".[/QUOTE]
Perun,
Remember?
...
I also don't see why "no student of history can argue that Christianity is somehow `inherently' defective in ways that weaken the race." Liberal Christianity is by no means a product of the post-1945 era; it goes back at least to the Renaissance and maybe to the origins of Christianity. There are certainly passages in the New Testament that instruct us to practice an unmitigated universalism, altruism, subordination of self-interest, and rejection of this world (power, wealth, family, class, nation, race, self, etc.) I am the first to admit that these passages can be interpreted in various ways, but repeatedly throughout Christian history they have been interpreted in "liberal" ways. There is no way to settle what they "really" mean except through imposing your own meaning, which is what the traditional church tried to do, ultimately unsuccessfully.
When racialists say that Christianity is "inherently" egalitarian, universalist, etc., they usually mean that these passages are part of the Christian baggage train and can't be removed and sooner or later will pop up. They are right; these passages and heresies based on them popped up throughout antiquity and the Middle Ages. Ah, yes, but, says Mr. Craig, they were heresies, condemned by the church, and can't fairly be ascribed to real or true Christianity. Yes, and the church did suppress them, but they kept coming back and eventually triumphed.
I might also point out, especially with reference to Mr. Craig's statement that "what we now think of as `liberalism' rose up as a force independent from and hostile to the Church," that "liberalism" didn't just pop up out of nowhere. Liberalism is essentially a secularized version of Christianity that takes its "liberal" branches and exaggerates them into the whole tree. I can grant that this was done erroneously and fallaciously, but it still happened and was bound to happen once people started mouthing off about "the meek shall inherit the Earth" and that sort of stuff. It is very clear that only Christian civilization has ever spawned anything like liberalism. The Greeks and Romans knew nothing of it, and their class struggles were simply that--conflicts between rich and poor for class power--without any jabber about "rights," "equality," "peace," and "universal brotherhood." All these latter blessings derive ultimately from Christianity.
...
[url]http://www.amren.com/clark.htm[/url]
2003-10-18 05:11 | User Profile
Perun,
Sparta wasn't an egalitarian paradise. It was a highly efficient military (i.e., hierarchical) dictatorship.
What junk have you been reading?
2003-10-18 06:23 | User Profile
[QUOTE=friedrich braun]Perun,
Sparta wasn't an egalitarian paradise. It was a highly efficient military (i.e., hierarchical) dictatorship.
What junk have you been reading?[/QUOTE]
I've read Plutarch's accounts of the Spartans(the major source many 18th century egailiarians read). I've also read many of Rousseau's writings in which he praises Republican Rome and Sparta and denounces Christian Europe. In fact in the "Social Contract" he talks about how a good Christian could never defeat a Spartan.
As for the Jacobins' and Rousseau's love of Sparta ** [url]http://www.rjgeib.com/thoughts/french/french.html[/url]
In fact, Rousseau has been called the precursor of the modern pseudo-democrats such as Stalin and Hitler and the "people's democracies." His call for the "sovereign" to force men to be free if necessary in the interests of the "General Will" harks back to the Lycurgus of Sparta instead of to the pluralism of Athens; the legacy of Rousseau is Robespierre and the radical Jacobins of the Terror who followed and worshipped him passionately.**
** [url]http://main.amu.edu.pl/~kastom/rousseau.html[/url]
In The Social Contract Rousseau sought to describe the passage from the state of nature to the civil state and to answer why it is that laws governing men are legitimate. The author defended democratic, republican ideals modelled upon ancient Sparta, and centred upon the idea of freedom as active participation in politics and legislation. **
Rousseau on Christianity ** [url]http://www.forerunner.com/puritan/PS.Rousseau.html[/url]
Rousseau recognized the inescapably religious character of law and society, but deplored the influence of Christianity and Christians on the commonweal. He had nothing but contempt for a Christian citizenry:
. . . no State has ever been founded without a religious basis [but] the law of Christianity at bottom does more harm by weakening than good by strengthening the constitution of the State.3
Rousseau depicted Christianity as an impotent, vacillating, dualistic, masochistic faith:
Christianity as a religion is entirely spiritual, occupied solely with heavenly things; the country of the Christian is not of this world. He does his duty, indeed, but does it with profound indifference to the good or ill success of his cares. Provided he has nothing to reproach himself with, it matters little to him whether things go well or ill here on earth. If the state is prosperous, he hardly dares to share in the public happiness, for fear he may grow proud of his country's glory; if the state is languishing, he blesses the hand of God that is hard upon His people.**
Christianity vs. Sparta in Rousseau's eyes in "the Social Contract" ** If war breaks out with another State, the [Christian] citizens march readily out to battle; not one of them thinks of flight; they do their duty, but they have no passion for victory; they know better how to die than how to conquer. What does it matter whether they win or lose? Does not Providence know better than they what is meet [suitable] for them? Only think to what account a proud, impetuous, and passionate enemy could turn their stoicism! Set over against them those generous peoples who were devoured by ardent love of glory and their country, [u]imagine your Christian republic face to face with Sparta or Rome: the pious Christians will be beaten, crushed, and destroyed, before they know where they are, or will owe their safety only to the contempt their enemy will conceive for them. It was to my mind a fine oath that was taken by the soldiers of Fabius, who swore, not to conquer and die, but to come back victorious-and kept their oath. Christians would never have taken such an oath; they would have looked on it as tempting God. . . . Christianity preaches only servitude and dependence.[/u] Its spirit is so favourable to tyranny that it always profits by such a regime. True Christians are made to be slaves, and they know it and do not much mind: this short life counts for too little in their eyes.4 **
Gee FB, kind resembles what you and other pagans here keep complaining about Christianity. Hmmmn.......Christianity is supposed to be the forefather or Bolshevism yet the father of the French revolution(and all eqailitarian revolutions afterwards) himself condemns Christianity as a religion of cowards and that of the Greco-Romans as heroic. Makes you think doesn't it? And remember, "the Social Contract was "the Koran of the Revolutionists" as Mallet du Pan said. Carlyle also called Rousseau "the Evangelist of the French Revolution".
** [url]http://www.elysiumgates.com/~helena/Ethos.html[/url]
In a fascinating parallel to the French Revolution, the key values which dominated Spartan Society were Liberty, Equality and Fraternity. The Ethos of Liberty and Equality came naturally from the early introduction of democracy and the land reform described above. Fraternity was no less vital to this society - and it was enforced in a way the French Revolution did not dare. **
Robespierre's speech on the Justification of the Use of Terror
** [url]http://www.geocities.com/robespierre_et_saintjust/speeches.html[/url]
Now, what is the fundamental principle of the democratic or popular government-that is, the essential spring which makes it move? It is virtue; I am speaking of the public virtue which effected so many prodigies in Greece and Rome and which ought to produce much more surprising ones in republican France; of that virtue which is nothing other than the love of country and of its laws. **
[url]http://ancienthistory.about.com/library/prm/blevilempiree.htm?terms=THE+EVIL+EMPIRE[/url] ** Spartan society has often been idealized, in large part because of its long record of military success. The Enlightenment social philosopher Jean-Jacques Rousseau took Sparta as his model for his influential book The Social Contract. American revolutionaries in 1776 and French revolutionaries in 1789 looked to Sparta as an idealized "republic of virtue." **
In his "Letter to D'Alembert" Rousseau urged the citizens of his native Geneva to be like the Spartans and adhere to a simple lifestyle of communal living and glorification of physical strength.
I also believe in his "First Discourses" he praised the Spartans for they praticised self-denial, military prowess, patriotism, and so were able to beat the more cultured Athenians in war. In fact Rousseau viewed the Spartans as the best example of his "noble savages"(which later was applied to native American indians and african hunter-gatherers).
In his "To The Republic of Geneva", he declared that Rome's Republic was the model for all free states(ie egailitarian states).
So yes FB, I do know what I'm talking about here.
2003-10-18 06:53 | User Profile
[QUOTE=friedrich braun] I also don't see why "no student of history can argue that Christianity is somehow `inherently' defective in ways that weaken the race." Liberal Christianity is by no means a product of the post-1945 era; it goes back at least to the Renaissance and maybe to the origins of Christianity. There are certainly passages in the New Testament that instruct us to practice an unmitigated universalism, altruism, subordination of self-interest, and rejection of this world (power, wealth, family, class, nation, race, self, etc.) I am the first to admit that these passages can be interpreted in various ways, but repeatedly throughout Christian history they have been interpreted in "liberal" ways. There is no way to settle what they "really" mean except through imposing your own meaning, which is what the traditional church tried to do, ultimately unsuccessfully.
Yes there are also quotes saying that there are no male and female before God. Anybody who doesn't interpret that in a metaphysical sense is a fricking moron who lacks knowledge on basic biology. Plus the book of revelation talks about the eternal preservation of the nations under Christ's kingdom. So if any Christian is saying that Christianity is about blind universalism, they haven't been reading their bible.
Need we forget, the whole rapture bullsh*t comes from just two passages from St. Paul epistles, despite the fact that those statements are clearly taken out of context and one could easily find this out by simply by reading the preceding 3 verses.
So basically you're basing your whole Anti-Christianity on perverted intrepetations of Christianity. Leo Tolstoy's "War and Peace" can be interpreted many different ways about what the author meant with certain symbolism, does that mean Tolstoy's "War and Peace" must be disregarded?
Need we forget, there are many intrepetations within the Pagan community, especially with the question of racism. Many adhere to your pro-NS version of Nordic paganism, others do not and reject the NS attempts to glorify the Nordic gods. Gee I guess this means the Nordic religion must be thrown on the dustbin of history because it can be intrepetated in many different ways.
When racialists say that Christianity is "inherently" egalitarian, universalist, etc., they usually mean that these passages are part of the Christian baggage train and can't be removed and sooner or later will pop up. They are right; these passages and heresies based on them popped up throughout antiquity and the Middle Ages. Ah, yes, but, says Mr. Craig, they were heresies, condemned by the church, and can't fairly be ascribed to real or true Christianity. Yes, and the church did suppress them, but they kept coming back and eventually triumphed.
Oh yes and all sorts of different intrepetations of the Norse religion didn't pop up. From what I've studied, Norse society was very de-centralized and it also included religion. Greek religion wasn't a monolith, nor was Roman religion. Name one F*cking religion that has ever existed that was completely monolithic, you won't find it. So again you're basing your anti-Christianity on a flawed picture of religion in general.
I might also point out, especially with reference to Mr. Craig's statement that "what we now think of as `liberalism' rose up as a force independent from and hostile to the Church," that "liberalism" didn't just pop up out of nowhere. Liberalism is essentially a secularized version of Christianity that takes its "liberal" branches and exaggerates them into the whole tree. I can grant that this was done erroneously and fallaciously, but it still happened and was bound to happen once people started mouthing off about "the meek shall inherit the Earth" and that sort of stuff. It is very clear that only Christian civilization has ever spawned anything like liberalism. The Greeks and Romans knew nothing of it, and their class struggles were simply that--conflicts between rich and poor for class power--without any jabber about "rights," "equality," "peace," and "universal brotherhood." All these latter blessings derive ultimately from Christianity.
So liberalism is only a creation of Christianity? Obviously you haven't read the works of Mu Tzu from China. He was far more universalistic and liberal than Christ ever was. He also lived several centuries before Christ. In fact in both Hindu and Chinese philosophy you find many liberal and egailitarian themes, from philosophers who lived before Christ's time. So your source is ignorant of the facts.
And again I repeat my argument about how the Enlightenment looked to Rome and Greece, not Christian Europe for inspiration. Pick up any F*cking book on the Enlightenment and French revolution to find this very basic fact out.
Also you can look at the art of the Enlightenment vs. art of the Middle Ages. Art is often a reflection of that society's and time period's belief system. The ideals of that society and time period influence the way art is done. Now what do we find in mostly Middle Age art? Largely Christian in nature and context.
What do we see in the Enlightenment and the French Revolution? Greece and Rome. Probally the best example of this is Jaques-Louis David(the main artist of the French Revolution)'s "the Oath of Hortaii". Now why is that the main period of European traditionalism has Christian themed art while a major period of extreme liberalism has Greco-Roman themed art. This just doesn't make sense people. They don't call art from the Enlightenment "neo-classical" for nothing you know.
** [url]http://www.artcyclopedia.com/history/neoclassicism.html[/url]
Neoclassical Art is a severe, unemotional form of art harkening back to the style of ancient Greece and Rome. Its rigidity was a reaction to the overbred Rococo style and the emotional Baroque style. The rise of Neoclassical Art was part of a general revival of classical thought, which was of some importance in the American and French revolutions.**
So even a website concerning a school of thought in art admits that Greco-Roman thought was the main inspiration for this time period.
If you really want to continue with this debate, be my guest. But I must say it's getting a little old.
2003-10-18 18:08 | User Profile
Another point FB that I forgot to add. Apparently your source claiming that liberalism and blind universalism are merely products of Christianity is also refuted if he bothered to read about the 4th century BC Greek cynic Diogenes
[url]http://itsa.ucsf.edu/~snlrc/encyclopaedia_romana/greece/hetairai/diogenes.html[/url]
When asked one time what country he came from, he stated "I am a citizen of the world". In fact this a favorite quote that Globalists and many other blind universalists look to to justify their positions. So clearly we have a case of one of the world's first dedicated globalists coming out of Ancient Greece.
So once again Edward Clark's case against Christianity simply doesn't stand up to close scrunity of historical facts.