← Autodidact Archive · Original Dissent · Okiereddust
Thread ID: 10553 | Posts: 33 | Started: 2003-10-17
2003-10-17 08:19 | User Profile
ââ¬ÅYou know what happens when atheists take over ââ¬âremember Nazi Germany?ââ¬Â Many Christians point to Nazism, alongside Stalinism, to illustrate the perils of atheism in power.1 At the other extreme, some authors paint the Vatican as Hitlerââ¬â¢s eager ally. Meanwhile, the Nazis are generally portrayed as using terror to bend a modern civilization to their agenda; yet we recognize that Hitler was initially popular. Amid these contradictions, where is the truth?
A growing body of scholarly research, some based on careful analysis of Nazi records, is clarifying this complex history.2 It reveals a convoluted pattern of religious and moral failure in which atheism and the nonreligious played little role, except as victims of the Nazis and their allies. In contrast, Christianity had the capacity to stop Nazism before it came to power, and to reduce or moderate its practices afterwards, but repeatedly failed to do so because the principal churches were complicit withââ¬âindeed, in the pay ofââ¬âthe Nazis.
Most German Christians supported the Reich; many continued to do so in the face of mounting evidence that the dictatorship was depraved and murderously cruel. Elsewhere in Europe the story was often the same. Only with Christianityââ¬â¢s forbearance and frequent cooperation could fascistic movements gain majority support in Christian nations. European fascism was the fruit of a Christian culture. Millions of Christians actively supported these notorious regimes. Thousands participated in their atrocities.
What, in Godââ¬â¢s name, were they thinking?
Before we can consider the Nazis, we need to examine the historical and cultural religious context that would give rise to them.
(Click on
[url=http://www.secularhumanism.org/library/fi/paul_23_4.html]Link[/url] for rest of article.)
*Interesting article on the religious beliefs of the Third Reich. Friedrich Braun posted it somewhere on this forum, and I thought it so good it merits its own thread. Ah the constant differences of opinion between the left and so many pagan Nazi's. The philosemitic left views Christianity as a tool of anti-semitic hate fellow traveler in fascism's effort to install racial bigotry and crush democracy and tolerance, while Nazi's view Christianity as the epitimy of destructive liberal tolerance, universalism, democratic softness, and philo-semitism.
About they only thing they agree on is that Christianity epitimizes evil and must be destroyed. While not just that. They also agree on the purely temporal nature of man and the religious primacy of the state. And on close examination, they often share the crypto-occultish fetichism.
In fact, it has been noted how on so much when one closely examines the Left and much of pagan Nazism how much they share. Ah the final reconciling power of Christianity - it can bring even these fueding impish powers into solemn reverence for their mutual father. (John 8:44)*
2003-10-17 08:39 | User Profile
Since I cannot open the link, please give the name of the author....and the magazine it appeared in....
2003-10-17 08:46 | User Profile
Maybe this will work [url]http://www.secularhumanism.org/library/fi/paul_23_4.html[/url]
Okie is citing - wait for it! - The Free Inquiry Magazine (an atheist publication!!!)!
It's a ridiculously biased, slanted and shrill piece.
It reminded me of Goldhagen's shoddy "scholarship".
[QUOTE=Franco]Since I cannot open the link, please give the name of the author....and the magazine it appeared in....[/QUOTE]
2003-10-17 19:13 | User Profile
O.D., I simply can't see why you post crude and meritless dribble like the article you linked to here. Your far to smart to even waste a second with sort of pablum. I know you know better so referancing an article like that is hard is hard to understand.
In past exchanges you may recall the links I posted that detailed massive support for Christianity from the NSDAP as well as the fact that numerous high rnaking officials within numerous segments of the regime, it's allies and the the SS were ardent Christians. I aslo spent more then a little time detailing the numerous non German NS parties, governments and figures that had traditional Catholicism as a basis of their ideology. Lastly, I feel it very importaint to point out yet again that the vast European majority pagan racialists of all sorts are not "anti-Christian" but rather they simply hold a radically different foundationalism which most often does not hinder co-operation with Christians that seek National Renewal.
Anyone that places religion or ideological purity above the common cause of Occidental preservation is no ally and such mis-guided people clearly exist within both Christian and non Christian camps. Politics, and as a result, our survivial depends upon coalition building and working with and for those we don't fully agree with bcause the alternative is the abyss we all currently face. The left, "principled" and other wise, as noted this and they have done far better then our side.
In any case, I have made my qualified defense of the NSDAP regime numerous times and feel little is to be gained from retreading that path yet again. It seems far better to focus upon the far more pressing problem of clearifying present ideological boundries and the meaning of folkish renewal which has been the bulk of my content on English forums like this and in the books that I have put out in the past.
2003-10-17 22:01 | User Profile
[QUOTE=triskelion]O.D., I simply can't see why you post crude and meritless dribble like the article you linked to here. Your far to smart to even waste a second with sort of pablum. I know you know better so referancing an article like that is hard is hard to understand.
Well I was just highlighting this article which was originally posted by Friedrich Braun. Here's the original context.
People are so ignorant of even basic historical facts.
I was watching (and half-listening) to this anti-abortion woman on CNN the other day, when she mentioned how Catholics in National Socialist Germany (always throw in National Socialist Germany to make a forceful point!) lost their "rights" when National Socialists came to power.
Again, nevermind mind that most high-ranking National Socialists were Catholics (as was Adolf Hitler) and the Concordat of 1933 between the new regime and the Vatican (the same deal was offered to the Weimar Republic and rejected by it -- who was more friendly to the Church, the Weimar Republic or the Third Reich?).
It would certainly be a surprise to the author of this screed: http:// [url]www.secularhumanism.org/libr.../paul_23_4.html[/url]
([url=http://forums.originaldissent.com/showthread.php?t=10402]Post 6 of Day of Solidarity and Prayer With Israel[/url])
I thought it was a very interesting piece of work coming from him. Especially since he usually quotes very approvingly from Free Inquiry and in fact does so in this instance.
It seems to me actually that he never speaks of Christianity except to bash it. It seems in this case he thought up a new tactic, pointing to the purported fondness of Nazi's and Christians as is the standard tactic of the left as illustrated by this article. I almost liked it better when he's griping about the Bible, rather than use a kiss that seems oddly like that of Joab (II Sam 3:27) or Judas.
But on second thought I do think that this reference by Friedrich Braun was quite valuble, for whatever its motive. It is after all what 99% of the political world thinks. It may all be "crude and meritless dribble" to some extent, but this article is positively Shakepearean compared to an awful lot of what is put out there. Occasionally the real world must intrude on us and we must consider it - and even Friedrich Braun quoting Free Inquiry can play a part in this process.
2003-10-18 06:38 | User Profile
ââ¬ÅI thought it was a very interesting piece of work coming from him. Especially since he usually quotes very approvingly from Free Inquiry and in fact does so in this instance.ââ¬Â
An historical fact (the Concordat of 1933 between NS Germany and the Vatican) is an historical fact, even when it appears in FI.
I find it curious that you like this ludicrously and tendentious piece of disinformation so much, since its general thrust isnââ¬â¢t very different from The Authoritarian Personality (a work you seem to otherwise revile), and the like.
The ââ¬Åauthorââ¬Â (a miserable pamphleteer, really) doesnââ¬â¢t even mention the ideologue of NS Germany: Alfred Rosenberg (see [url]http://www.1upinfo.com/encyclopedia/R/RosnbrgA.html[/url]) and his neo-Pagan work Myth of the 20th Century (see ââ¬ÅGnostic Origins of Alfred Rosenberg's Thoughtââ¬Â for an idea of his thoughts on Christianity: [url]http://www.ihr.org/jhr/v04/v04p335_Whisker.html[/url]).
Now, what should one make of a long essay on NS Germany and Christianity that doesnââ¬â¢t even mention (not even in passing!) a major NS ideologue?
What bad faith and shoddy ââ¬Åscholarshipââ¬Â!
[QUOTE=Okiereddust]Well I was just highlighting this article which was originally posted by Friedrich Braun. Here's the original context.
I thought it was a very interesting piece of work coming from him. Especially since he usually quotes very approvingly from Free Inquiry and in fact does so in this instance.
It seems to me actually that he never speaks of Christianity except to bash it. It seems in this case he thought up a new tactic, pointing to the purported fondness of Nazi's and Christians as is the standard tactic of the left as illustrated by this article. I almost liked it better when he's griping about the Bible, rather than use a kiss that seems oddly like that of Joab (II Sam 3:27) or Judas.
But on second thought I do think that this reference by Friedrich Braun was quite valuble, for whatever its motive. It is after all what 99% of the political world thinks. It may all be "crude and meritless dribble" to some extent, but this article is positively Shakepearean compared to an awful lot of what is put out there. Occasionally the real world must intrude on us and we must consider it - and even Friedrich Braun quoting Free Inquiry can play a part in this process.[/QUOTE]
2003-10-18 16:19 | User Profile
[QUOTE=friedrich braun]ââ¬ÅI thought it was a very interesting piece of work coming from him. Especially since he usually quotes very approvingly from Free Inquiry and in fact does so in this instance.ââ¬Â In your original post however, you didn't mention the reservations about the Free Inquiry article you had. You seemed more focused on the chance to use this article by the atheist Naziphobes to bash the anti-abortion Christian Naziphobes.
As much as the religious right irritates you sometimes, I think it is generally true that's its objections to the Third Reich are based on legitimmate conservative principles, as opposed to the doctrinaire, Frankfurt School dminated critique of the left.
It probably was just a slight oversight. Just wasn't to keep you honest ;)
An historical fact (the Concordat of 1933 between NS Germany and the Vatican) is an historical fact, even when it appears in FI.
Well the Nazi's also signed the Ribontrop-Molotov pact. That certainly didn't make them into permanent friends of the Stalinists.
Relations between Vatican and Reich had their high and low points. This was probably the high point. The low points are also historical record.
I find it curious that you like this ludicrously and tendentious piece of disinformation so much, since its general thrust isnââ¬â¢t very different from The Authoritarian Personality (a work you seem to otherwise revile), and the like.
The same reason I found it curious that you liked it. I would say it is one of the better pieces of the liberal neo-marxist, Authoritarian Personality genre I have read, and does mention some interesting facts, like the Concordot you metion, although its overall thesis is bull and it's methods typically ideological doctrinaire and strongly evocative of Frankfurt School.
Glad we agree on this point.
The ââ¬Åauthorââ¬Â (a miserable pamphleteer, really) doesnââ¬â¢t even mention the ideologue of NS Germany: Alfred Rosenberg (see [url]http://www.1upinfo.com/encyclopedia/R/RosnbrgA.html[/url]) and his neo-Pagan work Myth of the 20th Century (see ââ¬ÅGnostic Origins of Alfred Rosenberg's Thoughtââ¬Â for an idea of his thoughts on Christianity: [url]http://www.ihr.org/jhr/v04/v04p335_Whisker.html[/url]).
Now, what should one make of a long essay on NS Germany and Christianity that doesnââ¬â¢t even mention (not even in passing!) a major NS ideologue?
What bad faith and shoddy ââ¬Åscholarshipââ¬Â![/QUOTE]
I think its methodology is typical of most contemporary work which bashed Churches for Nazi sympathies. So these methods deserve some cursury analysis.
It is bad faith and scholarship, but you can't really expect leftists to be terribly interested in theoretical aspects of National Socialism like Rosenberg's work. These guys are interested in the concrete and practical aspects of Church/Reich relations, although Nazi's and Catholics (or Protestants and Orthodox for that matter) certainly read different books.
What is more significicant is the numerous and very substantial, although maybe not of great interest to New York Intellectual types instances of bitter tension that did arise between Vatican and Reich. One of the most notable was that over the future of Catholic Youth organizations and the eforts by the Nazi's to coopt these organizations into the Hitler Youth.
Its significant as issues of youth and education always are, because they indicate the future of the country and where its going. The Nazi's, unlike the Communists and even to a minor extent the socialists and liberals of the Weimer republic, superficially seemed to have little quarrel with the existing functions, institutions, and churchgoers of german christendom, as articles like Free Inquiry point out. But the interpretation of this as indicative of fundamentally great love and harmony is, as at least you now point out, fundamentally disingenious.
Glad we cleared that up. I'm not sure what specifically you were objecting to in the anti-abortions portrayal of the Third Reich, but I would venture to say, specifically in regards to abortion, that there were some rights the Church lost under the Third Reich in regards to abortion which it had under the Weimar Republic, as the Reich pursued a much more liberal policy in regards to abortion and infanticide, in certain ways at least, among other things.
2003-10-19 00:19 | User Profile
Okie,
Do you know anything about NS Germany?
In NS Germany, abortion was strictly prohibited, as German women were encouraged to have babies. Abortion was declared an act against the state; the death penalty was introduced in 1943.
2003-10-19 05:31 | User Profile
[QUOTE=friedrich braun]Okie,
Do you know anything about NS Germany?
In NS Germany, abortion was strictly prohibited, as German women were encouraged to have babies. Abortion was declared an act against the state; the death penalty was introduced in 1943.[/QUOTE]
This gives a slightly different perspective on the NS policies regarding abortion.
Hence, in 1933, in their first year of power, the Nazis passed a law forbidding abortion to Germans, increasing the penalties as they had been before Weimar liberalization.So far, so good The Nazis wanted to increase the birthrate so as to have soldiers for their military. In March 1934, however, the Hereditary Health Court in Hamburg rendered a judgment which stated that abortion on grounds of racial health was not an offense. In its decision, it referred to a Supreme Court decision during the Weimar democracy seven years earlier, allowing the procedure for "medical necessities."(25) In June 1935 the sterilization law was also amended to allow abortions on eugenic grounds and these abortions had to be followed by sterilizations, dependent -- technically -- on the woman's consent.(26) Thus, sterilization, eugenics and abortion all come together.
For the first time in German history, abortion was legal.But one cannot ignore the roots reaching back almost fifteen years to the beginning of the Weimar democracy, during which time arguments had been made that unborn life was not that important so was therefore expendable. Despite the racial theories behind this decision there were some non-Nazis who approved because of the allowing of choice.(27) In 1938 the government announced that Jews could have abortions at any time, since this could only benefit the German people.(28) The Jews, as well as "unfit" Germans, had a "choice" most Germans did not. This meant that the Nazis saw abortion as a very useful weapon against undesirables; e.g. as an act of elimination. During World War II the Nazis used sterilizations and abortions (also birth control and even the promotion of homosexuality) extensively in eastern Europe to carry out their eugenics policies. The specific aim was to keep eastern females available for slave labor while at the same time weakening eastern nations by hampering the reproduction of Slavic peoples.(29) Heinrich Himmler, head of the SS, a chief architect of the Holocaust, and personal friend of Adolf Hitler, once stated that the tragedy of abortion for German women was that afterwards women often could not have children. Not in the loss of an "individual life," as he put it.(30) The Nazis used the word "parent" to describe pregnant women and the fathers of the unborn(31) and the word "child" to describe the unborn themselves.(32) Nazis forbade abortion in order to preserve German unborn but allowed, even encouraged, the destruction of non-German unborn.(33)
[url=http://www.lifeissues.net/writers/air/air_vol16no1_2001.html]The Abortion and Eugenics Policies of Nazi Germany - (lifeissues.net)[/url]
2003-10-19 05:40 | User Profile
What you have posted [from a Christian, Catholic anti-abortion under any circumstances web site] doesn't negate the fact that it was illegal for a healthy German women to abort healthy German fetuses.
2003-10-19 06:00 | User Profile
[QUOTE=Okiereddust] ...Christianity had the capacity to stop Nazism before it came to power... Most German Christians supported the Reich...[/QUOTE]
Let me abbreviate this article without changing the meaning one iota:
Most Germans in 1933 were Christians, as such "Christianity" indeed had the "capacity to stop Nazism before it came to power." But saying this means what?
Nothing at all because evil regimes are almost never stopped before they "come to power". Regimes can't be evil till they "come to power". Nobody knows if they're evil or not before they "come to power."
Crap like this just gets Europeans into fighting each other if they fall for it. That's why they're written.
2003-10-19 07:03 | User Profile
[QUOTE=friedrich braun]What you have posted [from a Christian, Catholic anti-abortion under any circumstances web site] doesn't negate the fact that it was illegal for a healthy, German women to abort healthy, German fetuses.[/QUOTE] Just as it was not only legal, but often mandantory for women and fetuses who didn't fit these categories to have an abortion.
2003-10-19 07:16 | User Profile
[QUOTE=Ragnar]Let me abbreviate this article without changing the meaning one iota:
Most Germans in 1933 were Christians, as such "Christianity" indeed had the "capacity to stop Nazism before it came to power." But saying this means what? I could conversely ask you when you say "Most Germans in 1933 were Christians", what this means? Does it mean anything beyond "they went to Church perhaps once a year and paid their Church taxes". I think not. So how seriously did "Christianity" merit consideration as a serious category capable of such broad social influence as to influence regime change? I don't see how. This is one of the typical misrepresentations of such articles.
Regimes can't be evil till they "come to power". Nobody knows if they're evil or not before they "come to power."
Not really. I think we knew for instance what the Bolshevics would do before they came to power. Do we absolve the Jews who supported Bolshevism on such grounds (that they could not have known the character of the regime that would emerge. I think not.
Crap like this just gets Europeans into fighting each other if they fall for it. That's why they're written.[/QUOTE]
Friedrich linked to this article originally. I didn't. But I don't object to him speaking his mind. That's the only way we'l really get to know each other. We can't just pretend we all think the same, or that our differences will just magically melt away. That's what forums are for.
2003-10-19 07:41 | User Profile
[QUOTE=Okiereddust]I could conversely ask you when you say "Most Germans in 1933 were Christians", what this means? ... This is one of the typical misrepresentations of such articles.[/QUOTE]
Tha's how I meant it too. Regular Germans in '33 would have described themselves as vaguely Christian which is why the word really don't matter in this case.
[QUOTE]I think we knew for instance what the Bolshevics would do before they came to power...[/QUOTE]
The average Russian would have heard the slogan "Bread, Land and Peace" before the October Revolution and would have known nothing beyond that. That the Bolsheviks themselves knew they were criminals beforehand is not the point the article is making about the Germans -- the article assumes the nazis were criminals beforehand. Would the average German have assumed the same? Not at all. They had Weimer's mess and no money.
[QUOTE]Friedrich linked to this article originally. I didn't. But I don't object to him speaking his mind. That's the only way we'l really get to know each other. We can't just pretend we all think the same, or that our differences will just magically melt away. That's what forums are for.[/QUOTE]
Daniel Goldhagen gets paid to whip up the masses on this subject. We all know why and by whom. Sure, debate. But the subject don't serve us well at all right now.
If we were capable of doing this to every mass-murderer, it would make a difference. Could Confucian monks have stopped Mao? Were average Ugandans responsible for Idi Amin? Ha! You'll never see anything on these worthies and we both know why -- neither was white or Christian and we know that's where the bullseyes are painted.
I just hate to encourage it.
2003-10-19 08:01 | User Profile
[QUOTE=Okiereddust]Friedrich linked to this article originally. I didn't. But I don't object to him speaking his mind. That's the only way we'l really get to know each other. We can't just pretend we all think the same, or that our differences will just magically melt away. That's what forums are for.[/QUOTE]
Right...and you liked it enough to start an entire thread with it.
Have I spoken favourably about it in any of my posts? No. You, on the other hand, seem to strangely revel in this, by and large, worthless junk. But it's not the first time on OD that you've wilfully tried to misrepresent my views.
There's a cardinal rule of debate, i.e., you don't have to be polite while debating, but you shouldn't distort, or misrepresent, your opponent's positions.
The only reason I linked to it is to point out that the the claim that Catholics lost their "rights" with the advent of the Third Reich would surprise the author of that FI screed (so far that has been the only time that I've mentioned FI in any of my posts, so your claim that I "quote" from it all the time is inaccurate).
NS Germany is constantly used to score cheap political points by everyone on everything.
My original post was clearly ironic:
I was watching (and half-listening) to this anti-abortion woman on CNN the other day, when she mentioned how Catholics in National Socialist Germany (always throw in National Socialist Germany to make a forceful point!) lost their "rights" when National Socialists came to power.
Again, nevermind mind that most high-ranking National Socialists were Catholics (as was Adolf Hitler) and the Concordat of 1933 between the new regime and the Vatican (the same deal was offered to the Weimar Republic and rejected by it -- who was more friendly to the Church, the Weimar Republic or the Third Reich?).
It would certainly be a surprise to the author of this screed: http:// [url]www.secularhumanism.org/libr.../paul_23_4.html[/url]
2003-10-19 11:01 | User Profile
Threads of this nature are counterproductive.
Germany was not the only loser in World War Two. It was a triumph for world Jewry over white folks everywhere.
-Z-
2003-10-19 17:48 | User Profile
[QUOTE=friedrich braun]Okie,
Do you know anything about NS Germany?
In NS Germany, abortion was strictly prohibited, as German women were encouraged to have babies. Abortion was declared an act against the state; the death penalty was introduced in 1943.[/QUOTE]
FB,
Thanks for exposing this Shabbos Goy's BS. Saying that the NS unleashed abortion on Germany is on a par with saying that Hitler grabbed everyone's guns. Exactly the opposite is true. This is the classical Jew techinique of inverting victim and perpetrator. Okie's Rebbe must have thrown him at least a couple of Scoobie snacks and followed this up with both a pat on the head and a scratch behind the ears.
I don't know what your personal stance is on legalized, ritualized baby killing, FB, but the Christians are the last people I would count on to stop it. They can never hope to overcome their Achilles heel of worshipping 'The dead [B]Jew[/B] who came back' and as abortion is more kosher than Gefilte fish, the Nggers will sooner give up dry ss reaming than the Christians will allow us to destroy the Jew abortuaries.
2003-10-20 17:24 | User Profile
[QUOTE=AngryWhiteWorkingClassGuy]Thanks for exposing this Shabbos Goy's BS. Saying that the NS unleashed abortion on Germany is on a par with saying that Hitler grabbed everyone's guns. Exactly the opposite is true. [/QUOTE]
Yet the shabbos goy has a link and documentation supporting his claim, while you have 3 posts and a few choice vulgar insults to hang your hat on. Impressive debut.
2003-10-20 18:08 | User Profile
Know what I learned from this thread? That some Christians supported the NS state and some opposed it.
Pretty consistent with everything I already knew and everything I've observed in the modern sphere, where some Christians support the War Against Terrorism, or Open Borders, or Affirmative Action, and others are diametrically opposed.
Regardless of the level of one's belief in divinities, it boils down to the same thing: unless your religious fervor is such that one completely divorces oneself from human affairs and lives in a cave, you cross your fingers, take the position you feel is right, and hope you'll be proven correct come Judgment Day.
[QUOTE]About they only thing they agree on is that Christianity epitimizes evil and must be destroyed. While not just that. They also agree on the purely temporal nature of man and the religious primacy of the state. And on close examination, they often share the crypto-occultish fetichism. [/QUOTE]
Man....Okie, I can set my watch by you! You're not only ALWAYS wrong, you're usually [I]spectacularly [/I] wrong. My own take has always been I don't want any part of a compulsory religion, whether that be embodied by The Dude or The State. I certainly recognize that Christianity has provided the west with many benefits - but I note with puzzlement that many blood-and-thunder Christians actually seem to despise their own faith for its civilizing properties, and long for an unapologetically-warlike Christianity that more closely resembles a kind of monotheistic paganism.
On the other hand, I see no problem with Christianity as a belief-system that demands humility of its adherents by preserving a certain area of unknowability safe from mortal interpretation (and misinterpretation). I see a whole lot of belligerent know-it-alls within the purported rank-and-file, though, who - if given their druthers -would radically revise and edit Christian texts to remove all ambiguity that might conceivably clash with their personal political agendas.
2003-10-21 02:11 | User Profile
Hello O.D.,
I was looking over this thread with great disappointment mainly because so much of this material has been handled in depth before. If you look over our past exchanges on this stuff, assuming that they are still in the archives, you could have seen plenty of reverences to books and links that detail exactly why your wrong about the NSDAP regime and religion. Once again, let me recommend you read over the religious articles found in the archive section of: [url]www.wintersonnenwende.com/scriptorium/english/welcome.html[/url] And note that a great deal can be learned from the site at large which has massive amounts of top quality stuff in German and English. The best single book on the subject in English is still Father Charles MacFarland's "The New Church and the New Germany" which went through several reprintings. If you read the latter the neo-con palaver you cite is seen for what it is. A more hostile yet some what grounded in reality, unlike the neo-con silliness you seem to champion on the subject, is an account of the legal context to abortion and societal decay can be found in William Ebenstein's absurdly titled "The Nazi State" from ââ¬Ë43.
In any case, given that you have conceded that the article you posted "may all be "crude and meritless dribble" to some extent" I can't see wasting much more time on it then I did on that surreal bit you posted Icke (I think that's how the lizard/alien freak spells his name) a while back.
With respect to FB's anti-Christian sentiment I will say that the subject will get brief attention from me as I have dealt with the matter more then I wish. The crux of the issue is that matter is FB has some reasoned objections to Christianity which I feel are fine to air although I would say that his comments are often overly harsh and that more time should be given to building coalitions which encompass Christians and non Christians for the purpose of genuine folkish renewal which I have already detailed. Religious spats are almost always uncivil and counter productive with poor conduct on both sides, at least on American boards like O.D., which is why I avoid the subject almost always. It matters not what FB's thoughts, or mine, are on Christianity with regards to the matter under consideration here as the fact is the NSDAP regime had massive support from mainstream and ardent Christians who often held very influential positions within the regime and the regime responded in kind with substantive support for Christianity as a matter of state policy.
A more substantive matter, yet one that seems to me to have been well covered by me several times in the past, is the matter of the conservatism of the NSDAP regime. Your quote to FB "As much as the religious right irritates you sometimes, I think it is generally true that's its objections to the Third Reich are based on legitimate conservative principles" is rather bizarre in this context given that the source you seem to endorse is not "right" or conservative at all but just another neo-con organ with zero desire to support anything we both hold dear but in fact is clearly an agent of ant-Occidental destruction as is the "Christian left" establishment.
When speaking of the NSDAP regime, or any other for that matter, is folly to compare it to some ideal and simply decry it for not meeting it as the leftists are want to do. Instead, I note that Germany was facing total destruction and that it was the NSDAP that stopped such a lose which in and of itself was a great act of conservatism. I also started a thread a while back that provided plenty of excellent references that dealt with how Hitler's offensive in the East forestalled an invasion of the West that would have been, at best, extremely difficult stop once it had gotten underway and the implications of such an occurrence for Europa so again, we see a profound act of Occidental conservation.
With regards to the regime itself I will point out again the genius of it's economic program which not only saved a nation from ruin but did so within the context of restoring both prosperity and oppressing decadence while fostering a genuine sense of national communion and purpose. I could also point out that Hitler and a great many regime leaders were greatly inspired by Arthur Moeller van den Bruck whom you admire as do I. If you read the "Man Who Invented the Third Reich" you will learn a bit more about this although I hasten to add that Lauryssens is wrong about a great many things with respect to the Strassers (whom I will not bother going over again) he was right, in gross measure, about van den Bruck's influence. As a result, I'd say he's certainly worth a read even inspite of his clear bias against the NSDAP do to his research on van den Bruck's relationship with NSDAP celebrities.
As should be clear to you by now, I am not an uncritical supporter of the NSDAP regime because my endorsement is highly qualified and my criticisms extensive. However, the fact remains that given the historical circumstances the NSDAP was the only option to national oblivion and that the international scene necessitated a harsh authoritarianism that had elements that I vigorously object to the regime still had far more to commend then you have ever recognized. You may think me a an idealist yet it is you that makes broad, unwarranted and often counter factual attacks upon the NSDAP for failing to live up to conservative principles while it defended what genuine conservatives would call "the values of permanence" under the most disadvantageous conditions possible with great deal of success. Such a disposition is, to me, the mark of unabated idealism rather then conservative prudence. My perception of the matter is not influenced by the sacrifices made by some of my family members for the NSDAP regime nor is it based upon nostalgia which is something that I hope you recognize.
In the final analysis, I have little incentive to bother with this topic much more because the factual record is very clear and I have stated quite clearly the means by which to identify the veracity of my position. As I am not proposing mimicry of the NSDAP regime nor it's idealization contra to the facts of historical circumstances. Note that I have little invested in the issue in terms of emotion or practical politics in either my electoral or activist life in the matter. Rather, I will again assert the need to focus upon a broadly conceived, folkish alternative to our destruction as I did in the "Neither Left nor Right" article that I assume you are aware of. My focus will remain on taking what is useful from the NSDAP era/doctrine as I do for the whole NS/NR/CR canon and it's application rather then ideological archeology or nostalgia which inevitably leads to gross distortion and distraction from the current phase of the struggle and a ideologically sound activism.
2003-10-21 04:43 | User Profile
[QUOTE=AngryWhiteWorkingClassGuy]I don't know what your personal stance is on legalized, ritualized baby killing, FB, but the Christians are the last people I would count on to stop it. They can never hope to overcome their Achilles heel of worshipping 'The dead [B]Jew[/B] who came back' and as abortion is more kosher than Gefilte fish, the Nggers will sooner give up dry ss reaming than the Christians will allow us to destroy the Jew abortuaries.[/QUOTE]
Thanks for so perfectly ilustrating my comments on the intolerant paganism of so many Nazi's. I am often accussed of overly harping on the subject, but someone like yourself always comes along to vindicate me.
2003-10-21 05:25 | User Profile
[QUOTE=triskelion]Hello O.D.,
I was looking over this thread with great disappointment mainly because so much of this material has been handled in depth before.
Perhaps, but the subject came up again. It wasn't I that brought it up. Why don't you take FB to task for originally posting this "crude and meritless dribble" which
In any case, given that you have conceded that the article you posted "may all be "crude and meritless dribble" to some extent" I can't see wasting much more time on it.......
One thing puzzles me a bit. If you say its "crude and meritless dribble" why is it that you substantially are agreeing, and I'm disagreeing, with its conclusions?
Forget the levity, but that reminds me of the story about a guy whose mother got mad at him riding in the car and said "you no good S.O.B". ;)
then I did on that surreal bit you posted Icke (I think that's how the lizard/alien freak spells his name) a while back. OK. So I'm permanently folkishly incorrect.
It matters not what FB's thoughts, or mine, are on Christianity with regards to the matter under consideration here as the fact is the NSDAP regime had massive support from mainstream and ardent Christians who often held very influential positions within the regime and the regime responded in kind with substantive support for Christianity as a matter of state policy.
I think we're just going to have to accept that what seems fine to you and the nominal Christians of the Third Reich is stil going to seem a little lacking to people like me, even though I'll freely admit the Third Reich was far superior to the Soviet Union, or even in most respects the modern European Union as its evolving.
A more substantive matter, yet one that seems to me to have been well covered by me several times in the past, is the matter of the conservatism of the NSDAP regime. Your quote to FB "As much as the religious right irritates you sometimes, I think it is generally true that's its objections to the Third Reich are based on legitimate conservative principles" is rather bizarre in this context given that the source you seem to endorse is not "right" or conservative at all but just another neo-con organ with zero desire to support anything we both hold dear but in fact is clearly an agent of ant-Occidental destruction as is the "Christian left" establishment.
Are you talking about lifeissues.net? Do you say that anyone critical of National Socialism is a neo-con? Because you there are a lot more people than neo-cons in these ranks.
Neo-cons say all a paleo's are are crypto-Nazi's or proto-Nazi's. Are you agreeing with them? It strikes me that you like they to a certain extent do not give sufficient weight to legitimate conservative objections to their own political stances and ethnic agendas. Whatever else you differ on. Don't take that personally, its just an interesting item which some paleo's have noted (acknowleging you dice paleoism).
When speaking of the NSDAP regime, or any other for that matter, is folly to compare it to some ideal and simply decry it for not meeting it as the leftists are want to do. Instead, I note that Germany was facing total destruction and that it was the NSDAP that stopped such a lose which in and of itself was a great act of conservatism. I also started a thread a while back that provided plenty of excellent references that dealt with how Hitler's offensive in the East forestalled an invasion of the West that would have been, at best, extremely difficult stop once it had gotten underway and the implications of such an occurrence for Europa so again, we see a profound act of Occidental conservation.
You repeat the arguments of those conservatives who did unabashadly support the German state. We've discussed thesse elsewhere as you note. If you have a particularly germane observation we could I suppose return to them. I was at the time and still am unconvinced.
With regards to the regime itself I will point out again the genius of it's economic program which not only saved a nation from ruin but did so within the context of restoring both prosperity and oppressing decadence while fostering a genuine sense of national communion and purpose.
I have a lot of objection to both these points, but in any event we're getting off the subject.
I could also point out that Hitler and a great many regime leaders were greatly inspired by Arthur Moeller van den Bruck whom you admire as do I. If you read the "Man Who Invented the Third Reich" you will learn a bit more about this although I hasten to add that Lauryssens is wrong about a great many things with respect to the Strassers (whom I will not bother going over again) he was right, in gross measure, about van den Bruck's influence. As a result, I'd say he's certainly worth a read even inspite of his clear bias against the NSDAP do to his research on van den Bruck's relationship with NSDAP celebrities.
And I could quote the Schwarz Korps article "We must turn our back on Moeller vab Bruck and his epigrams"
As should be clear to you by now, I am not an uncritical supporter of the NSDAP regime because my endorsement is highly qualified and my criticisms extensive. However, the fact remains that given the historical circumstances the NSDAP was the only option to national oblivion and that the international scene necessitated a harsh authoritarianism that had elements that I vigorously object to the regime still had far more to commend then you have ever recognized. You may think me a an idealist yet it is you that makes broad, unwarranted and often counter factual attacks upon the NSDAP for failing to live up to conservative principles while it defended what genuine conservatives would call "the values of permanence" under the most disadvantageous conditions possible with great deal of success. Such a disposition is, to me, the mark of unabated idealism rather then conservative prudence. My perception of the matter is not influenced by the sacrifices made by some of my family members for the NSDAP regime nor is it based upon nostalgia which is something that I hope you recognize.
In the final analysis, I have little incentive to bother with this topic much more because the factual record is very clear and I have stated quite clearly the means by which to identify the veracity of my position. As I am not proposing mimicry of the NSDAP regime nor it's idealization contra to the facts of historical circumstances. Note that I have little invested in the issue in terms of emotion or practical politics in either my electoral or activist life in the matter. Rather, I will again assert the need to focus upon a broadly conceived, folkish alternative to our destruction as I did in the "Neither Left nor Right" article that I assume you are aware of. My focus will remain on taking what is useful from the NSDAP era/doctrine as I do for the whole NS/NR/CR canon and it's application rather then ideological archeology or nostalgia which inevitably leads to gross distortion and distraction from the current phase of the struggle and a ideologically sound activism.[/QUOTE]
Well you're right, I'm more critical of the Third Reich than you are. One of the reasons I am critical is it seems this sensitivity to criticism of the Third Reich I often run into, where you can't really discuss the specifics of issues without getting into broad-brush discussions of one's overall motivation, outlook, and loyalty.
I admit I don't know everything about the Third Reich and its personalities, such as the truth or falsehood of certain legends about Hitler's sexual prolivitities. But I don't see why one can't discuss these individual points in detail without constantly going back over these old points. I may be more of an idealist than you, whether discarding such necessary ideals is really proper conservative "pridence" is something for now I'll have to differ with you on.
2003-10-21 18:54 | User Profile
I support Okiereddust for exposing the source of FB's atheistic spewings. I can't understand why FB is given such opportunity here. He belongs over on the thread at another board that encourages the killing of Christians to "purify" Whites from a damaging influence. In fact, such rantings are so distasteful that I have to wonder if ADL is far behind such posters as FB. There's nothing more profitable for an enemy than irresonsible behavior from their opponent.
2003-10-21 19:15 | User Profile
[QUOTE=All Old Right]I support Okiereddust for exposing the source of FB's atheistic spewings. I can't understand why FB is given such opportunity here. He belongs over on the thread at another board that encourages the killing of Christians to "purify" Whites from a damaging influence. In fact, such rantings are so distasteful that I have to wonder if ADL is far behind such posters as FB. There's nothing more profitable for an enemy than irresonsible behavior from their opponent.[/QUOTE]
Superficial ape like thinking! You are to religious to be rational.
An Embryo is just a plan of life, no developed human being! If there are not enough good humans, and the plan would bring us a good new human, abortion is bad, in every other case its not bad but good especially for Eugenic reasons.
Do you want to have Down-Syndrom "Christian" full-idiot as son? Even a mixed Europid-Negrid is much, much more better than that!
What you eliminate with abortion is the plan for an human being, not an human and for sure no human personality. So thats totally different from killing a developed personality with intelligence and consciousness.
2003-10-21 20:46 | User Profile
Hello O.D.,
After this post I won't pursue this topic any more as it is obvious that you lack the time or inclination to read the material I referenced and until that happens a fruitful exchange can't happen. The fact that we are repeating ourselves so much demonstrates this.
You asked > Why don't you take FB to task for originally posting this "crude and meritless dribble" to which the answer is simply that he doesn't defend it or use it as a critique of the NSDAP regime.
You asked > One thing puzzles me a bit. If you say its "crude and meritless dribble" why is it that you substantially are agreeing, and I'm disagreeing, with its conclusions? And I ask you what posts you're talking about because I said no such thing. The article maintains that the NSDAP was anti-conservative and I reject that. The Article thinks it a scandal that Christians supported that regime and (I) think it was to their credit. The article is a typical neo-con/Jedeo-centric condemnation of the regime which I have plainly rejected.
You said > OK. So I'm permanently folkishly incorrect. Which I also reject. Instead, I believe you are folkishly inclined but you have this propensity to give undue credence to inane piffle when it attacks the NSDAP regime for reasons I don't understand. My guess is that your turned off, as I am, by the noxious blather of the Hollywood nazis that fixate upon the era and that you make incorrect generalizations based upon such filth.
You said, and I agree that > I think we're just going to have to accept that what seems fine to you and the nominal Christians of the Third Reich is stil going to seem a little lacking to people like me, even though I'll freely admit the Third Reich was far superior to the Soviet Union, or even in most respects the modern European Union as its evolving.
You asked > Are you talking about lifeissues.net? The answer is no. I was talking about the article.
You said > Do you say that anyone critical of National Socialism is a neo-con? Because you there are a lot more people than neo-cons in these ranks. Obviously, my answer is again no. In broad stroke one can have folkish objections or one can have universalist or explicitly anti Occidental ones which I reject on a fundamental basis.
You ask > Neo-cons say all a paleo's are are crypto-Nazi's or proto-Nazi's. Are you agreeing with them? Given that a fundamental rejection of multi-racialism and cosmopolitanism are viewed by those wishing to destroy the Occident as "nazis" as well as those to corrupt/cowardly/disinterested to resist those forces one could say in a practical sense they are right. Obviously, in a meaningful or theoretical sense such a notion is absurd.
You conjecture that > It strikes me that you like they to a certain extent do not give sufficient weight to legitimate conservative objections to their own political stances and ethnic agendas. My response is again to reiterate that the article in question is not conservative at all. I would also point out that, in general, mainstream paleo cons seem to know little to nothing about any form of NS/NR/RC thought or history and that their objections to such matters are worthless as a result. Of course, given that genuine conservatism is folkish, even if not consciously so, plenty of reasoned criticisms of the NSDAP regime exist and I recognize the merits of their positions which in large measure influenced my own critiques which you have read else where.
You then proceed to say > Whatever else you differ on. Don't take that personally, its just an interesting item which some paleo's have noted (acknowledging you dice paleoism). TO which I certainly will have you note that no offense is taken but nor do I "dice" paleos. Rather, I reject what mainstream paleo-conservatism has become for the express reason that it does not conserve that which is at the basis of all that we both hold dear.
I read with confusion your statement that > You repeat the arguments of those conservatives who did unabashedly support the German state. because I am sure you know that I do no such thing. My defense of the NSDAP is highly qualified and my criticism are substantial. As you have not taken into account any of the reverences I mentioned on this or other exchanges I will simply let the matter die as it is clearly a waste of effort.
While I am not familiar with what ever issue your quote > And I could quote the Schwarz Korps article "We must turn our back on Moeller van Bruck and his epigrams" came from I am very familiar with the sizable research done which points to the reality that van den Bruck was very influential on numerous regime figures including Hitler. I will also point out that a single quote is hardly indicative of anything other then the opinion of the author at the time. My reading indicates that van den Bruck' reception within the regime was even more complicated then DeMann relationship was. In the case of the latter he was clearly influential in ideological terms but rejected by equally as many which simply shows that no authoritarian regime is a monolith but simple a coalition of as is any government in practice .
While you say that > Well you're right, I'm more critical of the Third Reich than you are. I'd say that it seems your criticism are far to expansive and ill founded. As to > One of the reasons I am critical is it seems this sensitivity to criticism of the Third Reich I often run into, where you can't really discuss the specifics of issues without getting into broad-brush discussions of one's overall motivation, outlook, and loyalty. I'd admit that this problem exists. However, pan gloss endorsements are far less frequent then your equally near global condemnations.
Certainly I also > I admit I don't know everything about the Third Reich and its personalities and in point of fact, have little interest in the topic compared to others. Raising > the truth or falsehood of certain legends about Hitler's sexual prolivitities was a matter that I recall even you agreed had no substance and that much of such ruminations were easily refuted crap pure and simple. You ask > I don't see why one can't discuss these individual points in detail without constantly going back over these old points. The answer is that when you raise them with recourse to what was tendered as evidence to the contrary of your position we find ourselves retreading a well worn path. As much as don't like to admit it, a great many people find me to be very idealistic yet the comment " I may be more of an idealist than you, whether discarding such necessary ideals is really proper conservative "prudence" is something for now I'll have to differ with you on." is odd coming from you. Simply put, Burkian prudence is the root of the conservative disposition along with Kirk's sense of permanence and order. Naturally, within the current stage of the struggle the fact that we have lost most of what is worth maintaining and are on the cusp of seeing what remains disappear we have no choice but be in favour of revolutionary resurgence and Folkish Renewal. The same situation faced Europa in the ââ¬Ë30s but with far greater physical urgency.
2003-10-21 22:19 | User Profile
[QUOTE=Agrippa]Superficial ape like thinking! You are to religious to be rational.
An Embryo is just a plan of life, no developed human being! If there are not enough good humans, and the plan would bring us a good new human, abortion is bad, in every other case its not bad but good especially for Eugenic reasons.
Do you want to have Down-Syndrom "Christian" full-idiot as son? Even a mixed Europid-Negrid is much, much more better than that!
What you eliminate with abortion is the plan for an human being, not an human and for sure no human personality. So thats totally different from killing a developed personality with intelligence and consciousness.[/QUOTE] And I heard it's going to be 70 degrees tomorrow, with a chance of rain later in the week. LOL Man, oh man, what thread are you on? Aren't I supposed to get minimum wage for babysitting?
2003-10-21 22:27 | User Profile
I just wanted to make clear what I think about abortion and what is useful to say from a rational point of view, baby. :blow:
2003-10-22 07:29 | User Profile
[QUOTE=Agrippa]I just wanted to make clear what I think about abortion and what is useful to say from a rational point of view, baby. :blow:[/QUOTE]
There is much useful to say about abortion from a rational point of view, unfortunately you are not saying it.
An Embryo is just a plan of life, no developed human being!
Not a human being? What is it then? A duck?
You might want to revisit Rationality in Biology 101.
So thats totally different from killing a developed personality with intelligence and consciousness.
I'm sure you realize the full ramifications of that repugnant moral platitude. I think your rationality got unhinged and twisted about somewhere in its development. Sure glad you weren't a part of the Florida state legislature yesterday.
2003-10-22 09:01 | User Profile
[QUOTE=Agrippa]Superficial ape like thinking! You are to(o) religious to be rational.
An Embryo is just a plan of life, no developed human being! If there are not enough good humans, and the plan would bring us a good new human, abortion is bad, in every other case its not bad but good especially for Eugenic reasons.
What you eliminate with abortion is the plan for an human being, not an human and for sure no human personality. So thats totally different from killing a developed personality with intelligence and consciousness.[/QUOTE]
Tex touched upon the implications of what you are saying. I'll just extend them a little more.
Your thinking parallels that of a well known book written on the subject, abortion and infanticide. It touches upon some of the implications of your thesis that an embryo is just a "potential" human being, as it does not "have a developed personality with intelligence and consciousness.
To begin with, this criteria for downgrading the status of an embryo from a human being to a "potential human being" hardly stops with the unborn. Newborn babies to begin with
are equally subject to this downgrading according to this criteria, hence infanticide along with elimination of the retarded (which the Third Reich adopted). This "developed personality with intelligence and consciousness" is actually a rather subjective criteria. Some people reading yor post might in fact question whether you (or I suppose I) really meet this criteria.
Removing consideration of human life as a transcendent gift to an issue for rational thought introduces all these issues. Hence the issues with the Third Reich over abortion, which I will continue to take heat for defending (even if its standards, which pro-life groups try to make hay over, are really becoming pretty much accepted practice in today's modern society.
2003-10-22 14:04 | User Profile
If there is a good and healthy Embryo TODAY I'm nobody who want abortion, but for clear reasons...
Its all about having as much good humans as possible at the moment. But to say every Embryo should be protected...nah.
Do you really want to say to a rational family which doesnt want a Down-Syndrom "child" you have to get it? So that they maybe cant pay for another child? Such plans are unuseful for the future, why let them grow?
Sorry, but you know the catholic church was against abortion, because it was killing for them too. But babies, and in that part they were rational, didnt get a christian funeral if they were not baptized. And baptized was usually not even directly after birth.
Its right, if you would live in a Hunter and Gatherer society, and you got already a young children, you just cant take another one you. Especially not severe handicapped one...for what? This infanticid is barbaric, and has nothing to do with nowadays, but for sure its something different from killing a developed personality too.
In fact, like the Spartans knew, its all about to get the best humans in your society. Eugenic will hopefully be the future, and your religious thinking will just kill the rest of good genetic heritage in the US. Sometimes its not about who is getting children, but what this children get inherited. To control especially in a smaller group what features are there is very important. Dont kill this idea with wrong religious thoughts.
I'm against free abortion at the moment too, yes, but for different reasons.
[QUOTE]Removing consideration of human life as a transcendent gift to an issue for rational thought introduces all these issues.[/QUOTE]
Americas white are not in decline because of rationality, but because rational but selfish people ABUSED the religious ones and said them many unuseful things about what life is about blabla... But in fact, this religiousity made the white man in America so weak. Its not the rationality, its this emotionilized view on Earth which will probably kill white heritage and culture in US.
White European culture is rationality. The Americans introduced the propaganda like emotionality to Europe and because of that Europe is suffering. The difference in Europe is, that at least some politicians really believe the shit, which was the absolut exception in the US from beginning of this state. And you dont even recognize the problem with that I sometimes see...
2003-10-23 08:04 | User Profile
[QUOTE=Agrippa]If there is a good and healthy Embryo TODAY I'm nobody who want abortion, but for clear reasons...
Its all about having as much good humans as possible at the moment. But to say every Embryo should be protected...nah.
Do you really want to say to a rational family which doesnt want a Down-Syndrom "child" you have to get it? So that they maybe cant pay for another child? Such plans are unuseful for the future, why let them grow?......................
Dont kill this idea with wrong religious thoughts.
I'm against free abortion at the moment too, yes, but for different reasons.
Americas white are not in decline because of rationality, but because rational but selfish people ABUSED the religious ones and said them many unuseful things about what life is about blabla... But in fact, this religiousity made the white man in America so weak. Its not the rationality, its this emotionilized view on Earth which will probably kill white heritage and culture in US.
White European culture is rationality. The Americans introduced the propaganda like emotionality to Europe and because of that Europe is suffering. The difference in Europe is, that at least some politicians really believe the shit, which was the absolut exception in the US from beginning of this state. And you dont even recognize the problem with that I sometimes see...[/QUOTE]
Really you don't seem to appreciate the weakness of attempting to build a conservative position on purely rational principles, void of transcendence. This way of thinking leads pretty much ipso facto to the liberal position.
We know the transcendent order by means of tradition. But part of what we know through the tradition is that this order is mysterious, that it ever lies beyond our full grasp. The anti-conservative and anti-traditional person--in a word, the "liberal"--is one who denies the existence of transcendence. He claims that the only order that human life may have is the "order" specified by the wants and desires that each individual human being happens to have. To live is not to discover and adequate oneself to suprahuman principles of conduct that determine what one should desire, but rather to discover empirically what one's desires are and to find the most efficient means of satisfying them. The liberal thereby posits an order which is uniform (because equally applicable anywhere and anywhen), transparent (because abstract), and rational (in the sense of being restricted to the calculation of the efficiency of means).
See my signature for a elaboration of the importance of transendence to the conservative and nationalist position. There may be a few who claim to mix racialism with liberalism and rationalism, but generally these don't stay nationalist very long.
2003-10-23 11:24 | User Profile
[QUOTE=triskelion]Hello O.D.,
After this post I won't pursue this topic any more as it is obvious that you lack the time or inclination to read the material I referenced and until that happens a fruitful exchange can't happen. The fact that we are repeating ourselves so much demonstrates this.
I agree to some extent this exchange is going over old discussions on the NSDAP regime. It would be helpful I admit to study such material. But given such material is often hard to follow, (in part because I always feel it needs to be checked) and that the NSDAP regime is by your own admission not a model for us today, it is not at the top of my priority list, especially when not linked to a pressing current question.
You asked to which the answer is simply that he doesn't defend it or use it as a critique of the NSDAP regime. No - he used it as a defense of the NSDAP regime, and doing it in a way - asserting the NSDAP regime was a friend of Christians and Christianity, which has been contridicted by most of the prominent VNNers today, including on this board, and even him himself.
Somethings about the NSDAP regime will always be hard to determine. But it seems fairly straightforward that it was not as friendly toward Christianity, and vice versa, as the artice FB quoted origially existed. The fact that bringing up these simple facts always leads us into a broader critique of the nature of the NSDAP regime makes me wonder if how lacking in emotional bias toward the NSDAP regime you realy are sometimes.
You asked And I ask you what posts you're talking about because I said no such thing. The article maintains that the NSDAP was anti-conservative and I reject that. The Article thinks it a scandal that Christians supported that regime and (I) think it was to their credit. The article is a typical neo-con/Jedeo-centric condemnation of the regime which I have plainly rejected.
Well actually i.a.w. Franfurt School theory, I think it maintains the NSDAP was conservative, and therefore flawed on that account. And it really isn't trying to condemn the Nazi's nearly as much as it is to use the Nazi's to condemn condemn the Christians.
Something which oddly enough it seemed to me got FB's favor. Seems to me he is perfectly willing to let the Nazi's be used, if it condemns the Christians.
Seems to me it shows who the real target of the left is these days. They're still much more interested in bashing Christians than Nazis. (At least in the US).
You said Which I also reject. Instead, I believe you are folkishly inclined but you have this propensity to give undue credence to inane piffle when it attacks the NSDAP regime for reasons I don't understand. My guess is that your turned off, as I am, by the noxious blather of the Hollywood nazis that fixate upon the era and that you make incorrect generalizations based upon such filth.
To some extent, I admit I can make mistakes. But my attitude is drawn out of consciousness I have developed which is sensitive to the actual reality, made by many conservatives, how Nazism has been used, and Nazi's have allowed, even encouraged Nazism to be used as a tool against the West and western traditions.
As an example, I think basically think FB was doing such right here by citing his article. He personally "strongly dislikes" Christianity as a Nazi, and feels (with some justfication I'm sure) this today is a mainstream Nazi attitude. Bu he's perfectly willing to have Nazism appear to embrace Christianity, if it will in fact damage Christianity.
Does that not demonstrate how even superficial Nazi friendliness toard Christianity can hide deep hostility?
The fact is that Nazi's and Nazism have been used at least to some extent, if you look at the record, as a tool against the West, Christianity and Conservatism. The neo-conservatives exploit tis very skillfuly at times, atempting to emphasize this. This is one of the things that make even-paleo's like Buchanan occasionally feel they must distance themself from certain things associated with Nazism. (Such as his appointment of Foster for VP).
The blanket condemnation Linderites give to "Squinty Pat" etc certainly doesn't heighten their identification with conservatism. Indeed it makes many people, including many by no means duped by the neo's, very suspicious of the racialist right, even of things only associated with it at times, like Nationalism and racial anti-egalitarianism.
If Pat has been drifting back toward the mainstream and neo-acceptance rcently, I think the racialist right bears a cetain amount of blame. I think they need to start to accet that, instead of their infantile (and often suspiciously provoceteur sounding) that no paleo conservative is ever pure enough for them. For me, it has echoes of totalitarianism. the old Hitlerian "my way or the high way" attitude toward competing rightist groups.
While I am not familiar with what ever issue your quote came from I am very familiar with the sizable research done which points to the reality that van den Bruck was very influential on numerous regime figures including Hitler. I will also point out that a single quote is hardly indicative of anything other then the opinio In the case of the latter he was clearly influential in ideological terms but rejected by equally as many which simply shows that no authoritarian regime is a monolith but simple a coalition of as is any government in practice. My reading indicates that van den Bruck' reception within the regime was even more complicated then DeMann relationship was.
Let me reprint Von Klemperer's analysis in more detail, which I should have done initially. It anticipates your arguments on the nature of the NSDAP regime, and is diameterically opposed to them.
The truimph of Hitler's elite army, the S.S., which was the final outcome of the complex pattern of June 30, 1934, shifted the basis of National Socialism from a divide and rule and from an idelogical eclecticism to a total reliance on its own power. The S.S. robots had no room for ideas, and least of all for those ideas with which in the past National Socialism had been asociated. Under the prodding of the S.S. then, the Party went through a process of "debunking of ideas" (Ideendammerung).
Already in 1933 Alfred Rosenberg, Nazi "philosopher", had come out in he Volkischer Beobachter against the various "untrusting and literary clubs" which claimed to be the fathers of National Socialism and even against the so far sacrosanct Moeller. What bitter irony that the neo-conservatives who in the past had so glibbly labeled their enemies as "eggheads"Literaten were now the "eggheads" themselves. One of the favorite themes of Die Scharze Korps, the new S.S. organ launched in 1935, wa the attack against the "intellectuals". Also from the S.S. came the first comprehensive attack against Moeller, by one of its members, Wilhelm Seddin. It appeared in the Hitler Youth periodical Wille und Macht. "We have respected the author Moeller van den Bruck. When, howevre, one starts constructing an ideology from his works and tying it up with National Socialism, we must turn our backs on Moeller and his epigones". In short, Moeller also was an "egghead" and the connection between him and National Socialism was based on "artificial manipulation" of his "advertising manager" Hans Schwartz. A point-by-point refutation of Moeller which carried the imprimatur of the Party came to the bold conclusion that "conservatism and nationalism in reality have different values". Moeller, indeed, was not the prophet of the Third Reich. He was the "last conservative". The devil was kinder to Moeller than he deserved. One might say that at last Moeller was released from his original pact with the devil.**
Klemens Von Klemerer Germany's New Conservatism
Deal with the devil? Rather harsh, don't you think? But to many conservatives who have dealt with the Nazi's, it cetainly has the ring of truth. There, contrary to your rathr glib defenses of the NSDAP and its descendents today seems at times to me at least to be an almost demonic aspect to Nazism. It demands total, absolute, unquestioning obediance, or it turns on its would be friends as fiercely if not more so than it ever turned on any of its enemies.
While you say that I'd say that it seems your criticism are far to expansive and ill founded. As to I'd admit that this problem exists. However, pan gloss endorsements are far less frequent then your equally near global condemnations.
And articles like Klemperers seem to show some well founded reasons why such condemnations exist. It seems by an analysis that seems fairy reasonable that Nazi's and Nazism are toxic poison to any group, indeed anything, that ever touches them. They never help anyone, only demand more sacrifice and effort. Even from within their own ranks it at times would seem.
Its hard to blame people for wanting to stay away from them. Even though it may seem easy from our perspective to blame them for doing so. It may be a tough pill to swallow, but the Nazi's certainly have a major aount of responsibility in the decline of traitional conservatism movement and its replacement by neo-cnservatism.
Certainly I also and in point of fact, have little interest in the topic compared to others. Raising was a matter that I recall even you agreed had no substance and that much of such ruminations were easily refuted crap pure and simple. You ask The answer is that when you raise them with recourse to what was tendered as evidence to the contrary of your position we find ourselves retreading a well worn path. As much as don't like to admit it, a great many people find me to be very idealistic yet the comment " I may be more of an idealist than you, whether discarding such necessary ideals is really proper conservative "prudence" is something for now I'll have to differ with you on." is odd coming from you. Simply put, Burkian prudence is the root of the conservative disposition along with Kirk's sense of permanence and order. Naturally, within the current stage of the struggle the fact that we have lost most of what is worth maintaining and are on the cusp of seeing what remains disappear we have no choice but be in favour of revolutionary resurgence and Folkish Renewal. The same situation faced Europa in the ââ¬Ë30s but with far greater physical urgency.[/QUOTE]
Trisk, I know you hate to admit it, but anyone who talks about Burkean prudence and Kirk's sense of permanence and order transparently must be viewed as an egghead himself. I cannot but see in your own positions an echo of Moeller's own position vis a vis the Nazi's - the cavaliar ambiguity and reluctance to take an unambiguous open stand against them, coupled in turn by an initial friendliness toward him, but a fairly certain eventual rejection by them.
2003-10-23 12:01 | User Profile
[QUOTE]Really you don't seem to appreciate the weakness of attempting to build a conservative position on purely rational principles, void of transcendence. This way of thinking leads pretty much ipso facto to the liberal position.[/QUOTE]
That was on the long run so in the US! But that is nothing which would have or had to happen in the rest of the world. In every "liberal" or "tolerant" society is the main question tolerant towards what? Liberal in one part doesnt have to mean to be liberal on the others.
And, thats really for sure, to be rational, or to make a rational society doesnt have to mean to build up a liberal society.
[QUOTE]See my signature for a elaboration of the importance of transendence to the conservative and nationalist position. There may be a few who claim to mix racialism with liberalism and rationalism, but generally these don't stay nationalist very long.[/QUOTE]
In fact [I]I hate Liberalism [/I] as you can see in my signature... Rationalism is by no means Liberalism. That you think like that shows the real weakness of the American conservatives. That they think they cannot argue successful on a rational base. But thats a huge mistake.
[QUOTE]nationalist[/QUOTE]
Whats that to you? To me its to love your people more than others, and to be no egalitarian. It doesnt have to mean to hate other people or even other races.
I dont deny every transcendence position, I just deny a position like the people got which make the fight against abortion to a crusade. Because if this people would come into power, maybe you would have American "Taliban", but I'm quite sure no progressive and effective organized European society what is my goal. My goal is the progression of society and mankind to a new level. And because I see no reason for panmixing and culture destruction of the European people but rather think thats very counterproductive from the big picture I'm very much against it. The main reason is because I dont think that, that what would follow would be better or would have a bigger chance to make the next step in the evolution of mankind. And the 2nd reason is, that I love my people and dont want them to see terminated for nothing, especially not for wealth of a small plutocrazy.
But as you see my motivation is really not just something of emotion, but also I think quite rational if I think about the societies and mankinds future. I'm thinking more about results than rules.
But my priorities are clear.
If a group is not ready to accept what is necessary for the next step, and that includes to me very much Eugenic more than many things else, than this cannot be an alternativ for the long run. And if the same group not even is ready to make some social and structural changes for the society which are necessary to make it more stable, effectiv, just and able to develop than this people can never be an alternative.
So I can discuss about transcendency, I can think about it, maybe even believe partly in it, but if you are coming with just the bible in the hand and nothing else in mind we got a problem, because I dont want to see such western Taliban in power.
If so could have fight at least with the Aryan Taliban, against the Neoliberal system, because the Koran is in parts more rational from a biological point of view than the pure bible context. With the bible you can maybe win even a war, but not the run for a higher development and the next step in human evolution which I think is necessary for the future, not only for the survival of the white race but also for the survival of mankind in general. Some and sometimes the majority of people today are nothing else than apes in their behaviour. The question is to answer if this will be enough to survive and let the Earth survive in the future.