← Autodidact Archive · Original Dissent · Maximillian
Thread ID: 10404 | Posts: 65 | Started: 2003-10-11
2003-10-11 01:40 | User Profile
This is a good example of university leftist thought: [url]http://econ161.berkeley.edu/TCEH/Slouch_power4.html[/url]
[QUOTE]Stalin and Mao could point to reasons --insane and mistaken reasons, true, but reasons nevertheless--why their actions and killings made sense in terms of ends that we all share of general prosperity and human development, and why they had chosen the path that the poet W.H. Auden wrote of as "the acceptance of guilt in the necessary murder." The Cultural Revolution in China was needed to keep China a socialist country that could someday become a free and equal utopia, to keep it from degenerating into a bureaucratic despotism like the Soviet Union. The mass slaughter of the peasants of the Ukraine was necessary because an agriculture based on private farming and small plots rather than collective farming and industrialized agriculture could never produce the increases in productivity needed to feed the growing cities of the industrializing Soviet Union. These justifications were wrong--insanely wrong--but economic development and the avoidance of bureaucratic despotism are good things.
But Hitler? Killing in concentration camps, extermination camps, and through forced labor, killing six million Jews, two million of scattered nationalities from western Europe, and twelve million or so from eastern Europe in addition to the battle-related deaths of World War II? Why? To diminish the likelihood that the German "race" would be further polluted through intermarriage, and to provide more "living space" for German farmers.
Stalin and Mao still have their defenders: people who admit with one hand that "there is no doubt that under some other leader [than Stalin]... the sufferings of the peoples of the [Union of Soviet Socialist Republics] would have been less, the number of victims smaller"; yet with the other go on to write that:
any policy of rapid modernization in the U.S.S.R... was bound to be ruthless and, because imposed against the bulk of the people and imposing serious sacrifices on them, to some extent coercive... closer to a military operation than to an economic enterprise. On the other hand... the breakneck industrialization of the first Five-Year Plans (1929-41) generated support by the very "blood, toil, tears, and sweat" it imposed on the people.... sacrifice itself can motivate.
Hitler, however, does not have his defenders, has no one to claim that he used perhaps excessive means to good ends. His ultimate goals--the Aryan racial purity of the German people, and sufficient "living space" at the disposal of the German nation to allow it to dominate the world--are far, far outside the admissable bounds.[/QUOTE]
:dung:
2003-10-11 02:23 | User Profile
There is only one problem with DeLong's theory: Communism [as a whole entity] ABSOLUTELY does not work. It is a scam. Bogus. Doo-doo. A fantasy. A 3-dollar bill. A lemon.
Nazism, on the other hand, does work. And it is natural -- unlike the smoke-and-mirrors, forced collectivism of Communism.
2003-10-11 05:10 | User Profile
In short: "Stalin and Mao -- bad means to a good end. Hitler -- bad means to a bad end." I suspect they really mean, "Stalin and Mao killed Them.:yawn: Hitler killed Us.:shocking:"
I might add that since being exposed to Revisionist arguments about Hitler and the Japanese, I am open to similar arguments about Stalin and Mao, namely that the numbers of their victims have been wildly exaggerated and that their actions should be judged in historical context.
2003-10-11 06:23 | User Profile
[QUOTE][B]Stalin and Mao still have their defenders...[/B][/QUOTE]
[COLOR=DarkRed]NEOCONSERVATIVES!!![/COLOR]
2003-10-11 06:40 | User Profile
[QUOTE=Franco]There is only one problem with DeLong's theory: Communism [as a whole entity] ABSOLUTELY does not work. It is a scam. Bogus. Doo-doo. A fantasy. A 3-dollar bill. A lemon.
Nazism, on the other hand, does work. And it is natural -- unlike the smoke-and-mirrors, forced collectivism of Communism.[/QUOTE]
I agree with that, Franco, believe it or not.
Nazism would have worked, because it was based on a realistic (but horribly cynical) view of human nature. Nazism based itself on man's tribalist nature - man naturally loves his own and hates outsiders. Communism was based on the insane notion that human nature didn't exist and that man could be molded - through proper education - into an unselfish, non-racist, loving and caring all-around nice guy.
Thus, Communism failed.
Of course, this leaves out the fact that Bolshevism was really virulently Tribal itself. It was a Jewish Nationalist ideology that used nurture-not-nature utopian drivel to advance a Jewish agenda, including the revenge killing of six million Ukrainian peasants. It was this very real - however cryptic - connection with human nature that gave early Bolshevism its astonishing vitality. When the Tribe was pushed out of the CPSU's leadership circa 1937, it the whole project lost its vital force and began to wither. It was just a question of time after that.
Neither ideology, however, holds a candle to our own Americanism.
Eternal are the words of Jefferson.
Walter
2003-10-11 08:02 | User Profile
**Delong is Marxist Moron! :dung:
Stalin and Mao caused millions of people to stave to death! Both Government program destroyed agricultural productivity. Collective farming decreased food production in China and the Soviet Union!**
[QUOTE]The Cultural Revolution in China was needed to keep China a socialist country that could someday become a free and equal utopia, to keep it from degenerating into a bureaucratic despotism like the Soviet Union. The mass slaughter of the peasants of the Ukraine was necessary because an agriculture based on private farming and small plots rather than collective farming and industrialized agriculture could never produce the increases in productivity needed to feed the growing cities of the industrializing Soviet Union. These justifications were wrong--insanely wrong--but economic development and the avoidance of bureaucratic despotism are good things.[/QUOTE]
Also take a look at this. I know the Japs killed more than 6 million in WWII. And I not sue I buy the Germans killed 20 million.
[QUOTE]Civilians Killed by Governments in the Twentieth Century:
Soviet Union (Communists)61,900,000 1917-1990
China (Communists)35,200,000 1949-present
Germany (Nazi Third Reich) 20,900,000 1933-1945
Japan (Imperial-Fascist) 6,000,000 1936-1945[/QUOTE]
What kind of Marxist this Guy? Is he a Neocon, it is hard to tell from his site. I note he has a picture of the World Trade Center on his Home Page.
2003-10-11 09:10 | User Profile
[QUOTE=Walter Yannis]
Neither ideology, however, holds a candle to our own Americanism.
[/QUOTE]
Why do you say so, mr. Yannis? Starting with modest resources, NS achieved a veritable renaissance in Germany in only a few years, in an atmosphere of unparalelled social justice. It belled the Jewish cat! Something that your beloved 'Americanism' never managed to do in 200+ years! On the contrary, it created the most fertile conditions ever for the breeding of the Jewish virus. The consequences are that not only is the US enslaved to this alien, parasitic tribe, but it has become the main (hated) instrument of Jewish power worldwide. Appealing to man's tribal instincts (so brutally suppressed for whites here) is not cynical but a healthy, natural and probably only way of ensuring a system that will last in time - a long time. Do you see a way of comming out of our mess without taking 80-90% of pages from the Hitler's book? I don't.
2003-10-11 13:57 | User Profile
[QUOTE=Rudel]Why do you say so, mr. Yannis? Starting with modest resources, NS achieved a veritable renaissance in Germany in only a few years, in an atmosphere of unparalelled social justice. It belled the Jewish cat! Something that your beloved 'Americanism' never managed to do in 200+ years! On the contrary, it created the most fertile conditions ever for the breeding of the Jewish virus. The consequences are that not only is the US enslaved to this alien, parasitic tribe, but it has become the main (hated) instrument of Jewish power worldwide. Appealing to man's tribal instincts (so brutally suppressed for whites here) is not cynical but a healthy, natural and probably only way of ensuring a system that will last in time - a long time. Do you see a way of comming out of our mess without taking 80-90% of pages from the Hitler's book? I don't.[/QUOTE]
The Nazis lost. Lost bad. They're losers, so forget them.
American won. Won big. We're winners.
Americanism is a winner, Nazism is a loser.
I hate losers as intensely as I love winners.
We can win by returning to our winning roots, not embracing some losers' ideology.
It's just that simple.
Walter
2003-10-11 14:06 | User Profile
I can't speak for the Aztecs. I saw a good show on the BBC (?) about the culture that pre-dated the Inca civilization in Peru. There's no doubt that they practiced ritualistic cannabalism on a massive scale.
Massive.
They have the bones to prove it.
Also, if memory serves there were some important discoveries rather recently about the extent of live child sacrifice among the Carthaginians. As I recall it was a very common occurrence, done often for success in business (Carthage was a merchant city). The Jews worshipped their god, Baal, via cultural assimilation. The OT Prophets railed against the practice.
Actually, it's not much different than the millions of abortions performed in the world today - they're all about economic convenience, at least mostly. It's interesting that one increasingly hears forthrightly Pagan arguments in support of abortion (I think here especially of Paglia, but it's actually a rather common argument on the feminist left).
Walter
2003-10-11 14:30 | User Profile
Walter,
I agree with the bulk of what you have written. If the Germans want Nazism that is their business. America is different and Nazism won't work here. Hitler himself stated that this was for Germans alone. I'll agree that there are parts of Mein Kampf that can be used, such as the descriptions of Jewish tribal behavior and the necessity to remove them from our mists, but the rest of it I reject as not being workable here nor desirable.
Give me a Republic anyday.
2003-10-11 19:49 | User Profile
The Black Book of Communism states that the number of deaths in Communist China were 65 million not 35 million - and that was the low estimate. It could easily have been double that.
2003-10-11 21:47 | User Profile
I found this at the Socialist Review :yucky: [url=http://pubs.socialistreviewindex.org.uk/sr198/thinking.htm]website[/url]> The collapse of the USSR has opened up secret police files in Moscow for the first time. This has enabled historians like RW Davies (who co-authored some of the later volumes in EH Carr's magnificent A History of Soviet Russia) and the late Alec Nove to initiate the first factually based discussion on exactly what was the death toll in Stalin's Russia. Their conclusions point to Stalin's regime being bloody in the extreme. There were 353,000 executions in 1937 and 239,000 in 1938. Over 140,000 people died during the deportation of minority nationalities between 1944 and 1948.
On top of this, the numbers of people in the 'gulag' of prisons and labour camps rose from 2.5 million in 1933 to 5.5 million in 1953, with a death rate in the camps of five to nine times that among the free population - implying perhaps two million deaths caused by ill-treatment and neglect over a 25 year period. Finally, the famine that was a result of collectivisation in the Ukraine and Kazakhstan led to up to 5 million further deaths. But the discussion also leads to two other conclusions.
The figures given by Conquest are a gross overstatement. As Davies puts it, 'We do not yet know with any precision the true figure for deaths from execution, harsh camp conditions and famine during the Stalin years. But the archival data are entirely incompatible with...very high figures which continue to be cited as firm fact on Russian television and in Russian mass circulation newspapers and which are almost universally treated as proven fact by the Western media.' There is a huge difference between the scale of repression in the revolutionary period immediately after 1917 and that in the 1930s.
So how many did die under Stalin? I'm perfectly content to leave the debate to Davies and Conquest. Neither of them is going to lose his job or go to jail for what he writes. Communism is a lousy idea either way.
Now what would be the consequences -- in Germany, in Israel, in the US -- if the Holocaust was exposed as a hoax? I think they would be very grim indeed for the perpetrators, which is why there is such a taboo on Holocaust Revisionism.
2003-10-12 03:33 | User Profile
>>>Hitler, however, does not have his defenders, has no one to claim that he used perhaps excessive means to good ends. His ultimate goals--the Aryan racial purity of the German people, and sufficient "living space" at the disposal of the German nation to allow it to dominate the world--are far, far outside the admissable bounds.
Of course, the author of this paper takes for granted that it is up to the author to decide precisely what are the "admissable bounds" which is itself quite questionable.
>>>Of course, this leaves out the fact that Bolshevism was really virulently Tribal itself.
The amusing thing about the Communists is their univeralist pretentiousness. The same system never existed in Russia, China, Vietnam, Korea, and Cuba. At no point did China cease to be China, Russia cease to be Russia, Cuba cease to be Cuba. None of these countries were changed in any essential way.
2003-10-12 03:37 | User Profile
>>>Americanism is a winner, Nazism is a loser.
What is 'Americanism' Walter? In what way has 'Americanism' proven to be successful? Successful presupposes a goal. What is this goal?
2003-10-12 05:46 | User Profile
No offense, but if Americanism is successful, then what are Americans here complaining about?
2003-10-12 05:48 | User Profile
I'll take nazism any day. Only Americans, with a government that hates them, think they're "winners", and carry on about how God-blessed they are.
Were Jesus and Hitler losers, Walter?
2003-10-12 06:06 | User Profile
de Tocqueville pointed out centuries ago precisely how America's excessive individualism would completely undermine its system.
Despotism, by its very nature suspicious, sees the isolation of men as the best guarantee of its own permanence. So it usually does all it can to isolate them. Of all the vices of the human heart, egoism is that which suits it best. A despot will lightly forgive his subjects for not loving him, provided they do not love one another. He does not ask them to help him guide the state; it is enough if they do not claim to manage it themselves. He calls those who try to unite their efforts to create a general prosperity "turbulent and restless spirits", and twisting the natural meaning of words, he calls those "good citizens" who care for none but themselves.
2003-10-12 08:43 | User Profile
[QUOTE=Walter Yannis]The Nazis lost. Lost bad. They're losers, so forget them.[/QUOTE]
The Germans accomplished alot, and battled the jew, from a nation the size of [B]Montana[/B]!
They should be admired for what they did with so little resources at their disposal.
:hitler: Seig Heil!
2003-10-12 09:24 | User Profile
[QUOTE=FightinWhitey#2]The Germans accomplished alot, and battled the jew, from a nation the size of [B]Montana[/B]!
They should be admired for what they did with so little resources at their disposal.
[/QUOTE]
Likewise, should jews be admired for what they have accomplished here in the States and throughout the world being such a small minority?
2003-10-12 09:55 | User Profile
[QUOTE=Texas Dissident]Likewise, should jews be admired for what they have accomplished here in the States and throughout the world being such a small minority?[/QUOTE]
What the jew has 'accomplished' has come about due to parasitism, cunning, usury and out-right lying. Such behavior should never be admired.
They can in no way be compared to the hard-working, productive ways of the Higher Races.
The jew should [B]never[/B] be admired. The jew should be feared and respected as an ancient adversary with many disingenuous tools at their disposal.
2003-10-12 11:56 | User Profile
[QUOTE=Leland Gaunt]The 3rd Reich was a Republic![/QUOTE]
Sure it was, Leland. In the same way that the U.S.S.R. was a "republic." You know what type of Republic I mean.
2003-10-12 14:32 | User Profile
Jewish propaganda aside, Hitler's Germany was a NATIONALIST state, while both the US and the USSR were INTERNATIONALIST states. One was centered around the strengthening and elevation of its native people, the other two actively sought the destruction of their citizenry.
"Internationalist" being as contrary to republicanism as one can get, Germany was more of a republic than the others. Wasn't it?
2003-10-12 17:14 | User Profile
The 20 million dead in the Soviet Union is a conservative figure according to the Black Book of Communism. Another source is Rummel's book: Lethal Politics. His mid range estimate of deaths from 1917 to 1987 is 62 million with a low estimate of 28 million and a high of 127 million. Stalin used to shoot his census takers when they came back with lower population figures than expected! He'd kill people in the millions and then wonder what happened to them.
Communism was always a phony ideology just like all ideologies invented by Jews. It was a means to an end invented by criminal psychopaths.
2003-10-12 17:27 | User Profile
I don't think true, Jeffersonian Americanism has been properly tried yet. What we have now in the JewSA is obviously nothing like what this nation was meant to be.
The ideal nation for whites, in my view, would allow only whites to be citizens but would not be aggressive toward other nations; its military activities would be purely defensive. Internally it would be thoroughly libertarian, as Jefferson et al intended. Why should any of us take arbitrary orders from any other mortal men?
The problems with Nazi philosophy -- at least as I understand it -- lie mainly in its doctrine of state dominance over the individual. Why is this doctrine objectionable? Simply because it's very often the case that an individual is right about a given issue while everyone else is wrong. The doctrine of state superiority has no firm basis other than the paper it's printed on. After all, no one signs any contract prior to birth yielding his self-sovereignty to anyone else. Consequently, people are born free and accountable to no one except when they commit aggression against other persons or their property.
I like to think of it this way: "rights" do not exist per se, but only the absence of rights. Because of this, we can say that our putative "rights" are actually the absence of other peoples' right to harm us. An analogy can be drawn to the concepts of "hot" and "cold" -- "coldness" does not exist, but is only the absence of heat. If someone or some group wants to claim the right to lord it over me by the use of force, then they need to explain where they got that right. Of course they can't -- at least not without appealing to unprovable beliefs rooted in religion, etc.
In any event, I firmly believe that an all-white nation would have very little need to rely on the force of government to keep internal order. It's in the nature of our race to get along with each other, although there are obviously exceptions. With strict but fair laws against murder, theft, rape, assault, etc., and with widespread ownership of firearms for individual protection (much like in Switzerland), it would undoubtedly be a peaceful society.
2003-10-12 19:28 | User Profile
[QUOTE=Angler]I like to think of it this way: "rights" do not exist per se, but only the absence of rights...[/QUOTE]
The whole trouble with libertarianism is their take on rights.
All humans accept without question the right of conquest. If you can grab it and hold it than it is yours by right. And if you can't, you got no rights.
Every generation that lives must assert the right to whatever the generation before passed up to them or they lose it all.
Every day each one of us must assert the rights we need to survive or we just plain won't.
I've always took Jefferson's Virginia notes to mean just that and not much more; taken at face value, Jefferson's more pungent statements are compatable with anarchism, not democracy.
To claim a right is to declare war on anyone who violates what you need to survive. Americans forget that sometimes -- but we're getting lots of powerful reminders these days, ain't we?
2003-10-12 19:40 | User Profile
>>>I don't think true, Jeffersonian Americanism has been properly tried yet. What we have now in the JewSA is obviously nothing like what this nation was meant to be.
The Founders intended all sorts of things when they wrote the Constitution. Unfortunately for the Founders, their system never operated like it was supposed to, just as many at the time predicted. Read the Federalist Papers, the replies the Federalists made to the criticisms of the Anti-Federalists. The Federalists made all sorts of predictions at the time about how the Federal Government would not come to utterly dominate the State Governments. The Federalists were utterly wrong on all sorts of issues as history has proven.
>>>The ideal nation for whites, in my view, would allow only whites to be citizens but would not be aggressive toward other nations; its military activities would be purely defensive. Internally it would be thoroughly libertarian, as Jefferson et al intended. Why should any of us take arbitrary orders from any other mortal men?
Yes, that sounds all well and good but where has this ideology gotten us? All this emphasis upon "liberty" and "freedom" ultimately led to the disintegration of our very national and racial identity and our total subordination in this multicultural morass. Why doesn't "freedom" and "liberty" apply to blacks and Jews and Hispanics et cetera? They are all just human beings and individuals too after all! Libertarians want to have their cake and eat it too. They put so much emphasis upon this thing they call the "individual" that they lose sight of the fact that their "individuals," the abstracted, asocial, human grain of sand individual does not exist. These "individuals" are not simply individuals. They live within a social context. They are members of groups, something they often attach extreme importance to whether libertarians like it or not. These group identities often determine the behaviour of these "individuals" who militate against other groups to usurp power from them. With their Civil Rights(TM) they are perfectly free to do so as well. Why should any of us take arbitrary orders from any other mortal men? The answer is quite simple. We live within the context of power and those who possess political power will determine the form of the social and economic context in which we live. The values they impose into law will be arbitrary, regardless, they will be their values. Someone must possess the power to distinguish friend from enemy. Someone must be a leader and it is better to take orders from a leadership of one's OWN people than to suddenly wake up and find oneself a mercenary for Semitic aliens.
***>>>The problems with Nazi philosophy -- at least as I understand it -- lie mainly in its doctrine of state dominance over the individual. ***
There is no problem with this philosophy in this respect. Now why is this? Well, what is the basis of the state? Is the state formed to "secure the rights of the individual" in your view? If that was the purpose of the state, then why is the state or a government even necessary? Why don't the individuals simply organize themselves to guarantee their own rights without the state? What is it that imperils these rights of the individual in the first place that gives rise to the state as we know it? It is the political distinction, the fact that WE ARE NOT simply individuals. Some individuals are our FRIENDS and others are our ENEMIES. The state, presupposing the political, arises from the friend/enemy distinction. It is a friend-enemy grouping. The state, an association of friends, distinguishes between those who lie within the state and those who do not.
Why does the state dominate the individual? It is because the state has the power to do so. Authority decides whether individuals like it or not.
***>>>Why is this doctrine objectionable? Simply because it's very often the case that an individual is right about a given issue while everyone else is wrong. ***
Who decides what is right and wrong?
***>>>The doctrine of state superiority has no firm basis other than the paper it's printed on. ***
The basis of state superiority is the reality of political power. Authority decides - whether we like it or not.
>>>After all, no one signs any contract prior to birth yielding his self-sovereignty to anyone else. Consequently, people are born free and accountable to no one except when they commit aggression against other persons or their property.
This argument seems to presuppose individuals are somehow born with sovereignty over their own being, that these individuals are abstracted out of a political context into a world which does not exist. What do you mean when you say people are somehow born "free." Free from what? From being immersed in a political context, from a context of state power and authority? There are no such individuals.
***>>>I like to think of it this way: "rights" do not exist per se, but only the absence of rights. ***
Rights arise from political power.
>>>Because of this, we can say that our putative "rights" are actually the absence of other peoples' right to harm us. An analogy can be drawn to the concepts of "hot" and "cold" -- "coldness" does not exist, but is only the absence of heat. If someone or some group wants to claim the right to lord it over me by the use of force, then they need to explain where they got that right. Of course they can't -- at least not without appealing to unprovable beliefs rooted in religion, etc.
This argument presupposes the necessity of "reasons" to "explain" to you why you must be lorded over, that these "beliefs" must be "proven." This is the perfect example of the mere rationalism which has so confused political thinking in the United States. Politics being activity in relation to power, the only thing required to lord over you is the will and the power to do so, force, in other words.
2003-10-12 20:06 | User Profile
>>>I've always took Jefferson's Virginia notes to mean just that and not much more; taken at face value, Jefferson's more pungent statements are compatable with anarchism, not democracy.
Its been well over 200 years since the Constitution was written, since the existence of that generation. It is high time to stack up the theories and predictions of the individuals of that day against the reality in which we live in the present. How did we come to live in the state we live in now, slowly but surely being submerged in a third world cesspool? 200 years of experience is worth more than every single one of the theories of the Founders of the United States.
They created a weak and contradictory government in an attempt to please everyone. They did not have the will power to make definitive decisions so they left many aspects of the government they created ambiguous. The attempt to divide sovereignty between the States and the Federal Government was a disaster that ultimately led to the War Between the States and the annihilation of the South. Their emphasis upon "individuals" ultimately led to the inability of most white Americans to see the forest for the trees, to see the Jews as a self-conscious people with their own goals and aspirations. This fatal error ultimately led to the corruption of pretty much our entire culture, not to mention both foreign and domestic policy. Jews and every other degenerate are now perfectly "free" to peddle their poison of homosexuality, race-mixing, multiculturalism et cetera throughout every corner of our land. The emphasis upon "liberty" and "freedom" and "equality" as abstraction-myths has led to the mistaken belief that such things are for everyone, enemies and cultural aliens included which will ultimately ruin the entire country. All the talk about "rights" led the total abdication of all duties and responsibilities in the public mind. Liberty is no longer an acquired privilage that can be lost. It is simply a right guaranteed regardless of one's actions. All aspects of authority must be hated now - loyalty to one's race, to one's family, to one's culture. The "free market" has penetrated everything. Marriage is simply a market transaction now. Now that we are all "individuals" and "human beings" virtually every form of social cohesion amongst whites has been shattered. Atomized, we are absolutely prostrate before organized special interests. Liberty has done away with almost all restraint.
This philosophy is now exhausted and drawing its ultimate consequents of total social disintegration. A little bit of authority would be a welcome change in my view.
2003-10-12 22:35 | User Profile
[QUOTE=Angler]I don't think true, Jeffersonian Americanism has been properly tried yet. What we have now in the JewSA is obviously nothing like what this nation was meant to be[/QUOTE]
Well was it tried when [B]Jefferson was President[/B]???
I think that Jeffersonian Americanism was tried at several points during [I]pre-Civil War[/I] America.
But since the War between the North and the South, almost everything has gone down hill.
And if Thomas Chittum is to be believed, there is Civil War 2 fast approaching...
Link: [URL=http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0929408179/002-1104265-5794430?v=glance]http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0929408179/002-1104265-5794430?v=glance[/URL]
[URL=http://209.157.64.200/focus/f-news/991163/posts]http://209.157.64.200/focus/f-news/991163/posts[/URL]
2003-10-13 01:04 | User Profile
[QUOTE=FadeTheButcher]*** The emphasis upon "liberty" and "freedom" and "equality" as abstraction-myths has led to the mistaken belief that such things are for everyone, enemies and cultural aliens included which will ultimately ruin the entire country. All the talk about "rights" led the total abdication of all duties and responsibilities...[/QUOTE]
As it went with Athens. When they decried as an abomination anything that might constrain their appetites, the ceiling dropped.
The habits of mind that built America have mostly already left America. Things like "liberty" and "freedom" and "equality" can work among people already committed to do the dirty work of maintaining a civilization. Among strangers they can only be a pretext for dictatorship.
2003-10-13 04:29 | User Profile
Ragnar and FadeTheButcher,
So your view is that rights do not exist except inasmuch as they are granted by someone else who happens to be in power? That is basically nothing other than the Law Of The Jungle, that "might makes right." No offense intended of course, but I utterly reject that view. Just because government has the power to do something by no means implies that it has the right.
Do you agree that currently Jews have great power in the USA? If so, then it seems that your philosophy requires that we accept their right to impose their will on us. After all, if there are no rights other than those granted by government, then it follows that (1) whites have NO right to form their own exclusive state if the Powers That Be don't want us to have one, and (2) whites don't even have a right to survive as a pure race if the Jews and their ass-kissers among the Gentiles deem that they shouldn't.
Do you see where I'm coming from? If all whites were to choose a "might makes right" worldview, then on what basis do we complain about the Jews' behavior? If they control us, then they have the right to control us. Libertarianism, by contrast, implicitly but undeniably holds that blacks, spics, Jews, etc., have NO right force whites to associate with them or interact with them in any way. Yes, even Jewish libertarians believe this, or else they aren't libertarians. If all of a sudden the current US government magically became libertarian, from where would the Jews get their power? They would immediately lose most of their influence -- particularly with regard to "hate crime" laws, taxation to benefit Israel, and gun control laws -- and whites would be 90% of the way to forming their own nation somewhere within the US. Jews would still control the media, but white would be free to use counterpropaganda to combat Jewish brainwashing of the goyim.
As for the question of "who defines right and wrong," the answer is that it depends on the subject at hand. When it comes to objective reality, the answer is that no human being decides -- "right" and "wrong" exist independently of men or their ideas. Nicholas Copernicus stated that the earth revolves around the sun rather than the reverse. Those who had power at the time disagreed with him, but he was right and they were wrong. Therefore, their suppression of his findings (done indirectly through their maintenance of an authoritarian political climate) was a mistake. This example illustrates a prime danger of authoritarian government -- it can propagate error almost without restraint and halt progress in many important human endeavors such as science. Such a system leads inexorably to weakness and reduced survivability.
When it comes to questions of morality, the question about "right" and "wrong" is obviously much harder to answer. We can decide that objective moral laws come from God, or we can reject a religious explanation and say that there are no objective moral laws other than "might makes right." Let's assume that the latter is the case, since I presume it is closer to your viewpoint. Now, you seem to believe that survival of oneself and one's own race is the highest good (correct me if I'm wrong), but I would have to disagree. Even death may be preferable to survival in some cases. Would you rather die or live for 50 years in the clutches of torturers in prison? Nearly any person would prefer death. Well, if we all lived in a "Might Makes Right" world, life would be a hell of a lot less pleasant than in one where most people got along with each other. Each of us would always have to look over our shoulder, ever fearful of someone -- maybe a corrupt government official -- literally stabbing us in the back. That's not life, it's mere existence. Similarly, I would rather die than live as someone else's slave -- and if another mortal man has the power to arbitrarily command you to do certain things, then you are his slave. Does he have the right to make you his slave? No. Neither does he even have the power to do so, since you can always choose death over slavery.
There is no need at all for ANY individual to bow before authority. I certainly don't. In this modern state in which I live, I simply obey the laws that are reasonable and discreetly break the rest at my leisure. If any representative of the state attempts to do me harm as a consequence of this, I will do whatever it takes to maim or kill them, but I will NOT be put into prison alive. If they kill me first, then that's okay too, but they will still not have forced me to do their will.
What laws are "reasonable"? Those which (1) deter wrongful aggression, (2) enhance the survival and quality of life of a society, and (3) are consistent with the empirical laws of nature. Many White Nationalists argue in favor of a white nation based upon observations that (1) whites are subject to exploitation in Jew-controlled societies, (2) are less likely to survive as a genetically distinct race without a nation of their own, and (3) prefer to be with their own race. These are all good arguments. For an example of an unreasonable law, we could take gun control, which denies people the ability to protect themselves in accordance with their natural instinct of self-defense. Such laws are the kind of bullsh!t Jews institute in order to make themselves stronger with respect to the Gentiles in the societies they infiltrate.
To sum up this (long) post, I'll reiterate that the libertarian philosophy is essentially compatible with White Nationalism. The only strict regulations needed in such a state would be those on racial interactions and immigration. Apart from that, I will never accept any governmental authority not rooted firmly in reason or the principle of government-by-consent, regardless of whether said government is white as snow or black as tar.
2003-10-13 04:32 | User Profile
[QUOTE=FadeTheButcher>>>The ideal nation for whites, in my view, would allow only whites to be citizens but would not be aggressive toward other nations; its military activities would be purely defensive. Internally it would be thoroughly libertarian, as Jefferson et al intended. Why should any of us take arbitrary orders from any other mortal men?
Yes, that sounds all well and good but where has this ideology gotten us? All this emphasis upon "liberty" and "freedom" ultimately led to the disintegration of our very national and racial identity and our total subordination in this multicultural morass. Why doesn't "freedom" and "liberty" apply to blacks and Jews and Hispanics et cetera? They are all just human beings and individuals too after all! Libertarians want to have their cake and eat it too. They put so much emphasis upon this thing they call the "individual" that they lose sight of the fact that their "individuals," the abstracted, asocial, human grain of sand individual does not exist. These "individuals" are not simply individuals. They live within a social context. They are members of groups, something they often attach extreme importance to whether libertarians like it or not. These group identities often determine the behaviour of these "individuals" who militate against other groups to usurp power from them. With their Civil Rights(TM) they are perfectly free to do so as well. Why should any of us take arbitrary orders from any other mortal men? The answer is quite simple. We live within the context of power and those who possess political power will determine the form of the social and economic context in which we live. The values they impose into law will be arbitrary, regardless, they will be their values. Someone must possess the power to distinguish friend from enemy. Someone must be a leader and it is better to take orders from a leadership of one's OWN people than to suddenly wake up and find oneself a mercenary for Semitic aliens.
[/QUOTE]
If we are serious about retaking the control of the country, this emphasis on 'individualism' will be one of the first things to go. There are 200 million whites in the US and 10 million Jews. Instead of a reality reflecting this numbers (200 million vs 10 million), the 'individualism' is making sure that the battle is fought 10 millions vs. 1 - 200 million times! Indvidualism (making a buck more for oneself) is also the principle that drives our own fat cats to destroy entire communities by relocating the jobs to the thid world and make the middle classes compete with coolies. Gemeinnutz vor Eigennutz (the interests of the community comes before the interests of an individual) - was the NSDAP slogan. We should take notice. The 1930s German NS (unfortunately) cannot be restored today in its pristine conditions, for a variety of reasons (most importantly, the 50 years long TV brainwashing has produced a man of vastly inferior fiber). It can, however, serve as an example and inspiration for what we are trying to achieve. I would define the system that will (hopefully) energe in the US as Racial Socialism (rather than NS) - it will contain many, many NS elements. It will be an amalgam of racial nationalism and social justice just like NS. The American Republic has had 200+ years to prove itself as a system and has failed utterly, producing a judeocracy with a huge nuclear arsenal. With all due respect, it is an overrated system. If an attempt is made to recreate a 'second' such republic after the 'interesting times' that await us, we will be on square one in 50 years or less.
2003-10-13 04:43 | User Profile
[QUOTE=Angler]Ragnar and FadeTheButcher,
So your view is that rights do not exist except inasmuch as they are granted by someone else who happens to be in power? That is basically nothing other than the Law Of The Jungle, that "might makes right." No offense intended of course, but I utterly reject that view.
It might not be what we would like it to be, but it's reality.
Do you agree that currently Jews have great power in the USA? If so, then it seems that your philosophy requires that we accept their right to impose their will on us. After all, if there are no rights other than those granted by government, then it follows that (1) whites have NO right to form their own exclusive state if the Powers That Be don't want us to have one, and (2) whites don't even have a right to survive as a pure race if the Jews and their ass-kissers among the Gentiles deem that they shouldn't.
This is completely wrong. Under "Law of the Jungle", one can fight back against and attempt anything he wants without quibbling over the abstract morality of it. The only thing that matters is success and failure.
Do you see where I'm coming from? If all whites were to choose a "might makes right" worldview, then on what basis do we complain about the Jews' behavior? If they control us, then they have the right to control us.
No, if people don't like the current system, they can and do try to change it without obsessing about if they have a "right" to or not. One doesn't need a "basis" to complain about something if they believe in the Law of the Jungle. They only need to obtain the power to change what they don't like.
2003-10-13 05:30 | User Profile
***>>>So your view is that rights do not exist except inasmuch as they are granted by someone else who happens to be in power? ***
Rights are political constructs that arise from political power. Political power is grounded in authority, in coercion, in force.
>>>That is basically nothing other than the Law Of The Jungle, that "might makes right."
What you describe as the "law of the jungle" is better known as reality. Of course, one does not have to accept reality. One can always flee into other worlds, confusing should with is in a futile effort to evade authority. Nevertheless, if you want to impose your values, whatever they may be, you are confronted with the reality that you must usurp political power. Why is this? Authoritas, non veritas facit legem - authority, not virtue makes the law. What is known as "law" is nothing more than the codified values of those with political power, those with authority.
>>>No offense intended of course, but I utterly reject that view.
You can reject that view all you want. You, however, do not decide. You do not make the law. You do not call the shots. You do not enforce your will because you do not possess authority, political power, which of course determines both the contents of the law and who it is enforced against.
>>>Just because government has the power to do something by no means implies that it has the right.
This follows of course if we accept the argument that "rights" are constructs of morality rather than politics - activity in relation to power. I reject this view myself. Does the government of Canada have the right to prosecute you and incarcerate you in prison for committing a hate crime? Most certainly, yes it does. Once again, those with political power simply incorporate their own values into the law and enforce it upon others as has always been the case. The content of the law is irrelevent. Authority always decides what is to be law, who it is to be enforced against, and under what circumstances it is changed.
>>>Do you agree that currently Jews have great power in the USA?
Absolutely. It would be of use if we came to understand just why the Jews have such great power in the United States. The answer is because America's political system, as established by its Framers, has been a total disaster, an exercise in naive rationalistic theories that have been a total disaster for our people.
***>>>If so, then it seems that your philosophy requires that we accept their right to impose their will on us. ***
My philosophy, decisionism, posits no such requirement. You are confusing should with is here. DO Jews impose their will upon us? Absolutely. DO they have the codified legal right to do so, thar' fweedoms? Absolutely. Authority ALWAYS decides. Those with political power ALWAYS decide. If Jews happen to have political power and authority at a given momemt, guess what, Jews decide. Whether or not we like it is irrelevant. Can we work to change it? Certainly. The only realistic way to do that is to usurp political power, for WE will be in a position to decide, to incorporate our values into the law.
>>>After all, if there are no rights other than those granted by government, then it follows that (1) whites have NO right to form their own exclusive state if the Powers That Be don't want us to have one, and (2) whites don't even have a right to survive as a pure race if the Jews and their ass-kissers among the Gentiles deem that they shouldn't.
Is that not precisely the situation we are faced with today? Whites have no such right to form their own exclusive state at this given point in time. Whites do not have the right to organize themselves as a sovereign entity. Why? They DO NOT possess that sort of power at this point in time. Power simply does not fall into one's lap from heaven, from "reason," from "humanity" or any other fairy tale. Power is taken and so long as whites lack the will to take it they will be powerless - indefinitely.
***>>>Do you see where I'm coming from? ***
Yes, I see where you are coming from. You seem to be confusing what should exist with what does exist, ignoring the fact that what does exist and what should exist orbits around he who possesses political power, he who decides the issue.
[]i>>>If all whites were to choose a "might makes right" worldview, then on what basis do we complain about the Jews' behavior?*
Easy. Jews stand in our way of usurping political power. They stand in our way of usurping sovereignty, in usurping the right to decide such important matters. Politics, activity in relation to power, is amoral. You might feel it to be right, in an ethical sense, for whites to have their own state. You cannot transmit those feelings into reality without the political power to do so. As always, authority decides. If you want authority you must seize it.
***>>>If they control us, then they have the right to control us. ***
Rights do not exist permanently. They follow from political power. If we usurp political power, the rights of the Jews will cease to exist.
***>>>Libertarianism, by contrast, implicitly but undeniably holds that blacks, spics, Jews, etc., have NO right force whites to associate with them or interact with them in any way. ***
Libertarianism is a fatal misunderstanding of political reality. Libertarians are moralists. They do not understand politics which has nothing whatsoever to do with morality. If anything, they are anti-political because they attack force, which is the basis of all power and authority, the political sphere. Libertarians can crow all they want about such races not having such and such rights. Without political power, without authority, libertarians will not decide such issues.
>>>Yes, even Jewish libertarians believe this, or else they aren't libertarians.
Libertarians misunderstand politics.
[]i**>>>If all of a sudden the current US government magically became libertarian, from where would the Jews get their power? ***
Ideologies do not decide. Only individuals decide. If the U.S. Government magically became libertarian, notice we are stepping out of reality into a world where magic exists, libertarian individuals would have the authority to impose their values. The only thing that would change is the substance of the political decision, not the fact that pertinent political decisions are made solely by those who possess authority, or legitimately recognized political power.
>>>They would immediately lose most of their influence -- particularly with regard to "hate crime" laws, taxation to benefit Israel, and gun control laws -- and whites would be 90% of the way to forming their own nation somewhere within the US. Jews would still control the media, but white would be free to use counterpropaganda to combat Jewish brainwashing of the goyim.
LOL actually, in the comfort of their "individual rights," such Jews would be perfectly free to usurp power in civil society, in the private sector, in institutions like the media where they would simply continue to distort our culture to their own preferences. Their "rights" would be guaranteed by the state, by the confused libertarians in power.
Your entire scenario presupposes what? It presupposes libertarians acquiring what? Authority! Why? Because authority DECIDES - as is always the case in every single instance. If you had the power to decide, why not simply eliminate the Jews entirely?
***>>>As for the question of "who defines right and wrong," the answer is that it depends on the subject at hand. ***
Authority, of course, decides what is "right" and what is "wrong," what is "constitutional" and what is "unconstitutional" and that is the end of the matter unless someone else usurps authority for themselves.
***>>>When it comes to objective reality, the answer is that no human being decides -- "right" and "wrong" exist independently of men or their ideas. ***
Right and wrong are both human concepts. They follow from a consciousness.
***>>>Nicholas Copernicus stated that the earth revolves around the sun rather than the reverse. Those who had power at the time disagreed with him, but he was right and they were wrong. ***
Those with power however still decided what was right and what was wrong just as they do today, in the political sphere.
***>>>Therefore, their suppression of his findings (done indirectly through their maintenance of an authoritarian political climate) was a mistake. ***
Why?
[]i>>>This example illustrates a prime danger of authoritarian government -- it can propagate error almost without restraint and halt progress in many important human endeavors such as science. Such a system leads inexorably to weakness and reduced survivability.*
ROFL there is no such thing as a government that is not authoritarian. Your own example proves this truth. Libertarians decide nothing unless they possess authority because authority always decides the law. If authority did not decide the law, it would be totally unnecessary for libertarians to pursue it, because the law would be made in a non-authoritarian way. This is of course not the case because the whole conception of "libertarian" is one big fatal misunderstanding. There is no such thing as a "libertarian" government because someone must always possess the right to decide and that can never be everyone at the same time.
***>>>When it comes to questions of morality, the question about "right" and "wrong" is obviously much harder to answer. ***
Objective morality does not exist. Further, morality has nothing whatsoever to do with politics, activity in relation to power. Politics is amoral.
***>>>We can decide that objective moral laws come from God, or we can reject a religious explanation and say that there are no objective moral laws other than "might makes right." ***
I have never suggested that morality and politics were one in the same. I have suggested that morality, which distinguishes between good and evil, is most definitely not politics, which distinguishes between friend and enemy. They are two utterly separate spheres of thought, although in America they are often confused.
>>>Let's assume that the latter is the case, since I presume it is closer to your viewpoint. Now, you seem to believe that survival of oneself and one's own race is the highest good (correct me if I'm wrong), but I would have to disagree.
I assume each individual decides for himself what is the good. Every individual, however, does not possess authority. Those with authority decide political issues, such as what values are incorporated into the law, who the law is enforced against, and precisely what the law is. Politics arises from conflict amongst individuals trying to usurp authority to impose their own values. Every single government whatsoever is authoritarian because it imposes a worldview upon political space. Its legitimacy is not grounded in "reason," but in force.
>>>Even death may be preferable to survival in some cases. Would you rather die or live for 50 years in the clutches of torturers in prison? Nearly any person would prefer death.
Yes, I would prefer death.
>>>Well, if we all lived in a "Might Makes Right" world, life would be a hell of a lot less pleasant than in one where most people got along with each other.
Once again, is and ought are two different things. Also, we do live in a world where might makes right. This is the only world which have ever existed. It is the only world which will ever exist because authority will always ultimately decide political issues.
***>>>Each of us would always have to look over our shoulder, ever fearful of someone -- maybe a corrupt government official -- literally stabbing us in the back. ***
Is that not precisely the world in which we live?
***>>>That's not life, it's mere existence. ***
Being is will-to-power.
>>>Similarly, I would rather die than live as someone else's slave -- and if another mortal man has the power to arbitrarily command you to do certain things, then you are his slave.
Would you rather die than have someone tell you that you cannot smoke a cigarette in a public restroom? Under what circumstances are those who command not arbitrarily put in that position by those with authority?
>>>Does he have the right to make you his slave? No. Neither does he even have the power to do so, since you can always choose death over slavery.
How would taking your own life negate this circumstance?
>>>There is no need at all for ANY individual to bow before authority.
LOL one can always disobey authority. One must then face the consequences of disobedience, whatever they may be.
***>>>I certainly don't. In this modern state in which I live, I simply obey the laws that are reasonable and discreetly break the rest at my leisure. ***
And of course everyone decides for himself what is reasonable and what is not and this is how disputes arise.
>>>If any representative of the state attempts to do me harm as a consequence of this, I will do whatever it takes to maim or kill them, but I will NOT be put into prison alive. If they kill me first, then that's okay too, but they will still not have forced me to do their will.
Let us suppose the state kills you. What happens afterwards? The state continues to decide because authority always decides. You however have ceased to exist.
>>>What laws are "reasonable"? Those which (1) deter wrongful aggression, (2) enhance the survival and quality of life of a society, and (3) are consistent with the empirical laws of nature.
And let me guess, of course, you decide what is reasonable just as everyone decides from himself what is reasonable, acting accordingly. Even articulated supposedly universal principles must be articulated by particular individuals who will almost inevitably find themselves in disagreement.
***>>>Many White Nationalists argue in favor of a white nation based upon observations that (1) whites are subject to exploitation in Jew-controlled societies, (2) are less likely to survive as a genetically distinct race without a nation of their own, and (3) prefer to be with their own race. These are all good arguments. ***
White Nationalists do not have a white nation at this point in time either. They do not have a white nation because they do not possess political power, authority, which of course decides.
>>>For an example of an unreasonable law, we could take gun control, which denies people the ability to protect themselves in accordance with their natural instinct of self-defense. Such laws are the kind of bullsh!t Jews institute in order to make themselves stronger with respect to the Gentiles in the societies they infiltrate.
Should Jews be allowed to possess firearms?
>>>To sum up this (long) post, I'll reiterate that the libertarian philosophy is essentially compatible with White Nationalism. The only strict regulations needed in such a state would be those on racial interactions and immigration. Apart from that, I will never accept any governmental authority not rooted firmly in reason or the principle of government-by-consent, regardless of whether said government is white as snow or black as tar.
LOL what is "government by consent" again? What is a government "rooted in reason" by the way?
2003-10-13 06:03 | User Profile
[QUOTE=Angler]Ragnar and FadeTheButcher,
So your view is that rights do not exist except inasmuch as they are granted by someone else who happens to be in power?[/QUOTE]
Not granted, usurped.
Power in America has been usurped by Sarah Brady and the ADL, Homeland Security and the Food and Drug Administration, Queer Nation and MTV. Etc.
They've conquered us!
So we have to conquer them back!
Easier said than done, yes, but deeds start as words.
2003-10-13 08:28 | User Profile
[QUOTE=Ruffin]Jewish propaganda aside, Hitler's Germany was a NATIONALIST state, while both the US and the USSR were INTERNATIONALIST states. One was centered around the strengthening and elevation of its native people, the other two actively sought the destruction of their citizenry.
"Internationalist" being as contrary to republicanism as one can get, Germany was more of a republic than the others. Wasn't it?[/QUOTE]
Ruffin,
No doubt that the Third Reich was a nationalist state, but that doesn't make it a true constitutional republic for one minute. The U.S. today is an internationalist state that has lost just about all the republicanism that it was founded under. What you posted above while true in a narrow sense, doesn't have anything to do with my original point. I prefer to live under a constitutional republic with a written constitution. preferrably the Confederate Constitution, slightly modified.
2003-10-13 17:29 | User Profile
[QUOTE=Sertorius]Walter,
I agree with the bulk of what you have written. If the Germans want Nazism that is their business. America is different and Nazism won't work here. Hitler himself stated that this was for Germans alone. I'll agree that there are parts of Mein Kampf that can be used, such as the descriptions of Jewish tribal behavior and the necessity to remove them from our mists, but the rest of it I reject as not being workable here nor desirable.
Give me a Republic anyday.[/QUOTE]
Agreed. The United States was meant to be a Republic. It no longer is. Would that it was [I]as it was originally intended to be[/I] by the Founders, flawed as they were, we would all be better off. Democracy is mob rule. The United States is not a mob (or rather, I tell myself such..), this was originally to be a Republic.
As far as excessive libery and individualism is concerned, and Libertariansim by default, this is only workable if, [I]and only if[/I], the vast majority of the population has a solid moral and ethical foundation to reign in their baser instincts. We have lost those moral and ethical foundations, and you all know why, so I won't go over it again. It burns me to no end to hear the blow-dried talking heads on the Idiot Box talk of "Democracy". This is palpable foolsihness. What they really mean is "Socialism", but have substituted one for the other in the hopes of duping the vast majority of Americans, and they have succeeded admirably.
Ausonius
2003-10-13 17:55 | User Profile
[QUOTE=Leland Gaunt]What arrogance! What makey you think we didn't have a constitution! You make it sound like Germany was a lawless dictatorship, a state without a fundament.
We had a constitution - the constitution of Weimar. [/QUOTE]
I believe even John Lukacs admits this in his "the Hitler of History"(probally the only mainstream biography of Hitler that doesn't protray the man as an "evil" psychopathic killer).
2003-10-13 17:56 | User Profile
Leland and Sertorius,
Much as we agree about things Germanic, I have to express some doubt about how this thread is going. Did post-WWI Germany have a constitution? Yes, it did. Were sections of that constitution suspended during the period of 1939-45? Yes, they were (I'll have to do some digging and translating, so give me time to site sources and figures, if I can. If I cannot back up that statement, I will retract it), same as in America.
Men in power have been circumventing the constitutions of these two great nations for years, and always for their own nefarious ends, which usually means they end up with more power and influence than before. This is old news. But to call 3rd Reich Germany a "republic" just because they called themselves a republic is not very accurate. I submit that the old "Deutsches Demokratische Republik" was anything [B][I]BUT[/I][/B] one, before it imploded. Just because someone calls a Dodge Pickup truck a Rolls Royce does not automatically make it one. This is Newspeak.
Same as in America, where it used to be referred to as "These" United States before 1861 and "The" United States after 1865.. same as Lincoln suspended the Constitution, same as FDR blatantly trampled it.. the US, no matter what you call it, is NOT a Republic anymore.. I don't know what to call us now. A mob?
Both points of view have merit. I do not think Sertorius was being arrogant by observing that Germany under the Nazi's was not exactly a Republic, he was just observing Truth. I would also submit that the US fell from grace in the 1930's and has not been a true Republic since before 1914.
Somewhere in here is the Truth. Let us treat with each other as Men and come to an understanding. You both are intelligent men, capable of that, even though others of our kind in the world cannot. I do not have the answers to everything, but I do know that creating a Ami/German square-off will accomplish little except harm.
Ausonius
2003-10-13 21:45 | User Profile
FadeTheButcher et al,
I do understand your logic; I'm just not convinced that your premises are correct.
You claim that I'm confusing "what I wish reality to be" with what reality actually is, but how certain are you that your purely materialistic view of reality is correct? We can't comprehend the ultimate nature of existence; we can only speculate about it. One thing is certain: the fact that human beings cannot perceive a certain thing does not mean that that thing does not exist. So, while it's true that no one can prove the existence of metaphysical moral laws, neither can anyone prove that such laws don't exist. After all, no one knows whether or not the universe was created by a Higher Power, and either position is equally reasonable.
If we work from the assumption that the materialistic view IS objectively correct and maintain that no God or transcendent moral laws exist, then of course I will have to agree with your thesis that there are no "rights" except those which can be asserted by force. If that were somehow proved to be the case, then my course of action would be to assert my own will and subjective values through deception, stealth, force, and all other means at my disposal. If caught by law enforcement, then I would have no qualms about shooting the arresting officer(s). If the Law Of The Jungle is the only law, then there's no reason for me not to kill anyone whom I have the ability to kill if I can get away with it. If agents of the government were to kill me first, then I would "cease to exist" as you say, but the government would still not have forced me to accept its authority or submit to its will. Even in prison government power is NOT absolute, and thus individuals ALWAYS retain a certain degree of self-sovereignty -- always, that is, unless they are deceived or frightened into giving it up. When government forces you to choose between death and slavery, it cannot force you to choose slavery.
From a practical standpoint, an individual does not require any political power whatsoever to assert his values (although it certainly helps). Just look at those who bombed the World Trade Center. They struck a serious blow against a nation armed with enough nukes to destroy the world several times over, yet they had no authority or political power over anyone. SImilarly, JFK was one of the most powerful men on the planet right up to the moment when someone with no political power whatsoever blew his head off. The point is that the politically powerful can create laws and attempt to punish those who break them, but actual behavior cannot be dictated.
To conclude, libertarianism is not necessarily a metaphysically-oriented philosophy. A libertarian can, with full consistency, adopt a materialistic outlook by accepting that force is the only law and then seeking to use that force to impose freedom.
2003-10-13 22:41 | User Profile
Constitutional Democracy is nothing more than an exercise in the denial of personal authority. Whatever written principles that are incorporated into a Constitution must be interpreted by particular individuals in particular circumstances since authority will always decide the matter. The Constitution is thus never universally applicable since different individuals will have different interpretations of it. Has not the Supreme Court proven this truth over and over and over again? The Supreme Court is the ultimate authority of Constitutional interpretation. What is to stop these people from seeing whatever they want to see in the document? In the end, the formalistic principles are subordinated to the personal values of particular individuals. The entire purpose of Constitutionalism as a theory collapses upon itself. The idea of an objective government rationally interpreting normative principles, spitting out nothing more than the words of the legislature is ridiculous. Authority is always ultimately personal. This does not stop liberals from denying reality however.
2003-10-13 23:19 | User Profile
***>>>You claim that I'm confusing "what I wish reality to be" with what reality actually is, but how certain are you that your purely materialistic view of reality is correct? ***
My political philosophy, which deals with the social world, has nothing to do with materialism. I have in fact criticized materialism in several threads just as I have criticized rationalism. My political philosophy is simple. What should exist, what type of society? We all have a different views of the matter but we all do not decide. We all do not possess the political power to transmit our worldview into reality. What is the law? The law is nothing more than the personal values of those with authority who choose to transmit them into legislation. That is true in every case, regardless of who is in power. Politics, activity in relation to power, arises from the neverending conflict of different individuals and groups with different ideas of what should exist who compete with each other to attain authority. All governments whatsoever are authoritarian. The ability to decide presupposes the power of authority. Those with authority decide. The only thing that changes is the content of the decision.
***>>>We can't comprehend the ultimate nature of existence; we can only speculate about it. ***
I would agree with this statement.
>>>One thing is certain: the fact that human beings cannot perceive a certain thing does not mean that that thing does not exist. So, while it's true that no one can prove the existence of metaphysical moral laws, neither can anyone prove that such laws don't exist.
It is impossible to prove a negative, to provide positive evidence of non-existence. Regardless, no one has ever "proven" to me the "true morality." What irritates me is when people confuse morality and politics to be one in the same, nothing is further from the case. Morality is no more politics than aesthetics is epistemology. Politics does not distinguish between "good" and "evil." Politics distinguishes between friend and enemy. One can be a friend politically yet evil morally. One can be an enemy politically yet good morally. Business with a nation can be profitable yet that nation can still be an enemy. Someone can be wrong yet still a friend just as one can be right yet still an enemy.
>>>After all, no one knows whether or not the universe was created by a Higher Power, and either position is equally reasonable.
One can be reasonable yet still an enemy.
>>>If we work from the assumption that the materialistic view IS objectively correct and maintain that no God or transcendent moral laws exist, then of course I will have to agree with your thesis that there are no "rights" except those which can be asserted by force.
Authority decides. This conclusion is inescapable. The essence of authority is also force, or power, the ability to act in a given manner.
>>>If that were somehow proved to be the case, then my course of action would be to assert my own will and subjective values through deception, stealth, force, and all other means at my disposal.
This sounds much more like the world in which we live. Humans want to project will-to-power into space. They would rather will nothingness than not will at all. I am of the opinion that "morality," just like "God," was created to exert authority over others, to legitimize power, to bamboozle the public into accepting domination and subordination to authority.
***>>>If caught by law enforcement, then I would have no qualms about shooting the arresting officer(s). If the Law Of The Jungle is the only law, then there's no reason for me not to kill anyone whom I have the ability to kill if I can get away with it. ***
This presupposes "reasons" are necessary to act in any given way. Once again you approach the issue from the rationalist paradigm when in actuality only will and power is required to act.
>>>If agents of the government were to kill me first, then I would "cease to exist" as you say, but the government would still not have forced me to accept its authority or submit to its will. Even in prison government power is NOT absolute, and thus individuals ALWAYS retain a certain degree of self-sovereignty -- always, that is, unless they are deceived or frightened into giving it up. When government forces you to choose between death and slavery, it cannot force you to choose slavery.
To take your own life would surrender your control over your person.
***>>>From a practical standpoint, an individual does not require any political power whatsoever to assert his values (although it certainly helps). ***
One most definitely does need political power to transmit his values into reality.
***>>>Just look at those who bombed the World Trade Center. ***
That itself was a political action.
>>>They struck a serious blow against a nation armed with enough nukes to destroy the world several times over, yet they had no authority or political power over anyone. SImilarly, JFK was one of the most powerful men on the planet right up to the moment when someone with no political power whatsoever blew his head off. The point is that the politically powerful can create laws and attempt to punish those who break them, but actual behavior cannot be dictated.
I have never made the argument that one cannot rebel against authority and possibly subvert it, acquiring authority for oneself, that acquiring the right to decide. These man challenges authority. Authority retaliates by exerting its power and wiping them out. Authority still commands the nation.
>>>To conclude, libertarianism is not necessarily a metaphysically-oriented philosophy. A libertarian can, with full consistency, adopt a materialistic outlook by accepting that force is the only law and then seeking to use that force to impose freedom.
Libertarianism is a moralist anti-political ideology. Why would libertarianism need the "force" of "authority" to impose "freedom" if "freedom" is the supreme political distinction? Actually, freedom to the libertarian is nothing more than a personal moral ideal, a decision like any other. The libertarians finally end up by confusing morality and politics to be one in the same thing. Moral content is irrelevent to politics which is a struggle over power. Moral content only provides the vocabulary of political struggles.
2003-10-14 01:46 | User Profile
[QUOTE=Leland Gaunt]Ausonius
I think you are confusing "democracy" with "Republic". A "Republic" is just a form for a state and just means that the State is not ruled by a hereditary monarch.
With which "ideas" or "ideology" you would like to fill the form of "Republic" is an absolutely different matter. Communist States are also "Republics" - "socialist Republics". In the west you have "democratic" (or "plutocratic" ) Republics.
The Weimar Constitution was valid until the last day of the War. The "democratic" blah blah about "equalety" ect. was never removed but just put out of practice through new laws. What NS did was that it put the laws of the constitution on the same level as any other law that could be drafted.
The emergency-laws which Hitler used to rule the country were explicitly allowed according to the constitution. No ne seems to care that all chanclors before Hitler used the same laws during their rule with minorety-cabinets. After Hindenburgs death the Reichstag combined the functions of President and Chanclor, thus giving Hitler ultimate power. A plebiscite was of course held and the German people aproved this merger of functions.
The lawlessness and perversion of law started in 1945 with kangoroo courts, retroactive laws, installing "councils" and apointing offcials through military directives and finaly supervising and aproving a "constitution" through the allied military without the consens of the german people.
It doesn't interest me what some Americans consider a republic or not. All that matters for me is, that the Nationalsocialists considered themselves "Republicans" (Goebbels once wrote before 1933 "we have nothing against a Republic, just against [I]this kind of Republic[/I]")[/QUOTE]
Leland,
I know the difference between 'democracy' and 'republic'. In fact, I went and looked it up just to make sure I had it right.
[QUOTE]I think you are confusing "democracy" with "Republic". A "Republic" is just a form for a state and just means that the State is not ruled by a hereditary monarch.[/QUOTE]
Nope.
Republic: A commonwealth; a state in which the exercise of the sovereign power is lodged in representatives elected by the people. In modern usage, it differs from a democracy or democratic state, in which the people exercise the powers of sovereignty in person
Democracy: Government by the people; a form of government, in which the supreme power is lodged in the hands of the people collectively, or in which the people exercise the powers of legislation. (The US is not a [I]collective[/I] anymore than Germany is).
I submit this: The 'emergency laws' that Hitler used to rule the country bear ominous resemblance to the idiotic 'Patriot Act (one and two both) in spirit. And the War Powers Act as well. How they can be used by evil men is what matters. They were originally meant to be safeguards in event of extreme crisis. They were used for evil purposes.
Let me say this now: I am not, nor was I ever, nor will I ever be, a National Socialist. I am, however, an American of German heritage, proud of it, married German, even had a son there. I do not think that the Nazi's were benign anymore than I believe that jews are harmless. That you dismiss what I think out of hand as 'It doesn't interest me what some Americans consider a republic or not', is okay.
I agree that the german constitution was in effect throughout the war, and I also agree with your assessment of what followed afterwards, in Post-war Germany, and I hate it as much as you do. But no matter how angry I get over what happened, I will never embrace National Socialism. I'm more angry with the Allies for what they did after WWI than anything else... setting the stage for the destruction of my ancestral home and the ruination of my family. They provided the catalyst that enabled Hitler to take power, and, thus, were the cause of WWII and were responsible for what happened. We should have stayed out of the fight (US, not Germany). That you agree ideologically with the National Socialists is interesting. I agree with [I]some[/I] of what they were about, but not all, or even most. I'm too much a free Man to buy into having 'papers' just to cross town to buy bread or forcing me to send my son to a State school because some beareucrat says I have to, on pain of imprisonment.
I agree that These United States were founded by White Europeans. It was the last, best human experiment, and it has been corrupted by those who wish to see it fail, or to make it into some mud-colored Utopian socialist egalitarian second rate also-ran. I just want things to be as they were intended.
Ausonius
2003-10-14 05:22 | User Profile
My political philosophy, which deals with the social world, has nothing to do with materialism. I have in fact criticized materialism in several threads just as I have criticized rationalism. The reason I associated your philosophy with materialism is because, much like your philosophy, materialism denies the existence of objective moral laws and similar metaphysical things. I may have been loose with my terminology.
What irritates me is when people confuse morality and politics to be one in the same, nothing is further from the case. Morality is no more politics than aesthetics is epistemology. Politics does not distinguish between "good" and "evil." Politics distinguishes between friend and enemy. One can be a friend politically yet evil morally. One can be an enemy politically yet good morally. Business with a nation can be profitable yet that nation can still be an enemy. Someone can be wrong yet still a friend just as one can be right yet still an enemy. You'll get no disagreement from me on any of these points.
If we work from the assumption that the materialistic view IS objectively correct and maintain that no God or transcendent moral laws exist, then of course I will have to agree with your thesis that there are no "rights" except those which can be asserted by force.
Authority decides. This conclusion is inescapable. The essence of authority is also force, or power, the ability to act in a given manner. I don't mean to nitpick about semantics, but when you say "authority," are you referring exclusively to the ability of governments to enforce their laws? That is my understanding of the word. Or does your definition of "authority" subsume ALL power, including that which can be exerted by non-state groups or even individuals? If the latter is the case, then I agree with your statement that "authority decides." But in no way does state authority decide all things. If it did, then there would be no "crime." I regularly break the law with impunity (although without harming others) and have never been caught. Hence, I have granted myself the "right" to commit acts that others have forbidden.
If that were somehow proved to be the case, then my course of action would be to assert my own will and subjective values through deception, stealth, force, and all other means at my disposal.
This sounds much more like the world in which we live. Humans want to project will-to-power into space. They would rather will nothingness than not will at all. I am of the opinion that "morality," just like "God," was created to exert authority over others, to legitimize power, to bamboozle the public into accepting domination and subordination to authority. Many libertarians (i.e., those who are atheists) would agree with you here! After all, if there is no God, then where do well-known "moralistic" human tendencies such as altruism come from? Many (most?) atheists would say that those tendencies are hard-wired into the human brain as artifacts of evolution -- much like animals are hard-wired to risk their own lives to protect their young -- but I think it is a mistake to equate such tendencies with the kind of morality that can only come from a transcendent Being.
So, again: if there is no God, then there is no true morality. I take it we agree on that (although I do believe in God). What we disagree on is your suggestion that libertarianism is necessarily based on abstract constructs such as "morality." A libertarian is a person who believes that the ideal government is that which governs as little as is necessary for a stable and prosperous society. That doesn't necessarily mean "ideal" in a moral sense, but possibly in a purely practical sense. Or maybe some libertarians simply don't like being told what to do and would be personally happier if everyone would just "live and let live" -- that is hardly an appeal to "morality." Do you see my point?
If caught by law enforcement, then I would have no qualms about shooting the arresting officer(s). If the Law Of The Jungle is the only law, then there's no reason for me not to kill anyone whom I have the ability to kill if I can get away with it.
This presupposes "reasons" are necessary to act in any given way. Once again you approach the issue from the rationalist paradigm when in actuality only will and power is required to act. Quite the opposite: I said "there's NO reason for me not to kill...." I was essentially saying that, if I accepted your premise that morality is a fictitious concept, then I would have to agree with your logical conclusion.
If agents of the government were to kill me first, then I would "cease to exist" as you say, but the government would still not have forced me to accept its authority or submit to its will. Even in prison government power is NOT absolute, and thus individuals ALWAYS retain a certain degree of self-sovereignty -- always, that is, unless they are deceived or frightened into giving it up. When government forces you to choose between death and slavery, it cannot force you to choose slavery.
To take your own life would surrender your control over your person. I was actually referring to dying in the act of rebellion, not deliberate suicide. However, even suicide can represent an act of defiance. In the USA it is generally illegal to attempt suicide, but if a person succeeds in doing himself in, then the government cannot undo what has been done; its will has been defied.
From a practical standpoint, an individual does not require any political power whatsoever to assert his values (although it certainly helps).
One most definitely does need political power to transmit his values into reality. Not at all -- unless you define ALL power exerted over men by other men as "political power," which seems to be stretching the definition quite a bit. If my values lead me to hate people of race X, and I go around assassinating people of that race, then I have changed reality to suit my values without ever having been involved in government per se.
Just look at those who bombed the World Trade Center.
That itself was a political action. Again, since those who bombed the WTC were non-state actors unaffiliated with any specific government (at least that's the official story), I think you're stretching the definition of "political." Maybe I'm wrong about that, though -- I'm only getting into semantics in the interest of clarity.
I have never made the argument that one cannot rebel against authority and possibly subvert it, acquiring authority for oneself, that acquiring the right to decide. To rebel against authority and break its clutches over oneself does not necessarily entail the personal assumption of authority over anyone else. If a man escapes from prison, kills a few guards in the process, and is subsequently never caught, then he has not acquired any authority -- unless, once again, your definition of "authority" includes more than just state-sponsored authority.
These man challenges authority. Authority retaliates by exerting its power and wiping them out. Authority still commands the nation. That's often the case, but other times the Powers That Be are the ones who are defeated, as in any successful coup or revolution.
In any case, I think I agree with you on most of the logical outcomes of your arguments -- I only question some of your premises and thus do not arrive at your conclusions. We can agree to disagree regarding those premises.
2003-10-14 07:34 | User Profile
Leland,
[QUOTE=Sertorius]Ruffin,
No doubt that the Third Reich was a nationalist state, but that doesn't make it a true constitutional republic for one minute. [/QUOTE]
You wrote the following:
What arrogance! What makey you think we didn't have a constitution! You make it sound like Germany was a lawless dictatorship, a state without a fundament.
We had a constitution - the constitution of Weimar.
Iââ¬â¢ll deal with the arrogance you accuse me of on [url=http://forums.originaldissent.com/showthread.php?t=10442]this thread.[/url] I have a question waiting for you there. The other stuff about ââ¬Åyour ââ¬Ërepublicââ¬â¢Ã¢â¬Â is nothing more than sour grapes from you and not worth responding to on this thread. Instead, Iââ¬â¢m more interested in the other remarks of your's above.
Once again you are taking insult where there is none. I didnââ¬â¢t write one thing expressing an opinion that the Third Reich was a lawless dictatorship like Uganda under Idi Amin, for example. I didnââ¬â¢t even say it was a dictatorship, but I will now. I stated a fact about it being a nationalist state. Sure, there were laws as people like Streicher found out, but at the end Hitler was the law as Roehm and his gang found out on 30 June, 1934. You can try to argue that the Weimar Republic had laws that were similar, but the Enabling Act of 1933 surpassed anything previously and never was cancelled when it might have been after Roehm was dealt with for a period from the Night of the Long Knives to Hitler reclaiming the Rhineland. The Bolsheviks had already been handled after the Reichstag fire. It wasn't for it would interfer with the "National Socialist revolution."
The Third Reich wasnââ¬â¢t a republic, but a dictatorship no matter how you try to spin it. I judge people by their [u]actions[/u] instead of their words, the Goebbels comment (which Iââ¬â¢d like to see in full) notwithstanding. Even bringing up the Nazi Reichstag doesn't get it. They were as much a legislative body as the Roman Senate was under the emperors. Some people even said that it was the best paid glee club for meeting once a year to rubber stamp some papers and sing the Deutschland lied and the Hoerst Wessel lied from what I understand.
You go on to make the ridiculous claim about having the constitution of Weimar and it being in effect throughout the war. Tell me who wrote this?
For the abuse and attacks of these so-called federalists were not levelled against the fathers of the Weimar Constitution ââ¬â the majority of whom were South Germans or Jews ââ¬â but against those who represented the old conservative Prussia, which was the antipodes of the Weimar Constitution.
Iââ¬â¢ll give you three guesses and the first two donââ¬â¢t count. Go ahead, click the link.
Some [url=http://www.stormfront.org/books/mein_kampf/mkv2ch10.html]National Socialist[/url] you are.
I donââ¬â¢t believe for a minute that Hitler kept the Weimar constitution around. The above statement shows what he thought of it and the [u]Jews[/u] and the Bavarians who wrote it, this part of [I]Mein Kampf[/I] being about an attempt to dismember Prussia. This constitution became a dead letter at best on Hitler becoming chancellor in 1933. You can try that bush-clintonian semantics with others, but not with me. I made it clear what I meant by a constitutional republic and it was obvious to anyone other than a nitwit that I was referring to my own country when you threw in your irrelevant and inaccurate comment in an attempt to cause trouble. In the future I suggest you read what I wrote instead of crying foul when I respond to you for doing such things.
I have checked the quote above against the Houghton Mifflin editon (p.560) translation by Manheim and the Hurst and Blackett, LTD edition (p.309) translation by Murphy and they match. Check it yourself.
Nailed your ass. :)
2003-10-14 12:15 | User Profile
[QUOTE=Leland Gaunt] Maybe I agree with them, because [B]I AM[/B] a Nationalsocialist. Of course I can see where they made mistakes (The pro English course), but no Goverment is perfect. It was OUR way of dealing with the threats and problems of that time. Unlike today, the NS-State only had the welfare and safety of our people on mind. And that's all I realy care for. My problem with american "Liberterians" is, that they constantly speak about their rights. I never hear anything about obligations and dutys towards the community. It's always "It is my RIGTHT" and "The constitution gives us these rights..." ect. Sure - fine with me. I also have the right to cross the street when the light is red.....and get run over by a truck. Now if a policeman catches me doing this, I will have to pay a fine. How dare the State intrude into my right to cross the street whenever I like, huh? [/QUOTE]
I agree with Leland here for the most part. Doestoevesky once said the greatest development of the individual can only be found in service to the collective. As he put(I can't remember the exact words) "to lay ones life down, to face persecution, to be crucified for the good of others requires the highest form of individual development".
Libetarianism often leads to statism ironically. Even Toqueveille in his "Democracy in America" noted this. He said that Americans were so self centered that projects and programs that in Europe would've be left to local communities had to be runned by the state.
2003-10-14 14:32 | User Profile
Leland,
Alas, so little time, so much to say. I will say this, though:
I beg to differ. Don't compare the jewish neo-con establishment and it's "patriot Act" with our emergency laws. The "Patriot Act" has been drafted to serve an alien parasite group, while our "Ermächtigungsgestz" was neccessary to safeguard our Fatherland from the communist threat. [/QUOTE]
You missed my point entirely. My point was not a comparative analysis between the two laws, [I]but how they were misused by men[/I].
Ausonius
2003-10-14 21:59 | User Profile
>>>The reason I associated your philosophy with materialism is because, much like your philosophy, materialism denies the existence of objective moral laws and similar metaphysical things. I may have been loose with my terminology.
My metaphysical position is quite simple. What is being? Being is will-to-power. My political position follows from my metaphysical position. What is politics? Politics is activity in relation to power, conflict amongst beings over power, over authority. Politics and ethics are two different things. Politics does not distinguish between good and evil, as does morality, politics distinguishes between friend and enemy. Politics is amoral. Libertarianism is not a political philosophy, in fact, it is anti-political. It is a moral philosophy. Libertarianism militates against power, against authority. It seeks to negate politics and replace politics with its moral ideology, freedom, or an absence of authority. Authority however does not go away. What's more, libertarians must capture authority to implement their worldview. Even if libertarians gained power, authority, a libertarian government would be libertarian in name only, for government would still be authoritarian.
About morality. Objective moral laws? I would disagree. Morality, in my view, is a relic of religion, of faith. It is a secularized theological concept. Does politics (activity in relation to power) serve morality (the distinction between good and evil) or does morality exist to facilitate the acquisition of power? I am of the latter view. Morality was created to facilitate and justify domination of beings by other beings. This is what "morality" is used for today, for instance, Jews having power quite often use the epithet "immoral" to discredit racialists and other political challengers to their power. Morality has always has been used for this purpose really, to facilitate domination.
>>>You'll get no disagreement from me on any of these points.
Alrighty.
***>>>I don't mean to nitpick about semantics, but when you say "authority," are you referring exclusively to the ability of governments to enforce their laws? ***
In the context of the public, yes. What is authority? It is more generally the ability to act, to have control over others, to command obediance, so yes, authority spills out into the private sphere as well. This is why the concept of legitimacy is so important. Human beings seek authority or power. To assert this power in security requires legitimacy. This is where "reasons" are brought in to justify authority, to create legitimacy. The purpose of the "reasons," in this case, the goal, has nothing whatsoever to do with objectivity, but the desire to pacify resistance and secure domination. Deception, morality, religion, pity, humanitarianism, ideological systems and other assorted reasons et al are tools to accomplish this aim. The truth or falsehood of these reasons is immaterial. Their purpose is to create a cosmology, a worldview to bamboozle another individual, to justify the political order in their eyes.
***>>>That is my understanding of the word. Or does your definition of "authority" subsume ALL power, including that which can be exerted by non-state groups or even individuals? ***
Power, the ability to act, to control others, is not necessarily public power. In the public however this idea is basically synonymous with the concept of sovereignty, sovereignty being explicitly, the right among all others to decide when an exception to the legal order exists. Political power is basically the ability to influence decisions, to have the ability to apply pressure, to coerce judgement.
>>>If the latter is the case, then I agree with your statement that "authority decides." But in no way does state authority decide all things. If it did, then there would be no "crime." I regularly break the law with impunity (although without harming others) and have never been caught. Hence, I have granted myself the "right" to commit acts that others have forbidden.
One can usurp authority, rebel against authority, of course. In the above example you indicated you repeatedly break the law and have yet to be caught. Authority most definitely does have control over you to a large extent, the ability to influence your decisions, power over you. Acting clandestinely however in no way negates the preponderant power in a given political space. If I break the speed limit for example, the authority of the government to impose the speed limit still exists, it is still recognized as legitimate and obeyed by others who are dominated and influenced by the authority in the given area. I can challenge authority and set my own speed limit. A conflict over power might then erupt between me and the recognized authority in a given area. That authority might enforce its power against me and reassert its force to control that highway for instance.
***>>>Many libertarians (i.e., those who are atheists) would agree with you here! After all, if there is no God, then where do well-known "moralistic" human tendencies such as altruism come from? ***
I tend to be of the view that altruism is rooted in evolutionary biology. It is not so much a moral act as it is simply a behaviour that is classified in accordance with a subjective stereotype of right and wrong. Altruism cannot be subsumed under morality. For instance, altruism can be political. One can sacrifice oneself to increase the power of one's nation.
***>>>Many (most?) atheists would say that those tendencies are hard-wired into the human brain as artifacts of evolution -- much like animals are hard-wired to risk their own lives to protect their young -- but I think it is a mistake to equate such tendencies with the kind of morality that can only come from a transcendent Being. ***
I am of the former view myself. As far as we know, altruism existed amongst Europeans long before any conception of a universal deity arose in Europe. It existed in pagan cultures, for instance. Altruism seems to be tied to reproduction and sex as well. It also seems to be distributed unevenly across racial lines, as certainly are other behaviours.
>>>So, again: if there is no God, then there is no true morality. I take it we agree on that (although I do believe in God). What we disagree on is your suggestion that libertarianism is necessarily based on abstract constructs such as "morality." A libertarian is a person who believes that the ideal government is that which governs as little as is necessary for a stable and prosperous society.
Once again, if we define politics to be activity in relation to power and government to be the public expression of authority, then it is quite obvious libertarians are anti-political, for they militate against power and against authority in the name of what they describe as "freedom," which I understand them to mean by that a lack of force, in essence ~authority, ~government, ~power. "Governs as little as possible" to libertarians is also a moral view, for a government that does otherwise, to a libertarian, it is an infringment upon "rights" which according to libertarians government presupposes. "Stable and prosperous society" also an expression of an economic worldview. This reveals libertarianism to be a varient of liberalism, for the liberal outlook, in all its forms, is always concerned principally with imposing an ethical and economic worldview by negating the political and aesthetic outlook which has traditionally been its antipode.
>>>That doesn't necessarily mean "ideal" in a moral sense, but possibly in a purely practical sense. Or maybe some libertarians simply don't like being told what to do and would be personally happier if everyone would just "live and let live" -- that is hardly an appeal to "morality." Do you see my point?
I see what you are trying to get at but from what I understand of libertarianism this focus upon "happiness" is an expression of their ethics, not being told what to do is their traditional anti-political position, since it is contra authority, and "live and let live" usually has to do with economics, hence the idea of the "free market."
>>>Quite the opposite: I said "there's NO reason for me not to kill...." I was essentially saying that, if I accepted your premise that morality is a fictitious concept, then I would have to agree with your logical conclusion.
Does morality change over the centuries and across cultures?
>>>I was actually referring to dying in the act of rebellion, not deliberate suicide. However, even suicide can represent an act of defiance. In the USA it is generally illegal to attempt suicide, but if a person succeeds in doing himself in, then the government cannot undo what has been done; its will has been defied.
Authority, of course, can always be defied. Occasionally denying authority can undermine it, but in that case, the only thing that changes is that a new authority arises and someone else makes the decisions. Authority remains. War is politics by other means, the highest form of politics actually for it reveals politics in its essence, as conflict over power.
***>>>Not at all -- unless you define ALL power exerted over men by other men as "political power," which seems to be stretching the definition quite a bit. ***
Power is basically the ability to influence, to decide, to control, to dominate others humans and things. In this sense, political power is not confined to the public sphere, but remains in the "private sphere" as well. In this sense, even the private sphere is political for institutions such as "private property" institutionalize control over space, power over things.
>>>If my values lead me to hate people of race X, and I go around assassinating people of that race, then I have changed reality to suit my values without ever having been involved in government per se.
Once again, you would exert "force" or "power" against people of race X - authority. One can usurp authority, yes. The struggle for power, authority, which never ceases is what gives rise to politics. Would your acts bring down the wrath of the public authority? Almost certainly. Your action would be a challenge to its authority, a political act.
>>>Again, since those who bombed the WTC were non-state actors unaffiliated with any specific government (at least that's the official story), I think you're stretching the definition of "political." Maybe I'm wrong about that, though -- I'm only getting into semantics in the interest of clarity.
I defined politics as activity in relation to power. Power does not necessarily have to be public power.
>>>To rebel against authority and break its clutches over oneself does not necessarily entail the personal assumption of authority over anyone else. If a man escapes from prison, kills a few guards in the process, and is subsequently never caught, then he has not acquired any authority -- unless, once again, your definition of "authority" includes more than just state-sponsored authority.
In this instance the man would have assumed control or domination over the lives of the guards. He would be in control of a space and an area. One can of course renounce authority by feeling into obscurity, in that case someone else would simply assume power over the void.
[]i**>>>That's often the case, but other times the Powers That Be are the ones who are defeated, as in any successful coup or revolution.In any case, I think I agree with you on most of the logical outcomes of your arguments -- I only question some of your premises and thus do not arrive at your conclusions. We can agree to disagree regarding those premises.
A coup or revolution would be a challenge to power over a space. Even if the coup or the revolution were to succeed, authority would still not go away, the only thing that would change is that a different person or group would decide. If the coup or revolution were to fail, the dominant authority would crush the revolution and reassert his domination, his right to decide.
2003-10-15 21:55 | User Profile
[QUOTE=Sertorius]Walter,
I agree with the bulk of what you have written. If the Germans want Nazism that is their business. America is different and Nazism won't work here. Hitler himself stated that this was for Germans alone. I'll agree that there are parts of Mein Kampf that can be used, such as the descriptions of Jewish tribal behavior and the necessity to remove them from our mists, but the rest of it I reject as not being workable here nor desirable.
Give me a Republic anyday.[/QUOTE]
Dear Sertorius,
A quick point: "Mein Kampf" is problematic on many levels (mostly because AH didn't write it himself), therefore I wouldn't put much stock into it (here's David Irving -- there's no one who knows more about Adolf Hitler, National Socialism and the Third Reich than Irving -- on Mein Kampf):
David Irving replies:
I HAVE edited this letter for length, but its content is important. I have dipped into Mein Kampf but never read it: it was written only partly by Hitler, and that is the problem. More important are Hitlers Zweites Buch, (1928) which he wrote in his own hand; and Hitler's Table Talk, daily memoranda which first Heinrich Heim (Martin Bormann's adjutant, whom I interviewed) and then Henry Picker wrote down at his table side, and the similar table talks recorded by Werner Koeppen (which I was the first to exploit, in Hitler's War). Totally worthless as a source is the book Conversations with Hitler by a former Danzig Senator, Hermann Rauschning; he as an anti-Nazi, and met Hitler only once, as internal NS inquiries established, at a formal cocktail party. It was wartime propaganda, published by the same firm who published Fritz Thyssen's bogus memoirs I Paid Hitler.
[url]http://www.fpp.co.uk/Hitler/index.html[/url]
If you want to get a better idea of AH's thinking, I would suggest Hitler's Table Talk.
David Irving replies:
HITLER'S Table Talk comes from the original Bormann Vermerke which the late François Genoud purchased from Bormann's widow Gerda Bormann. They were actually typed from notes taken by the stenographer Heinrich Heim, whom I interviewed and who confirmed the procedure in detail. Each day's entry was initialled by Bormann at the end. They are genuine, in the first person, and highly reliable.
Henry Picker took over as Bormann's secretary/adjutant from Heim. He found a lot of Heim's notes in his desk and rewrote them in reported speech and published them and his own notes as Hitlers Tischgespräche. Good, but less reliable.
After the war, Genoud obtained by a very complex process notes on the final Bunkergespräche of Hitler. Walter Funk was involved. When I visited Geneva in about 1968 (Elke Fröhlich, the Goebbels expert, was with me) Genoud showed us a sheaf of US legal-size paper, closely typed in German. Nobody has ever seen that sheaf since. Hugh Trevor-Roper had published them in English in the late 1950s as Hitler's Last Testament. In interviews with me, Hitler's adjutants, especially Karl-Jesko von Puttkamer (on left of picture) disputed their authenticity. Eventually Genoud, meeting me in Paris, came clean and told me he had either written, or enlarged on, the originals himself, in his own handwriting -- in French. On two different occasions he said to me, apologetically, "That is surely what Hitler would have said."
This explains a number of anachronisms in the text of this latter volume. It also explains why Genoud originally insisted that Hoffmann & Campe, who in the 1970s had a contract to publish the Trevor-Roper edition in German, must work from the French text(!); I told them I had seen a German text in Genoud's hands when I visited him in Geneva. That firm then abandoned the project, and the book was published by Albrecht Knaus of Bertelsmann Verlag.
One day I bumped into Genoud in Paris, or we met by arrangement, I can't recall, and he gave me a complete photocopy of the Bunker conversations (1945) in German; they are heavily expanded between the lines in handwriting -- his handwriting, and I suspect his typewriter. Useless as a historical source. I donated them to the Institut für Zeitgeschichte.
One final detail: the English translation of the original Hitler's Table Talk was published in about 1949 by George Weidenfeld, who paid a huge sum for the rights -- half to Genoud, and half at Genoud's insistence to Paula Hitler. The Weidenfeld translation is idiomatic and excellent. I read the book as a boy, enthralled. I used the text on several occasions in my book Hitler's War: for that I was denounced as a "falsifier of history", as I preferred the idiomatic Weidenfeld translation to a wooden, turgid, and sludge-like Richard Evans translation as offered to the High Court during the Lipstadt Trial. Remember that whenever you see newspapers refer to me as having been exposed as a "falsifier" of documents.
[url]http://www.fpp.co.uk/Letters/Hitler/Law200603.html[/url]
As with anything touching the Third Reich one has to be very, very careful...there's so much disinformation out there...
I've read Mein Kampf in my late teens and at the time I thought that only the second part was of real value (as I remember, it was where he discussed the Party's history).
2003-10-15 22:11 | User Profile
[QUOTE=yummybear]The Black Book of Communism states that the number of deaths in Communist China were 65 million not 35 million - and that was the low estimate. It could easily have been double that.[/QUOTE]
Stephane Courtois et al., The Black Book of Communism, see [url]http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0674076087/104-0407570-8757537?vi=glance;[/url] the authors of this seminal work argue that the grand total of victims of communism in the 20th Century hovers at 100 million (20 million in Russia alone). Pretty impressive, I would say. For the Gulag system of so-called ââ¬Ålabour campsââ¬Â (these were really death camps, see [url]http://histclo.hispeed.com/essay/war/com/wc-gulg.html[/url]).
Most Russians didn't want the ââ¬ÅRussian Revolutionââ¬Â and didn't take part in it. The said revolution was the product of a largely radicalized minority of deracinated, cosmopolitan, intellectual agitators (read: Jews). Like most revolutions it was the work of a fanatical and highly committed minority. The average Russian was politically apathetic, and most Russians, in this vast empire, were wholly ignorant of what was going on in St-Petersburg during that fateful October.
2003-10-15 23:33 | User Profile
[QUOTE=friedrich braun]Stephane Courtois et al., The Black Book of Communism, see [url]http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0674076087/104-0407570-8757537?vi=glance;[/url] the authors of this seminal work argue that the grand total of victims of communism in the 20th Century hovers at 100 million (20 million in Russia alone). Pretty impressive, I would say. For the Gulag system of so-called ââ¬Ålabour campsââ¬Â (these were really death camps, see [url]http://histclo.hispeed.com/essay/war/com/wc-gulg.html[/url]).
Most Russians didn't want the ââ¬ÅRussian Revolutionââ¬Â and didn't take part in it. The said revolution was the product of a largely radicalized minority of deracinated, cosmopolitan intellectual agitators (read: Jews). Like most revolutions it was the work of a fanatical and highly committed minority. The average Russian was politically apathetic, and most Russians, in this vast empire, were wholly ignorant of what was going on in St-Petersburg during that fateful October.[/QUOTE]
Didn't a lot of Russians greet the German Army as liberators in 1941 when Barbarossa was kicked off? They thought the Romanov's were still in power, or so the books in my little library say.... complete with pictures of Russian girls putting garlands around the necks of the German soldiers. Talk about provincial.
Ausonius
2003-10-16 00:50 | User Profile
Well, I've just finished reading the entire (lengthy) thread.
And I must say that "Fadethebutcher" took words out of my mouth in several of his brilliantly articulated posts.
What great joy to read someone with whom you feel such a kinship of spirit!
Simply beautiful! :cheers: :notworth: :thumbsup:
However, as a National Socialist I feel obligated to say a few words, when I have more time, why I strongly believe that NS was, is, the best political system (certainly the best political system the German Volk ever had).
Bye for now.
-FB
2003-10-16 01:36 | User Profile
[QUOTE=friedrich braun] However, as a National Socialist I feel obligated to say a few words, when I have more time, why I strongly believe that NS was, is, the best political system (certainly the best political system the German Volk ever had). [/QUOTE]
Yes certainly for the German Volk. The Russian Narod(which is basically the Russian equivalent word to Volk) on the other hand probally would benifet more from a Solidarist like system.
"Univeristality of National Socialism" by John Lukacs [url]http://www.nationalism.org/library/science/ideology/lukacs/Lukacs-TMPR-2002.pdf[/url]
2003-10-16 03:43 | User Profile
[QUOTE=wintermute]the numbers for Communism are not wildly exaggerated (the Mao numbers are absolutely staggering)[/QUOTE] When I read accounts now about millions or tens of millions dead, I ask myself, how do they know?
Well, it appears that in the case of China, demographers analyzing the 1982 census have been able to get some idea of the death toll from the Great Famine of 1959-61 -- twenty to forty million. You're right, it is absolutely staggering. One of the worst disasters in history, and the result of Mao's megalomania. Rather than admit failure to meet the promised surpluses, local officials seized every scrap of food and let the peasants starve.
2003-10-16 16:36 | User Profile
[QUOTE]None of these countries were changed in any essential way.[/QUOTE]
Thats not true. They killed the Elite of this Nations. Furtheron the Communists managed to make this nations to industrial societies with good average education. What was really not there, or at least not enough was a Elite and that for obvious reasons. Many fled, many killed and the others mainly educated or better levelled to typical Proletarians. Just look at parts of the Nomenklatura of the Eastern European states, you can hardly say that this people were some Elite from any point of view.
And the major difference between the mass murder of the communists and the National Socialists is, that the former killed mostly their own people, in fact their own Elite.
The National Socialist killed just the (assumed) enemies of their folk and the people which they thought cant be successfully integrated. The Communists treated all people the same way if they didnt fit in their ideological system. Often it even didnt matter if this people could have been integrated with big success...
And why is the "Holocaust" such a theme? The main thing is a best seller. Just look at all the books, the films, the TV shows, the process's and the money which it is all about... And it can be used so good for propaganda...oh the Iraqis, Saddam is the next Hitler...blabla...
I think the Genocid of the Jews was real, but the point is not if it was real or not, and the point isnt how many Jews had been killed. The point is, should this, should what happened decades ago influence rational decisions? Who says so and why? Thats the interesting question.
I mean how many Americans know about the mass murder of Armenians by Turks, the mass murder in Cambodia, in Rwanda, in Guatemala, etc... Often Americans were involved or just looked at it. But was this the real big thing in US? I dont think so. The "Holocaust" is just big business and you can use it against all... You say you dont want that workers are exploited by managers, oh ****, you think like a "Nazi" because they said the same. And every "political correct" which criticize anything (especially Jews) can be stopped by the "Nazi" and "Holocaust" "argument". Especially in Germany and soon in all parts of Europe you cant talk about really important things rational without using such "arguments". And its always better if you use it first, if you say to leftiest, "you act like Nazis", and they shoud back, "you too..."
In Israel the Palaestinians call Sharon "Nazi" and he call them "Nazis". In Venezuela the opposition called Chavez "Nazi" and he called them "Nazis"...
This whole thing is just used really inflationary so it loses the value except in the "political correct" middle class of the west... This class is totally corrupted and dumb as bread nowadays, and these people still accept the "Nazi" argument against everything which is not liberal.
But on the long run "Nazi" will be something like you say today. F.e. "idiot". How many people know what "idiot" meant in old Greece? Not to much I guess, but I can say something totally different.
And the same thing it is with "Nazi" so if you are one, dont call yourself "Nazi". Because this would be a lost battle no matter what you say.
The best thing is to act rational and learn from all ideologies. The only question should be is it good for my folk, is it good for my race, is it good for mankind and for the living world. Thinking like that is path to a better ideology than the chauvinistic National Socialism of Hitler. That doesnt have to mean that all what some National Socialists said is wrong, that just mean we have to learn from all ideologies and science to create a new ideology which fits better in what our people need today.
P.S.: Something else, the NS Germany didnt lost the war because they were losers, but just because they had not enough material and men to win the material battle. If the NS Germany and the US would have had the same ressources, and would have fighted just against each other, only 20 Atom bombs would have saved the US, and thats for sure. Their spirit was much stronger, and their men much more disciplined.
The US are just lucky to sit on so much ressources and they are lucky too that the Soviets did the job with so much blood... In the end just the US made profite from a war mainly Germans and Russians fought. Thats the irony of history.
2003-10-16 17:00 | User Profile
Lol!
What would you do "Leland" without emoticoms?
:lol:
[QUOTE=Leland Gaunt][IMG]http://www.enniscorthytown.com/gtchat/images/lookup.gif[/IMG]
[IMG]http://www.enniscorthytown.com/gtchat/images/sleep.gif[/IMG]
When was this written? Ah yes - 1924.
Oh realy? [IMG]http://www.enniscorthytown.com/gtchat/images/bored.gif[/IMG]
Only in your dreams pal! --> [IMG]http://www.enniscorthytown.com/gtchat/images/anal.gif[/IMG]
[IMG]http://www.enniscorthytown.com/gtchat/images/funny.gif[/IMG][/QUOTE]
2003-10-16 17:10 | User Profile
The Judeo-Bolsheviks didn't kill their own people, as you say. They killed Russians, Byelorussians, Ukrainians, Latvians, Estonians, Lithuanians, etc., etc., etc.
On the role of Jews in the Bolshevik Revolution:
See for e.g., [url]http://www.ihr.org/jhr/v14/v14n1p-4_Weber.html[/url]
On the Jewish genocide of Ukrainians:
[url]http://www.ukar.org/mclell07.shtml#Part1[/url]
Finally on the Holocau$t lies:
[url]http://www.vho.org/GB/Books/HHS.html[/url]
[QUOTE=Agrippa]Thats not true. They killed the Elite of this Nations. Furtheron the Communists managed to make this nations to industrial societies with good average education. What was really not there, or at least not enough was a Elite and that for obvious reasons. Many fled, many killed and the others mainly educated or better levelled to typical Proletarians. Just look at parts of the Nomenklatura of the Eastern European states, you can hardly say that this people were some Elite from any point of view.
And the major difference between the mass murder of the communists and the National Socialists is, that the former killed mostly their own people, in fact their own Elite.
The National Socialist killed just the (assumed) enemies of their folk and the people which they thought cant be successfully integrated. The Communists treated all people the same way if they didnt fit in their ideological system. Often it even didnt matter if this people could have been integrated with big success...
And why is the "Holocaust" such a theme? The main thing is a best seller. Just look at all the books, the films, the TV shows, the process's and the money which it is all about... And it can be used so good for propaganda...oh the Iraqis, Saddam is the next Hitler...blabla...
I think the Genocid of the Jews was real, but the point is not if it was real or not, and the point isnt how many Jews had been killed. The point is, should this, should what happened decades ago influence rational decisions? Who says so and why? Thats the interesting question.
I mean how many Americans know about the mass murder of Armenians by Turks, the mass murder in Cambodia, in Rwanda, in Guatemala, etc... Often Americans were involved or just looked at it. But was this the real big thing in US? I dont think so. The "Holocaust" is just big business and you can use it against all... You say you dont want that workers are exploited by managers, oh ****, you think like a "Nazi" because they said the same. And every "political correct" which criticize anything (especially Jews) can be stopped by the "Nazi" and "Holocaust" "argument". Especially in Germany and soon in all parts of Europe you cant talk about really important things rational without using such "arguments". And its always better if you use it first, if you say to leftiest, "you act like Nazis", and they shoud back, "you too..."
In Israel the Palaestinians call Sharon "Nazi" and he call them "Nazis". In Venezuela the opposition called Chavez "Nazi" and he called them "Nazis"...
This whole thing is just used really inflationary so it loses the value except in the "political correct" middle class of the west... This class is totally corrupted and dumb as bread nowadays, and these people still accept the "Nazi" argument against everything which is not liberal.
But on the long run "Nazi" will be something like you say today. F.e. "idiot". How many people know what "idiot" meant in old Greece? Not to much I guess, but I can say something totally different.
And the same thing it is with "Nazi" so if you are one, dont call yourself "Nazi". Because this would be a lost battle no matter what you say.
The best thing is to act rational and learn from all ideologies. The only question should be is it good for my folk, is it good for my race, is it good for mankind and for the living world. Thinking like that is path to a better ideology than the chauvinistic National Socialism of Hitler. That doesnt have to mean that all what some National Socialists said is wrong, that just mean we have to learn from all ideologies and science to create a new ideology which fits better in what our people need today.
P.S.: Something else, the NS Germany didnt lost the war because they were losers, but just because they had not enough material and men to win the material battle. If the NS Germany and the US would have had the same ressources, and would have fighted just against each other, only 20 Atom bombs would have saved the US, and thats for sure. Their spirit was much stronger, and their men much more disciplined.
The US are just lucky to sit on so much ressources and they are lucky too that the Soviets did the job with so much blood... In the end just the US made profite from a war mainly Germans and Russians fought. Thats the irony of history.[/QUOTE]
2003-10-16 17:24 | User Profile
[QUOTE=friedrich braun]The Judeo-Bolsheviks didn't kill their own people, as you say. They killed Russians, Byelorussians, Ukrainians, Latvians, Estonians, Lithuanians, etc., etc., etc.
On the role of Jews in the Bolshevik Revolution: [/QUOTE]
Even later there was a higher percentage of Jews which were members of the CP, than Russians which were in the CP. They played a very important part in the Bolshevik Revolution, thats right too, but its wrong to say they were the only factor. There were many Russians which were as important as Jews. And in the end, under Stalin, there were many Jews which were deported etc...
So I dont question that the Jews had an important role in the Bolshevik revolution, but they didnt and couldnt have made it alone. And there were many Jews too which were killed or came into camps.
Another thing than with the Russians it is with the other folks, thats right.
But if you look how many Russians and Jewish were killed by Russians and Jewish you can just say they killed their own people.
I neither want to under- or overestimate the Jewish influence in the October revolution. But thats what I would say in general about this.
And if you look at China its even more obvious.
2003-10-16 17:29 | User Profile
(You need to hang around this forum a bit longer :) )
But the Jewish criminals did it ALL BY THEMSELVES:
look at the statistics (scroll down for names and ethnicities):
The preponderance of the Jewish role in the Bolshevik terror. A striking feature of Mr. Wilton's [Robert Wilton, correspondent of the London Times in Russia for 17 years. His account, The Last Days of the Romanovs - originally published in 1920], examination of the tumultuous 1917-1919 period in Russia is his frank treatment of the critically important Jewish role in establishing the Bolshevik regime. The following lists of persons in the Bolshevik Party and Soviet administration during this period, which Wilton compiled on the basis of official reports and original documents, underscore the crucial Jewish role in these bodies. These lists first appeared in the rare French edition of Wilton's book, published in Paris in 1921 under the title Les Derniers Jours des Romanoffs. They did not appear in either the American or British editions of The Last Days of the Romanors published in 1920. "I have done all in my power to act as an impartial chronicler," Wilton wrote in his foreword to Les Derniers Jours des Romanoffs. "In order not to leave myself open to any accusation of prejudice, I am giving the list of the members of the [Bolshevik Party' s] Central Committee, of the Extraordinary Commission [Cheka or secret police], and of the Council of Commissars functioning at the time of the assassination of the Imperial family. "The 62 members of the [Central] Committee were composed of five Russians, one Ukrainian, six Letts [Latvians], two Germans, one Czech, two Armenians, three Georgians, one Karaim [Karaite] (a Jewish sect), and 41 Jews. "The Extraordinary Commission [Cheka or Vecheka] of Moscow was composed of 36 members, including one German, one Pole, one Armenian, two Russians, eight Latvians, and 23 Jews. "The Council of the People's Commissars [the Soviet .government] numbered two Armenians, three Russians, and 17 Jews. "Ac.cording to data furnished by the Soviet press, out of 556 important functionaries of the Bolshevik state, including the above-mentioned, in 1918-1919 there were: 17 Russians, two Ukrainians, eleven Armenians, 35 Letts [Latvians], 15 Germans, one Hungarian, ten Georgians, three Poles, three Finns, one Czech, one Karaim, and 457 Jews." "If the reader is astonished to find the Jewish hand everywhere in the affair of the assassination of the Russian Imperial family, he must bear in mind the formidable numerical preponderance of Jews in the Soviet administration," Wilton went on to write. Effective governmental power, Wilton continued (on pages 136-138 of the same edition) is in the Central Committee of the Bolshevik party. In 1918, he reported, this body had twelve members, of whom nine were of Jewish origin, and three were of Russian ancestry. The nine Jews were: Bronstein (Trotsky), Apfelbaum (Zinoviev), Lurie (Larine), Uritsky, Volodarski, Rosenfeld (Kamenev), Smidovich, Sverdlov (Yankel), and Nakhamkes (Steklov). The three Russians were: Ulyanov (Lenin), Krylenko, and Lunacharsky. "The other Russian Socialist parties are similar in composition," Wilton went on. "Their Central Committees are made up as follows:" Mensheviks (Social Democrats): Eleven members, all of whom are Jewish. Communists of the People: Six members, of whom five are Jews and one is a Russian. Social Revolutionaries (Right Wing): Fifteen members, of whom 13 are Jews and two are Russians (Kerenski, who may be of Jewish origin, and Tchaikovski). Social Revolutionaries (Left Wing): Twelve members, of whom ten are Jews and two are Russians. Committee of the Anarchists of Moscow: Five members, of whom four are Jews and one is a Russian. Polish Communist Party: Twelve members, all of whom are Jews, including Sobelson (Radek), Krokhenal (Zagonski), and Schwartz (Goltz). "These parties," commented Wilton, "in appearance opposed to the Bolsheviks, play the Bolsheviks' game on the sly, more or less, by preventing the Russians from pulling themselves together. Out of 61 individuals at the head of these parties, there are six Russians and 55 Jews. No matter what may be the name adopted, a revolutionary government will be Jewish." [Although the Bolsheviks permitted these leftist political groups to operate for a time under close supervision and narrow limits, even these pitiful remnants of organized opposition were thoroughly eliminated by the end of the 1921 .] The Soviet government, or "Council of People's Commissars' (also known as the "Sovnarkom") was made up of the following, Wilton reported: Peoples Commissariat (Ministry) Name Nationality Chairman V.I. Ulyanov (Lenin) Russian Foreign Affairs G.V. Chicherin Russian Nationalities J. Dzhugashvili [Stalin] Georgian Agriculture Protian Armenian Economic Council Lourie (Larin) Jew Food Supply A.G. Schlikhter Jew Army and Navy [Military] L.D. Bronstein (Trotski) Jew State Control K.I. Lander Jew State Lands Kaufmann Jew Works [Labor] V. Schmidt Jew Social Relief E. Lilina (Knigissen) Jew Education A. Lunacharsky Russian Religion Spitzberg Jew Interior Apfelbaum [Radomyslski] (Zinoviev) Jew .Hygiene Anvelt Jew Finance I. E. Gukovs [and G. Sokolnikov] Jew Press Voldarski [Goldstein] Jew Elections M.S. Uritsky Jew Justice I.Z. Shteinberg Jew Refugees Fenigstein Jew Refugees Savitch (Assistant) Jew Refugees Zaslovski (Assistant) Jew Out of these 22 "Sovnarkom" members, Wilton summed'up, there were three Russians, one Georgian, one Armenian, and 17 Jews. The Central Executive Committee, Wilton continues, was made up of the following members: Y. M. Sverdlov [Solomon] (Chairman) Jew Avanesov (Secretary) Armenian Bruno Latvian Breslau Latvian [?] Babtchinski Jew N. I. Bukharin Russian Weinberg Jew Gailiss Jew Ganzberg [Ganzburg ] Jew Danichevski Jew Starck German Sachs Jew Scheinmann Jew Erdling Jew Landauer Jew Linder Jew Wolach Czech S. Dimanshtein Jew Encukidze Georgian Ermann Jew A. A. Ioffe Jew Karkhline Jew Knigissen Jew Rosenfeld (Kamenev) Jew Apfelbaum (Zinoviev) Jew N. Krylenko Russian Krassikov Jew Kaprik Jew Kaoul Latvian Ulyanov (Lenin) Russian Latsis Jew Lander Jew Lunacharsky Russian Peterson Latvian Peters Latvian Roudzoutas Jew Rosine Jew Smidovitch Jew Stoutchka Latvian Nakhamkes (Steklov) Jew Sosnovski Jew Skrytnik Jew L. Bronstein (Trotsky) Jew Teodorovitch Jew [?] Terian Armenian Uritsky Jew Telechkine Russian Feldmann Jew Fromkin Jew Souriupa Ukrainian Tchavtchevadze Georgian Scheikmann Jew Rosental Jew Achkinazi Imeretian [?] Karakhane Karaim [Karaite] Rose Jew Sobelson (Radek) Jew Schlichter Jew Schikolini Jew Chklianski Jew Levine-(Pravdine) Jew Thus, concluded Wilton, out of 61 members, five were Russians, six were Latvians, one was a German, two were Armenians, one was a Czech, one was an Imeretian, two were Georgians, one was a Karaim, one. was a Ukrainian, and 41 were Jews. The Extraordinary Commission of Moscow (Cheka) 'the Soviet secret police and predecessor of the GPU, the NKVD and the KGB was made up of the following: F. Dzerzhinsky (Chairman) Pole Y. Peters (Deputy Chairman) Latvian Chklovski Jew Kheifiss Jew Zeistine Jew Razmirovitch Jew Kronberg Jew Khaikina Jew Karlson Latvian Schaumann Latvian Leontovitch Jew Jacob Goldine Jew Galperstein Jew Kniggisen Jew Katzis Latvian Schillenkuss Jew Janson Latvian Rivkine Jew Antonof Russian Delafabre Jew Tsitkine Jew Roskirovitch Jew G. Sverdlov (Brother of president of the Central Executive Committee) Jew Biesenski Jew J. Blumkin (Count Mirbach's assassin) Jew Alexandrovitch (Blumkin's accomplice) Russian I. Model Jew Routenberg Jew Pines Jew Sachs Jew Daybol Latvian Saissoune Armenian Deylkenen Latvian Liebert Jew Vogel German Zakiss Latvian Of these 36 Cheka officials, one was a Pole, one a German, one an Armenian, two were Russians, eight were Latvians, and 23 were Jews. "Accordingly," Wilton sums up, "there is no reason to be surprised at the preponderant role of Jews in the assassination of the Imperial family. It is rather the opposite that would have been surprising."
[url]http://www.ihr.org/jhr/v14/v14n1p-4_Weber.html[/url]
[QUOTE=Agrippa]Even later there was a higher percentage of Jews which were members of the CP, than Russians which were in the CP. They played a very important part in the Bolshevik Revolution, thats right too, but its wrong to say they were the only factor. There were many Russians which were as important as Jews. And in the end, under Stalin, there were many Jews which were deported etc...
So I dont question that the Jews had an important role in the Bolshevik revolution, but they didnt and couldnt have made it alone. And there were many Jews too which were killed or came into camps.
Another thing than with the Russians it is with the other folks, thats right.
But if you look how many Russians and Jewish were killed by Russians and Jewish you can just say they killed their own people.
I neither want to under- or overestimate the Jewish influence in the October revolution. But thats what I would say in general about this.
And if you look at China its even more obvious.[/QUOTE]
2003-10-20 21:28 | User Profile
[QUOTE=Leland Gaunt]The 3rd Reich was a Republic![/QUOTE] WAS is the operative word. It started out that way, for a few weeks, but ended up a despotism.
2003-10-21 05:38 | User Profile
Friedrich, I have never heard of Wilton. I have read many books about the Revolution, almost none of which even mention such a preponderance of Jewish participation/leadership. I have never heard of Wilton, but will start checking.
If these numbers were overstated by even 100%, then this is still an astounding demographic! Interesting that it never seems to make it into any of the mainstream historical media.
From what I have read, Russian anti-Semitism really was religious, not racial. Once a person converted, they were accepted and no longer persecuted under the Czars. An exception compared to the rest of Europe.
2003-10-21 17:58 | User Profile
BY Leland: [QUOTE]My problem with american "Liberterians" is, that they constantly speak about their rights. I never hear anything about obligations and dutys towards the community. It's always "It is my RIGTHT" and "The constitution gives us these rights..." ect. Sure - fine with me. I also have the right to cross the street when the light is red.....and get run over by a truck. Now if a policeman catches me doing this, I will have to pay a fine. How dare the State intrude into my right to cross the street whenever I like, huh? [/QUOTE] BY Perun: [QUOTE] Libetarianism often leads to statism ironically. Even Toqueveille in his "Democracy in America" noted this. He said that Americans were so self centered that projects and programs that in Europe would've be left to local communities had to be runned by the state.[/QUOTE]
Applause from me for that. Its absolutely true. The American "free" Calvinist lacks most of all responsibility for his collective. His hyper-Individualism led to today selfish-egoism in Neoliberal capitalism. And still the dying white folk in US cant accept that this idea of personal freedom was the false way.
To Fadethebutcher:
Sorry, you are not right, there are rules and these are not just made by power and there has to be no god for it too.
These rules are the rules of life. The rules which say dont kill kinsmen and dont kill humans if there is not a very good reason for. So our biological determinates are partly very useful and realistic, and partly they are made for hunters and gatherers in our evolutionary past.
There is an objective morale and truth. The values are your kinsmen, the species, and life on this planet. In my view the anagenetic higher specialization of humans is one big aim, and the second is the savety and survival of as much of living on this planet as possible.
So moral is in my opinion a thing of priorities. But only rational priorities can be morale. Superficial believe is never absolute morale. Absolute moral is defined by the laws of life, of evolution and intraspecific genetically determined behaviour. More to know about this things and think collectively means to be nearer to the truth.
So f.e. a man which would be a genetically engineered neo-human with much more abilities and much more knowledge because of perfect education would be nearer to the truth than all politicians, prophets and philosophers before him. ;-)
2003-10-30 10:04 | User Profile
[QUOTE=Maximillian]This is a good example of university leftist thought: [url]http://econ161.berkeley.edu/TCEH/Slouch_power4.html[/url]
Stalin and Mao could point to reasons --insane and mistaken reasons, true, but reasons nevertheless--why their actions and killings made sense in terms of ends that we all share of general prosperity and human development, and why they had chosen the path that the poet W.H. Auden wrote of as "the acceptance of guilt in the necessary murder." But Hitler? Killing in concentration camps, extermination camps, and through forced labor, killing six million Jews, two million of scattered nationalities from western Europe, and twelve million or so from eastern Europe in addition to the battle-related deaths of World War II? Why? To diminish the likelihood that the German "race" would be further polluted through intermarriage, and to provide more "living space" for German farmers. [/QUOTE]
Americans don't really know what Hitler's reasons were; they only know what he did to Jews. Most Americans don't know anything about the Jewish takeover of the media and cheapening of the arts, for example. If they did, they might be able to see that Jews have done the same thing here. I doubt that they know, either, of the effect that Jews were having on the economy or on the lives of farmers. Americans know all about the result--one result--that 6 million innocent Jews were murdered--and much of what they know is lies. But they know nothing about the causes because it's just not brought to their attention. They don't sympathize with Hitler's causes because they don't know about them, and even if they did, they wouldn't, because the punishment is too great.
2003-11-24 05:08 | User Profile
[QUOTE=Franco]There is only one problem with DeLong's theory: Communism [as a whole entity] ABSOLUTELY does not work. It is a scam. Bogus. Doo-doo. A fantasy. A 3-dollar bill. A lemon.
Nazism, on the other hand, does work. And it is natural -- unlike the smoke-and-mirrors, forced collectivism of Communism.[/QUOTE]
This is true, and the bottom line in the debate. The communist killed millions for a system which was an inherent failure.
2003-11-24 14:44 | User Profile
"From what I have read, Russian anti-Semitism really was religious, not racial. Once a person converted, they were accepted and no longer persecuted under the Czars. An exception compared to the rest of Europe."
No, the motive there (as everywhere, always) was hatred of parasites sucking life blood.
The following are quotations from 'The Jewish Question', a chapter in Goldwin Smith's book 'Essays on Questions Of the Day', in which he goes over the popular views about the (then recent) pogroms in Russia against the jews and finds (on the basis of official British government reports) that they are...guess what...all lies! Lies fostered and spred by the jew press and their bought lackeys (sounds so familiar - the jews never change). This book is well worth seeking out - abebooks often has it, and not expensively either. A major publication by a major historian (on modern history, at Oxford) put out by a major printing house - nothing 'extremist' or 'kook' about it at all, but then again, the jews didn't own the entire works back then and the truth could still get out in print. Lastly before the quote - these are the same so-called pogroms that directly led to the massive jew immigration into both England and the USA that so quickly murdered both nations and peoples.
[INDENT][QUOTE]"Essays on Questions of the Day: The Jewish Question. London: MacMillan & Co., 1894. pp. 241-282.
JEWISH ascendancy and the anti-Semitic movement provoked by it form an important feature of the European situation, and are beginning to excite attention in America. Mr. Arnold White, Baron Hirsch's commissioner, says, in a plea for the Russian Jews, ["The Truth about the Russian Jew," in the Contemporary Review, May, 1892.] that "almost without exception the press throughout Europe is in Jewish hands, and is largely produced by Jewish brains"; that "international finance is captive to Jewish energy and skill"; that in England the fall of the Barings has left the house of Rothschild alone in its supremacy; and that in every line the Jews are fast becoming our masters. Wind and tide, in a money-loving age, are in favour of the financial race. At the same time the anti-Semitic movement gains ground. From Russia, Germany, Austria, and the Danubian Principalities it spreads to the Ionian Islands; it has broken out in France; symptoms of it have appeared even in the United States. Yet there is a persistent misapprehension of the real nature of the agitation. It is assumed that the quarrel is religious. The anti-Semites are supposed to be a party of fanatics renewing the persecutions to which the Jews were exposed on account of their faith in the dark ages, and every one who, handling the question critically, fails to show undivided sympathy with the Israelites is set down as a religious persecutor. The Jews naturally foster this impression, and, as Mr. Arnold White tells us, the press of Europe is in their hands.
In 1880, anti-Semitic disturbances broke out in Russia. A narrative of them entitled "The Persecution of the Jews in Russia" [Persecution of the Jews in Russia, 1881. Reprinted from The Times.], was put forth by the Jewish community in England as an appeal to the British heart. In that narrative the Russian Christians were charged with having committed the most fiendish atrocities on the most enormous scale. A tract of country equal in area to the British Islands and France combined had, it was averred, been the scene of horrors theretofore perpetrated only in times of war. Men had been ruthlessly murdered, tender infants had been dashed on the stones or roasted alive in their own homes, married women bad been made the prey of a brutal lust which had in many cases caused their death, and young girls had been violated in sight of their relatives by soldiers who should have been guardians of their honour. Whole streets inhabited by Jews had been razed, and the Jewish quarters of towns had been systematically fired. In one place, Elizabethgrad, thirty Jewesses at once had been outraged, two young girls in dread of violation had thrown themselves from the windows, and an old man, who was attempting to save his daughter from a fate worse than death, had been flung from the roof, while twenty soldiers proceeded to work their will on the maiden.
...the British government directed its consuls at the different points to report upon the facts. The reports composed two Blue Books, [Correspondence Respecting the Treatment of Jews in Russia, Nos. 1 and 2, 1882, 1883.] in which, as very few probably took the pains to look into them, the unpopular truth lies buried. Those who did read them learned, in the first place, that though the riots were deplorable and criminal, the Jewish account was in most cases exaggerated, and in some to an extravagant extent. The damage to Jewish property at Odessa, rated in the Jewish account at 1,137,381 roubles, or, according to their higher estimates, 3 million roubles, was rated, Consul-General Stanley tells us, by a respectable Jew on the spot at 50000 roubles, while the Consul-General himself rates it at 20000. At Elizabethgrad, instead of whole streets being razed to the ground, only one hut had been unroofed. It appeared that few Jews, if any, had been intentionally killed, though some died of injuries received in the riots. There were conflicts between the Jews who defended their houses and the rioters. The outrages on women, by which public indignation in England had been most fiercely aroused, and of which, according, to the Jewish accounts, there had been a frightful number, no less than thirty in one place and twenty-five in another, appeared, after careful inquiries by the consuls, to have been very rare. This is the more remarkable because the riots commonly began with the sacking of the gin shops, which were kept by the Jews, so that the passions of the mob must have been inflamed by drink. The horrible charge brought in the Jewish manifesto against the Russian women, of having incited men to outrage Jewesses and held the Jewesses down, is found to be utterly baseless. The charge of roasting children alive also falls to the ground. So does the charge of violating a Jew's wife and then setting fire to his house. The Jewish manifesto states that a Jewish innkeeper was cooped in one of his own barrels and cast into the Dnieper. This turns out to be a fable the village which was the alleged scene of it being, ten miles from the Dnieper and near no other river of consequence.
The most important part of the evidence given in the consuls' reports, however, is that which relates to the cause of the troubles. ââ¬Â¦the concurrent testimony of the consuls is that the source of the agitation was economical and social, not religious. Bitterness produced by the exactions of the Jew, envy of his wealth, irritation at the display of it in such things as the fine dresses of his women, jealousy of his ascendancy, combined in the lowest of the mob with the love of plunder, were the motives of the people for attacking him, not hatred of his faith. Vice-Consul Wagstaff, who seems to have paid particular attention to the question and made the most careful inquiry, after paying a tribute to the sober, laborious, thrifty character and the superior intelligence of the Jew, and ascribing to these. his increasing monopoly of commerce, proceeds:
"It is chiefly as brokers or middlemen that the Jews are so prominent. Seldom a business transaction of any kind takes place without their intervention, and from both sides they receive compensation. To enumerate some of their other occupations, constantly denounced by the public: they are the principal dealers in spirits ; keepers of 'vodka' (drinking) shops and houses of ill-fame ; receivers of stolen goods illegal pawnbrokers and usurers. A branch they also succeed in is as ,government contractors. With their knowledge of handling money, they collude with unscrupulous officials in defrauding the State to vast amounts annually. In fact, the malpractices of some of the Jewish community have a bad influence on those whom they come in contact with. It must, however, be said that there are many well educated, highly respectable, and honourable Jews in Russia, but they form a small minority. This class is not treated upon in this paper. They thoroughly condemn the occupations of their lower brethren, and One of the results of the late disturbances is noticed in the movement at present amongst the Jews. They themselves acknowledge the abuses practised by some of their own members, and surest remedial measures to allay the irritation existing among the working classes. Another thing the Jews are accused of is that there exists among them a system of boycotting ; they use their religion for business purposes. This is expressed by the words 'koul', or 'kagal', and 'kherim.' For instance, in Bessarabia, the produce of a vineyard is drawn for by lot, and falls, say to Jabob Levy the other Jews of the district cannot compete with Levy, who buys the wine at his own price. In the leasing by auction of government and provincial lands, it is invariably a Jew who outbids the others and afterwards re-lets plots to the peasantry at exorbitant prices. Very crying abuses of farming out land have lately come to light and greatly shocked public opinion. Again, where estates are farmed by Jews, it is distressing to see the pitiable condition in which they are handed over on the expiration of the lease. Experience also shows they are very bad colonists.
"Their fame as usurers is well known. Given a Jewish recruit with a few roubles' capital, it can be worked out, mathematically, what time it will take him to become the money-lender of his company or regiment, from the drummer to the colonel. Take the case of a peasant: if he once gets into the hands of this class, he is irretrievably lost. The proprietor, in his turn, from a small loan gradually mortgages and eventually loses his estate. A great deal of landed property in south Russia has of late years passed into the hands of the Israelites, but principally into the hands of intelligent and sober peasants. From first to last, the Jew has his hand in everything. He advances the seed for sowing, which is generally returned in kind quarters for bushels. As harvest time comes round, money is required to gather in the crops. This is sometimes advanced on hard conditions ; but the peasant has no choice ; there is no one to lend him money, and it is better to secure something than to lose all. Very often the Jew buys the whole crop as it stands in the field on his own terms. It is thus seen that they themselves do not raise agricultural products, but they reap the benefits of others' labour, and steadily become rich, while proprietors are gradually getting ruined. In their relation to Russia they are compared to parasites that have settled on a plant not vigorous enough to throw them off, and which is being sapped of its vitality." [Correspondence Respecting the Treatment of Jews in Russia, No. 1, pp. 11, 12.]
The peasants, the vice-consul tells us, often say, when they look at the property of a Jew, "That is my blood." In confirmation of his view he cites the list of demands formulated by the peasants and laid before a mixed committee of inquiry into the causes of the disorder. These demands are all economical or social, with the exception of the complaint that Russian girls in Jewish service forget their religion and with it lose their morals. Everything, in short, seems to bear out the statement of the Russian Minister of the Interior, in a manifesto given in the Blue Book, that "the movement had its main cause in circumstances purely economical"; provided that to "economical" we add "social," and include all that is meant by the phrase "hatred of Jewish usurpation," used in another document.
In Germany, in Austria, in Roumania, in all the countries of Europe where this deplorable contest of races is going on the cause of quarrel appears to be fundamentally the same. It appears to be economical and social, not religious or religious only in a secondary degree. Mr. Baring-Gould tells us that in Germany there is scarce a village without some Jews in it who do not cultivate land themselves, but lie in wait like spiders for the failing Bauer." [Germany Present and Past, Vol. I., p. 114. By S. Baring-Gould, M.A.] A German who knew the peasantry well said to Mr. Gould that "he doubted whether there were a happier set of people under the sun; " but he added, after a pause, "so long as they are out of the clutch of the Jew." [Ib., p. 127.] Of the German, as well as of the Russian, it may be said that he is not a religious persecutor. If persecution of a sanguinary or atrocious kind has sullied his annals, the arm of it was the house of Austria, with its Spanish connection, and the head was the world-roving Jesuit. In the case of Hungary, Mr. Paget, who is a Liberal and advocates a Liberal policy towards the Jews, says: "The Jew is no less active in profiting by the vices and necessities of the peasant than by those of the noble. As sure as lie gains a settlement in a village the peasantry become poor." [Hungary and Transylvania, Vol. I., p. 136. By John Paget.] In Austrian Poland, says a Times reviewer, "the worst of the peasant's sluggish content is that it has given him over to the exactions of the Jews." "The Jews," he adds, "are in fact the lords of the country." They are lords not less alien to the people than the Norman was to the Saxon, and perhaps not always more merciful, though in their hands is the writ of ejection instead of the conqueror's sword.
If we cross the Mediterranean the same thing meets us. In Thomson's "Morocco," we read: "As money-lenders the Jews are as maggots and parasites, aggravating and feeding on the diseases of the land. I do not know, for my part, which exercises the greatest tyranny and oppression, the Sultan or the Jew, the one the embodiment of the foulest misgovernment, the other the essence of a dozen Shylocks, demanding, ay, and getting not only his pound of flesh, but also the blood and nerves. By his outrageous exactions the Sultan drives the Moor into the hands of the Jew, who affords him a temporary relief by lending him the necessary money on incredibly exorbitant terms. Once in the money-lender's clutches, he rarely escapes till he is squeezed dry, when he is either thrown aside, crushed and ruined, or cast into a dungeon, where, fettered and starved, he is probably left to die a slow and horrible death. To the position of the Jews in Morocco it would be difficult to find a parallel. Here we have a people alien, despised, and hated, actually living in the country under immeasurably better conditions than the dominant race, while they suck, and are assisted to suck, the very lifeblood of their hosts. The aim of every Jew is to toil not, neither to spin, save the coils which as money-lender he may weave for the entanglement of his necessitous victims." [Travels in the Atlas and Southern Morocco: A Narrative of Exploration, pp. 418, 419. By Joseph Thomson, F.R.G.S.]
Even if we cross the Atlantic we find the same phenomenon. Mr. Olmsted, in his "Cotton Kingdom," says: "A swarm of Jews has within the last ten years settled in nearly every Southern town, many of them men of no character, opening cheap clothing and trinket shops, ruining or driving out of business many of the old retailers, and engaging in an unlawful trade with the simple negroes, which is found very profitable." [Journeys and Explorations in the Cotton Kingdom, 2d edition, pp. 252, 253. By Frederick Law Olmsted.]
And again: "If his [the planter's] first crop proves a bad one he must borrow money of the Jews at New Orleans to pay his first note. They will sell him this on the best terms they can, often at not less than twenty-five per cent. per annum." [Ib., pp. 321, 222.]
Mr. Stevenson says of the Jews in San Francisco: "Jew storekeepers have already learned the advantage to be gained from this [unlimited credit]; they lead on the farmer into irretrievable indebtedness, and keep him ever after as their bond-slave hopelessly grinding in the mill. So the whirligig of time brings in its revenges, and except that the Jew knows better than to foreclose, you may see Americans bound in the same chains with which they themselves had formerly bound the Mexicans." [Across the Plains, p. 100. By Robert Louis Stevenson.]
At the time of the Crusades, Christian fanaticism being excited to frenzy, there were dreadful massacres of Jews, and forced conversions, though no reliance can be placed on the figures of medieval chroniclers, who set down at random 20000 victims slain, or 200000 forced conversions. The Jew at that time was odious not only as a misbeliever in the midst of the Christian camp, whose presence would turn from it the countenance of God, but as a suspected friend and ally at heart of the Oriental power. The, Jews must have foreseen the storm, and might have escaped by flight, but they were perhaps tempted by the vast harvest afforded them in the general sale of possessions by the Crusaders to buy equipments, while by that traffic their unpopularity was increased. In ordinary times the main causes of the hatred of the Jews among the common people appear to have been usury and a social arrogance which was particularly galling on the part of the alien and the enemy of Christ. In the riots the people made for the place in which the Jewish bonds were kept. At York, the scene of the worst anti-Jewish riot in England, the chronicler tells us there were two Jews, Benedict and Joce, who had built in the middle of the city houses like palaces, where they dwelt like princes of their own people and tyrants of the Christians, keeping almost royal state, and exercising harsh tyranny against those whom they oppressed with their usuries. The usury was grinding and ruthless. In the Chronicle of Jocelin de Brakelond we see how rapidly a debt of 27 pounds, owed to a Jew, grew to 880. Jews at Oxford were forbidden by edict to take more than 43%. So it was generally. Political economy will say that this was justifiable, in the circumstances perhaps useful, and the penalty clue to the Christian superstition which made the lending of money at interest an unholy and therefore a perilous trade. Nevertheless, it was hateful, at least sure to engender hate... A Spanish Chancellor describes the Jews as the bloodsuckers of the afflicted people, as men who exact 50%, 80%, 100%, and through whom the land is desolate, their hard hearts being callous to tears and groans, and their ears deaf to petitions for delay.[See The History of Jews from the War With Rome To The Present Time, p. 245. By Rev. H. C. Adams, M.A.] Savonarola, the Christian socialist of his day, revived the Monte di Pieta to rescue his people from the fangs of the Jews. [/QUOTE][/SIZE]
2003-11-29 11:03 | User Profile
About the terror of the entire country of Russia, by the Communist/collectivst/know better than you Rotary types, at that time of 1917 forward, our House/Senate/Military knew all about it the U.S.S.R. night mare thug state. Yet, they did not impeach FDR. for blessing it. Congressman Louis MacFadden Chair of the Banking committee who had drawn up impeachment proceding's for the Federal Reserve was murdered? in 1934? like Huey P. Long in Baton Rouge in 1936. My point is this, because of the MEDIA control back then the people were largely in the DARK.. These criminal's tried to have Charles Lindbergh and Elizabeth Dillion Stokes and other patriots tried for treason in 44... They never understand enjoying their winning's they always want revenge for those who try to expose them as for what they are only.....