← Autodidact Archive · Original Dissent · Valley Forge
Thread ID: 13797 | Posts: 210 | Started: 2004-05-20
2004-05-20 02:52 | User Profile
I don't know about you, but for as long as I can remember I have always admired Hitler. And even though I can't understand a word of German, I've always found Hitler's speeches mesmerizing. I even admired Hitler during my color blind conservative phase, though in public, I'm now embarassed to say, I'd parrot the standard anti-Nazi garbage right along with the rest of the herd. So, I'd like to propose an informal poll of OD members who care to participate to find out if anyone here shares my feelings. Which of the following in your view best approximates your view of Hitler.
A) I'm with you VF -- I've admired Hitler for as long as I can remember. Man's best came with the Nazis.
B) I came to admire Hitler over time, only after becoming racially aware
C) Now that I'm racially aware, I have a slightly more favorable view of Hitler than in the past, but my overall assessment of the Nazis is still negative.
D) Count me with the Jews VF -- Hitler is one the most evil men to ever live.
2004-05-20 12:39 | User Profile
[QUOTE=Valley Forge]A) I'm with you VF -- I've admired Hitler for as long as I can remember. Man's best came with the Nazis.[/QUOTE]
I think I've grown to appreciate the Nazi ideology more in recent years, but I still chose "A", since I can't remember ever totally buying into the "all Nazis were evil" junk, even during my schooling in the late '70's and early '80's.
And Hitler, along with Goebbels, become more and more like visionaries everyday that passes. What they were saying 65 years ago, especially about what the consequences would be without NS, is quite spectacular in it's preciseness and accurateness. They weren't perfect but, shoot, they really LOVED their people, their holy race, enough to go down fighting for it.
United States of America, you made a bad, bad mistake.
Sad days ahead.
2004-05-20 14:06 | User Profile
[QUOTE]C) Now that I'm racially aware, I have a slightly more favorable view of Hitler than in the past, but my overall assessment of the Nazis is still negative.[/QUOTE]
The Nazis had a more realistic view of race than is current today, that's for sure.
But as I've written elsewhere here on OD on several occasions, they got just about everything else wrong.
We Catholics believe in:
Subsidiarity. That means that power - economic, political and military - should be devolved to the lowest functional level. But the Nazis believed in the absolute concentration of political power in the hands of one man, industrial might in the hands of a bureaucratic military-industrial complex, an extremely powerful and centralized secret police force. Big negative for the Nazis.
Solidarity. This means that social bonds arise spontaneously and are truly organic things, and that state interference in civil society should be minimal. But the Nazis, like the Jewish Bolsheviks, were suspicious of free association and herded people into mass organizations like the Hitler Youth and so forth. Ygg had a good thing about Himmler's speech wherein he complained that there just wasn't any German socieity that could police things that the state found itself powerless to administer. I think that Ygg would agree that that Nazis found out too late that you can't centrally plan everything like that, and they have themselves to blame for destroying the organic bonds of German society, especially the omnipresent theft of private property. But private property is one of the most fundamental social institutions, and the fact that the Germans, of all the people in the world, would cease to respect each others property speaks volumes of the damage Nazi mass movements did to organic German society. Note also how little resistance German society gave ZOG after the war - completely unlike the American South, for example, who drove out the Radical Republicans in a couple of decades usuing only ad hoc social organizations like the KKK. Clearly, the Nazis laid a heavy hand on the butterfly wings of social relations, and nobody should be surprised they were broken. Another big negative for the Nazis.
Marriage and Family. This means what it's always traditionally meant, and I think that the Nazis had this basically right. Nazis score a full point.
Private Property. The idea here is that everybody should to the maximum extent possible own the means of their own livelihood, and that private property must be protected. Private property is a social institution as discussed above, and the Nazis failed by their own admission to promote respect for it. In addition, as I said above, vast property was concentrated in the hands of a thoroughly bureaucratized military-industrial complex, which means that it all of those enormous assets were really no property at all. Besides, most men found themselves wage earners in large industries, and not in a position to own the means of production. On the other hand, unlike their Jewish Bolshevik counterparts, the Nazis respected numerous small holdings, small family farms, craftsmen, and so forth, and promoted these things actively. Half a point for the Nazis.
Nationalism. This means that we accept that God ordained that mankind be divided into nations defined by the indicia of blood, culture and territorial sovereignty. Here the Nazis certainly took the right course in protecting their bloodlines (although their methods were more draconian than the situation called for, including forced sterilizations - please correct me if I'm wrong), but they got the other two wrong. First, the Nazis totally disrespected German culture, proceeding under the fanatical assumption that it was okay to discard 1400 years and more of German Christianity. A pagan Germany is no Germany at all. Germany is one of the great nations of history, and the Holy Faith is an integral part of that identity. Big failure there. As to territorial sovereignty, while the Nazis were right to gather those areas where Germans were an oppressed minority, they were absolutely wrong to push it beyond that. Nationalism is a live-and-let-live sort of thing. That Nazis were really a one-way street on that score, and so they weren't anything any self-respecting nationalist could embrace, IMHO. Half a point for the Nazis.
So, the Nazis get 2 out of a possible five, and I'm being generous.
That said, they're a full two points ahead of the Jewish Bolsheviks, who get zeroes across the board.
Franco's Spain and De Valera's Ireland come close to what I'm talking about. Both of them get 4, maybe 5 if I'm in a good mood.
Walter
2004-05-20 17:18 | User Profile
I've never been inclined to make a study of Nazism formally, but I find Walter's observations subtle and cogent--as usual. Given the circumstances that gave rise to it, one could not expect but that it would tend to the severe in various respects.
Walter, you should share your thoughts on distributism with OD, if you haven't before.
2004-05-20 19:01 | User Profile
[QUOTE=Buster]I've never been inclined to make a study of Nazism formally, but I find Walter's observations subtle and cogent--as usual. Given the circumstances that gave rise to it, one could not expect but that it would tend to the severe in various respects.
Walter, you should share your thoughts on distributism with OD, if you haven't before.[/QUOTE]
Thank you for your kind words.
Like you I'm no expert in Nazism, but I think even a passing acquaintace with that ideology suffices to prove that Nazism was all about abosolute dictatorship administering itself via a huge state bureaucratic apparatus that sought to displace all organic social relations with itself. That much seems clear.
They were very much a state-as-society movement, which I think is not what we Americans are about. Nazism stands in direct contradiction to our most cherished American values of individual purpose and autonomy.
I've talked about Distributism on other threads, but I'm realizing that what's needed is a book that weaves all the economic/social/cultural/nationalist threads together into a seamless garment, a sort of Third Positionist Manifesto for our times. I mean, we have Chesterton and Belloc and company, but nobody really ever, as far as I know, put it all together into a single work.
Does anyone know of such a thing?
I hasten to add that writing a Third Positionist Manifesto is a task to which I'm clearly not equal.
Walter
2004-05-20 19:22 | User Profile
[QUOTE=Walter Yannis] I've talked about Distributism on other threads, but I'm realizing that what's needed is a book that weaves all the economic/social/cultural/nationalist threads together into a seamless garment, a sort of Third Positionist Manifesto for our times. I mean, we have Chesterton and Belloc and company, but nobody really ever, as far as I know, put it all together into a single work.
Does anyone know of such a thing?[/QUOTE] Unfortunately, Walter, I am also unaware of any one work that brings all of these complementary ideas together. Although I have not yet read any of his work, I understand that Wilhelm Roepke is another thinker (an economist) whose thought is in line with this. He was originally an Austrian school libertarian, but as his thought matured, he developed the notions of a Third Way and the Humane Economy. This is one area in which the the Distributists and the Southern Agrarians fell down. Both groups were comprised largely of intellectuals, and although they did a great job of providing a theoretical framework, they never really produced a practical plan of action. (Chesterton admitted as much.)
2004-05-20 19:49 | User Profile
I'll vaguely recall those old posts, Walter, now that you mention.
I commend to you both ihspress.com. There are probably one or two clerical social scientists that would come close to providing what you're asking. The problem is that Distributism isn't a system as such. It is more of an ethic. Plus the Keynesians displaced all other (better) schools of thought in economics for several decades, just as Freudians did in psychology.
2004-05-20 20:46 | User Profile
Buster, Yes, IHS Press is an invaluable resource. Not only are they bringing a lot of Catholic Social Doctrine titles back into print, but their group of editors support that doctrine as well. This point was brought home to me a few weeks ago. I purchased "Catholicism, Protestantism, and Capitalism" by Amintore Fanfani from IHS Press. This is a wonderful book, and actually quite brief, although it is densely written. The foreward and introduction provided by IHS Press were fantastic, providing an outline of the man and his thought, and a description of how it fit with Catholic Social Doctrine which was actually sympathetic. A few weeks ago, I bought "Utopia of Usurers" by G.K. Chesterton from some other publishing house, because I found it a bit cheaper on Amazon. Big mistake, as the entire commentary in the volume was trying to make the case that Chesterton only inveighed against capitalism because he didn't understand it, and even more ridiculously, the writer contended that, if Chesterton were to see modern American society, he would find it close to his Distributist ideal! The author's reasoning was that since some people own their own businesses, that must mean our society is Distributist. I had to fight the temptation to rip the commentary out of the book, since it was marring the work itself. Next time, if I want a title and IHS publishes that title, I will buy it from them.
2004-05-20 21:06 | User Profile
[QUOTE=Walter Yannis]The Nazis had a more realistic view of race than is current today, that's for sure.
But as I've written elsewhere here on OD on several occasions, they got just about everything else wrong.
We Catholics believe in:
Subsidiarity. That means that power - economic, political and military - should be devolved to the lowest functional level. But the Nazis believed in the absolute concentration of political power in the hands of one man, industrial might in the hands of a bureaucratic military-industrial complex, an extremely powerful and centralized secret police force. Big negative for the Nazis.
Solidarity. This means that social bonds arise spontaneously and are truly organic things, and that state interference in civil society should be minimal. But the Nazis, like the Jewish Bolsheviks, were suspicious of free association and herded people into mass organizations like the Hitler Youth and so forth. Ygg had a good thing about Himmler's speech wherein he complained that there just wasn't any German socieity that could police things that the state found itself powerless to administer. I think that Ygg would agree that that Nazis found out too late that you can't centrally plan everything like that, and they have themselves to blame for destroying the organic bonds of German society, especially the omnipresent theft of private property. But private property is one of the most fundamental social institutions, and the fact that the Germans, of all the people in the world, would cease to respect each others property speaks volumes of the damage Nazi mass movements did to organic German society. Note also how little resistance German society gave ZOG after the war - completely unlike the American South, for example, who drove out the Radical Republicans in a couple of decades usuing only ad hoc social organizations like the KKK. Clearly, the Nazis laid a heavy hand on the butterfly wings of social relations, and nobody should be surprised they were broken. Another big negative for the Nazis.
Marriage and Family. This means what it's always traditionally meant, and I think that the Nazis had this basically right. Nazis score a full point.
Private Property. The idea here is that everybody should to the maximum extent possible own the means of their own livelihood, and that private property must be protected. Private property is a social institution as discussed above, and the Nazis failed by their own admission to promote respect for it. In addition, as I said above, vast property was concentrated in the hands of a thoroughly bureaucratized military-industrial complex, which means that it all of those enormous assets were really no property at all. Besides, most men found themselves wage earners in large industries, and not in a position to own the means of production. On the other hand, unlike their Jewish Bolshevik counterparts, the Nazis respected numerous small holdings, small family farms, craftsmen, and so forth, and promoted these things actively. Half a point for the Nazis.
Nationalism. This means that we accept that God ordained that mankind be divided into nations defined by the indicia of blood, culture and territorial sovereignty. Here the Nazis certainly took the right course in protecting their bloodlines (although their methods were more draconian than the situation called for, including forced sterilizations - please correct me if I'm wrong), but they got the other two wrong. First, the Nazis totally disrespected German culture, proceeding under the fanatical assumption that it was okay to discard 1400 years and more of German Christianity. A pagan Germany is no Germany at all. Germany is one of the great nations of history, and the Holy Faith is an integral part of that identity. Big failure there. As to territorial sovereignty, while the Nazis were right to gather those areas where Germans were an oppressed minority, they were absolutely wrong to push it beyond that. Nationalism is a live-and-let-live sort of thing. That Nazis were really a one-way street on that score, and so they weren't anything any self-respecting nationalist could embrace, IMHO. Half a point for the Nazis.
So, the Nazis get 2 out of a possible five, and I'm being generous.
That said, they're a full two points ahead of the Jewish Bolsheviks, who get zeroes across the board.
Franco's Spain and De Valera's Ireland come close to what I'm talking about. Both of them get 4, maybe 5 if I'm in a good mood.
Walter[/QUOTE] C for me as well. Almost totally agree with that analysis.
2004-05-20 21:25 | User Profile
C or maybe even D. Why? Two words -- positive Christianity. A heretical abomination that rightly met its deserved fate.
Our people are trying to break the bond set by God. That is human conceit rising against God. In this connection we must warn the Führer, that the adoration frequently bestowed on him is only due to God. Some years ago the Führer objected to having his picture placed on Protestant altars. Today his thoughts are used as a basis not only for political decisions but also for morality and law. He himself is surrounded with the dignity of a priest and even of an intermediary between God and man... We ask that liberty be given to our people to go their way in the future under the sign of the Cross of Christ, in order that our grandsons may not curse their elders on the ground that their elders left them a state on earth that closed to them the Kingdom of God. - Rev. Martin Niemoller
2004-05-20 22:08 | User Profile
Pretty soon you're going to find shirt-buttons to be excessively decorative, Tex.
For my part, I have to side with everyone whose admiration of Hitler is compromised by his embodying total political power over every aspect of German life & culture. Thankfully for Germany's sake, he stopped short at industry. If 20th-century American democracy has taught us anything, it's that entrusting as much power as we do to an elected President is folly at best and perilous at worst. Imagine Bush with the power of a Hitler and you understand why it's best that not even Hitler be given the power of a Hitler.
But if you take his career up until, say, the '36 Olympics? Greatest statesman of the 20th century. And the only statesman who truly loved his [B]people [/B] and not just his country. The 'rightly deserved fate' that fell upon this 'heretical abomination' marked the last time any Westerner could think of [I]his people [/I] and [I]his country [/I] as one and the same.
Yet Hitler inarguably helped lead them to that fate. If he hadn't been fixated with avenging Versailles - if he'd been the Chancellor and not the Fuhrer - the America that died might still alive and well.
PS: Am relishing the irony of one of OD's staunchest Christians composing the title of this thread.
2004-05-20 22:12 | User Profile
[QUOTE=Texas Dissident]C or maybe even D. Why? Two words -- positive Christianity. A heretical abomination that rightly met its deserved fate.[/QUOTE] True. One might recall here that as long as the true faith was strong in Europe, the Jewish problem was limited in scope and no more than an irritant. The problems began with the slow decay in the faith which allowed Jews to work their way to the levers of power.
And the response to this was a Godless Nazism that rejected God and rejected Christianity. Our problems didnt come from Christianity but from our lack of adherence to it.
2004-05-20 22:30 | User Profile
[QUOTE=Peter Phillips]True. One might recall here that as long as the true faith was strong in Europe, the Jewish problem was limited in scope and no more than an irritant. The problems began with the slow decay in the faith which allowed Jews to work their way to the levers of power. [/QUOTE]
The Reformation and the French Revolution. Jews have been loosed upon us since...
2004-05-20 22:45 | User Profile
[QUOTE=Buster]The Reformation...Jews have been loosed upon us since...[/QUOTE]
Here then is the true scandal of the Protestant Reformation. When Christ graciously raised up men within his church to teach her his truth and to call her to repent of her errors, the bishop of Rome refused to do so and dragged many along with him in his persistent rebellion against the Holy Spirit speaking in Scripture. The Reformation did not involve a departure from the historic catholic faith, but rather a recovery of the faith once for all delivered to the saints (Jude 3). The Reformers clarified doctrines that had become murky, for the glory of God and the good of his people.
[url=http://www.fpcjackson.org/resources/apologetics/Covenant%20Theology%20&%20Justification/strangejust.htm]Reformation in the Sixteenth Century[/url]
2004-05-20 22:47 | User Profile
--As far as the distributive issue goes, I would suggest looking outside of Catholicism, and turning to the 16th C Calvinist thinker Althusius (see [url]http://www.constitution.org/alth/alth_pr0.htm[/url]). Another Calvinist to consider here is Calhoun, although he is more concerned with balance of power issues. Also, one might think of the Lutheran Herder, and his romantic nationalism, in the context of distributivism.
--[QUOTE=Valley Forge] C) Now that I'm racially aware, I have a slightly more favorable view of Hitler than in the past, but my overall assessment of the Nazis is still negative.[/QUOTE]
I grew up with a lot of negative views of Hitler owing to family involvment in WWII (we weren't on the Axis side), although as a little kid I was quite taken with the rallies, the uniforms, the Panzer tank, Rommel, the blitzkrieg, etc.
Still, there is no escaping most of the points made by Walter or Texas Dissident. I would ask, though, what exactly TD finds abominable about 'positive Christianity.' I don't know very much about Christian-Nazi ideology, you see.
I will say that the Nazi's views were not merely more 'realistic,' but contained some useful prescriptions about racial improvement (which were of course horribly abused), racial unity, and tying Germanic culture to race. Where they went most wrong was in killing so many Jews, and in attacking Russia in the way they did (something attached to the overly anti-Slavic views). Yes, the dictatorial ideology was also horrible, but might have evolved into something more tolerable with a time and a different dictator.
2004-05-20 22:54 | User Profile
Hitler lead Germany into suicide.
2004-05-20 23:21 | User Profile
[QUOTE=Happy Hacker]Hitler lead Germany into suicide.[/QUOTE] I strongly agree. I've never liked him. Since two years back I'm a firm "denier" of the Holohoax. Not one single jew were exterminated in any extermination-program. But I still don't like Mr Hitler.
Nationalists (I'm one myself) seem to have a fatal weakness for losers, and what a loser this guy was ! He takes the prize ! Not to talk about all the sufferings his brainless politics brought on his own people. I doubt this guy had a brain. He was easily tricked by the jews (lead like a stupid dog) into WWII, the greatest disaster ever together with the russian revolution.
2004-05-20 23:36 | User Profile
[QUOTE=darkstar]I would ask, though, what exactly TD finds abominable about 'positive Christianity.' [/QUOTE]
A decent little article that hits the high points here:
[url=http://www.patriotist.com/dbarch/db20030721.htm]Karl Barth and the German Church Conflict[/url]
2004-05-20 23:51 | User Profile
[QUOTE=Happy Hacker]Hitler lead Germany into suicide.[/QUOTE]
This argument makes no sense.
Throughout the 20s and early 30s, Jews were working overtime to spread Bolshevism from Russia to Germany (and the rest of Europe).
Would it have been better to wait for Stalin to attack?
2004-05-20 23:55 | User Profile
[QUOTE=Balder]I strongly agree. I've never liked him. Since two years back I'm a firm "denier" of the Holohoax. Not one single jew were exterminated in any extermination-program. But I still don't like Mr Hitler.
Nationalists (I'm one myself) seem to have a fatal weakness for losers, and what a loser this guy was ! He takes the prize ! Not to talk about all the sufferings his brainless politics brought on his own people. I doubt this guy had a brain. He was easily tricked by the jews (lead like a stupid dog) into WWII, the greatest disaster ever together with the russian revolution.[/QUOTE]
So the Jews wanted Hitler to attack and come within a hair's width of defeating Soviet Russia and crushing Bolshevism? Why would the Jews want that?
2004-05-21 00:09 | User Profile
[QUOTE=Walter Yannis]I hasten to add that writing a Third Positionist Manifesto is a task to which I'm clearly not equal.[/QUOTE]
Maybe not Walter.
Even if you don't think you can do the topic justice, you could still probably do a very credible job.
At the end of the day, I think that creating a Third Position Manifesto that is imperfect by your standards would still be a big step in the right direction, given that what we have available right now is nothing.
2004-05-21 00:26 | User Profile
[QUOTE=darkstar]Where they went most wrong was in killing so many Jews
That never happened.
and in attacking Russia in the way they did (something attached to the overly anti-Slavic views).[/QUOTE]
I agree with you here. All he had to do was set up a puppet state in Kiev, and he would have won. He let anti-Russian bigotry cloud his tactical judgment.
2004-05-21 00:27 | User Profile
Denying Paul's writings to be scripture is indeed heretical. But these others points the article quotes from Barth are way off base--there is nothing heretical in claiming the 'German Volkstum' to be another 'revelation.' All of the world is God's revelation. It is just that only Scripture is special revelation -- that revelation needed to bring humanity to Christ.
Perhaps this is a rather Roman Catholic thought, but I take it to be correct and not incomptable with Lutheran or Calvinist thinking.
[QUOTE=Texas Dissident]A decent little article that hits the high points here:
[url=http://www.patriotist.com/dbarch/db20030721.htm]Karl Barth and the German Church Conflict[/url][/QUOTE]
2004-05-21 03:36 | User Profile
Walter Yannis
A highly ignorant contribution.
You certainly are no expert on Germany - its History or Leaders. I suggest you stick firmly with your prejudicial view; for it is an utter irrelevance.
I notice you use the universal 'We'. So, you believe yourself to be a representative of what you think you know. Yes?
Do not make stupid assumptions based on mistaken beliefs. If you are able and willing; go through your 'points' once again. Reappraise them. I will assist you. I will inform you how your religion of the herd, and your adherence to it, like the meek and stupid, but also the criminal, betrayed what was vital and life-enhancing. You deny the Pagan but worship the Priest? Or is it the icon of the Priest? Liars and perpetrators of falsehoods?
You have zero marks. Try again.
2004-05-21 04:06 | User Profile
AntiYuppie
I cannot agree with your concluding assertion.
It matters little if the Irish went to arms against Britain at that time. You must be aware of that. And they did nothing. They can plant bombs. But they cannot fight. They have no discipline and fear an enemy in uniform.
The German Army would determine the future of Britain and Europe. But the Leader of Germany allowed the British army to escape Dunkirk. This was Hitler's downfall - his greatest error. That was the defining moment.
A mistake that caused, in effect, the military defeat of the fatherland.
**
2004-05-21 04:16 | User Profile
Mentzer, Walt has no idea what Europe was like in Hitler's time. He speaks of it as if Hitler was sitting around a Munich park one day and suddenly decided to impose himself on the world. No man is perfect but Hitler certainly had more brains and courage, combined, than any American - or anybody else - in the past century, Popes included.
2004-05-21 04:24 | User Profile
Ruffin
I agree.
Mentzer.
2004-05-21 04:51 | User Profile
[QUOTE=Valley Forge]I even admired Hitler during my color blind conservative phase, though in public, I'm now embarassed to say, I'd parrot the standard anti-Nazi garbage right along with the rest of the herd. ....
...D) Count me with the Jews VF -- Hitler is one the most evil men to ever live.[/QUOTE] You're options are somewhat limited VF. Try an E) Count me against the Jews VF -- Hitler is one the most evil men to ever live.
By contrast with your story, I admit that at one time I pandered to the man to a certain extent. Live and learn. Like most germans who experienced the era, and echoing Strasser, I believe the Hitler fetish did almost as much to destroy, Germany, Nationalism, and the West as it would have if the Communists had come to power instead. I'm not "parroting the standard anti-Nazi garbage" and you shouldn't think that.
Hitlerism is "An Infantile Disease". I see no reason to dwell on the past, and see the temptations to do so as a lot more nefarious than might first appear, such as with "Triskelion". Its time to move on.
2004-05-21 05:06 | User Profile
[QUOTE=Buster]I'll vaguely recall those old posts, Walter, now that you mention.
I commend to you both ihspress.com. There are probably one or two clerical social scientists that would come close to providing what you're asking. The problem is that Distributism isn't a system as such. It is more of an ethic. Plus the Keynesians displaced all other (better) schools of thought in economics for several decades, just as Freudians did in psychology.[/QUOTE]
Buster, Quantrill: I'm aware of IHS press and just read their re-print of Amintore Fanfani's book.
It really is an interesting phenomenon, isn't it? Distributism has a group of intellectual heavyweights behind it like no other, vast practical experience of putting these ideas into action including especially the Mandragon Cooperatives, and (at least in theory) the support of the one billion member Roman Catholic Church, and nobody's ever heard of Distributism.
Amazing!
How do we snatch defeat from the jaws of victory like that?
We definitely need a Third Positionist Manifesto - I wonder who could write such a thing (VF - thanks for your vote of confidence, but I'm really just not that smart). Too bad Yggdrasil isn't a Third Positionist. Say, now there's an idea . . .
Walter
2004-05-21 05:15 | User Profile
[QUOTE]As for Nazism politically, I find it to be a very mixed bag. Unlike many here, I have no objection to Nazi economic policy, indeed I see in Nazism a viable "third position" alternative to plutocracy and Marxist socialism that could and should be emulated elsewhere. And while I may not agree with how some NS racial policies were implemented, I also recognize that there are innately incompatible groups of people that should be separated lest one destroy the other.[/QUOTE]
AY: it seems to me that you're glossing over the state-as-society aspects of Nazism. All power concentrated in a single dictator? Most of the economy run via bureaucratic fiat?
Not to mention the reduction of free churches to charges of the state.
The Nazis were statists, and the state is the enemy, at least in an ultimate sense. Always has been. God didn't want Israel to have a king, you know.
Perhaps I misunderstand your position on those things, but I was assuming you were something of a libertarian. Same for the esteemed Ruffin, whose rightful admiration for Southern traditions of individual freedom would seem to to be in the teeth of Nazi regimentation.
Walter
2004-05-21 05:33 | User Profile
[QUOTE]But if you take his career up until, say, the '36 Olympics? Greatest statesman of the 20th century. And the only statesman who truly loved his people and not just his country. The 'rightly deserved fate' that fell upon this 'heretical abomination' marked the last time any Westerner could think of his people and his country as one and the same.
Yet Hitler inarguably helped lead them to that fate. If he hadn't been fixated with avenging Versailles - if he'd been the Chancellor and not the Fuhrer - the America that died might still alive and well.[/QUOTE]
I agree with that. I think that had Hitler stopped with the Sudentland (which he had a right to take) then he would have gone down in history as equal to Barbarossa. But that was not to be.
You know, I purchased a PBS series on 20th century Chinese history. Pretty good, I recommend renting it. Anyway, it seems that Mao did a similar thing. He bravely endured battle after battle, and fought the Japanese in Manchuria with his bare hands while Chiang cowered in his palace. Then he drove out the hopelessly corrupt Chaing regime and united all of China. He instituted mass educational campaings, began a health service, etc. He knew that China was a peasant society, and so he turned the peasants loose to produce food, and China's horrors seemed to be coming to an end.
Then he saw that all of this was threatening his power, and he decided to collectivize agriculture, steal the food from the peasants, sell it to Soviet Russia for machine parts, and let the peasants die. Millions and millions starved to death. That was the Great Leap Forward.
Then when that horror subsided and he saw he was losing power again, he launched the Cultural Revolution, and consciously tore the heart out of China's ancient social order. Countless numbers died and were imprisoned.
Had Mao contented himself with presiding over a country of hardworking peasant families (Chinese-like, the farm cooperatives were based around extended families, it was really interesting) slowly raising themselves from absolute poverty, then he would have rightly taken his place as the greatest leader China ever produced. Sadly, with both Mao and Hitler, the problem was one that Mao had simply too much power, and despite their obvious genius, they simply couldn't be trusted with it.
We have a similar situation in our country, where a few hundred CEO's of large corporations essentially dicatate the terms of our lives to us - but of course as you say none of them has the concentrated power of a Hitler.
So, your analysis is absolutely on target. The central idea of Distributism is that power is dangerous, and must be devolved. The notion is to avoid vast concentrations of state power and economic wealth in too few hands - "to limit the pride of fallen man" as the Catechism puts it. All of the pillars of Catholic social thought are directed toward that goal.
Walter
2004-05-21 05:48 | User Profile
[QUOTE=Happy Hacker]Hitler lead Germany into suicide.[/QUOTE]
I agree.
He opened a second (actually, third) front by invading Russia, this despite the prior experience of the Poles, Swedes and French. He never had a chance.
Hubris is a very human condition. The problem is that the Germans gave one man all political power, and provided no check on Hitler's inherent megalomania.
Walter
2004-05-21 13:51 | User Profile
[QUOTE=Valley Forge]So the Jews wanted Hitler to attack and come within a hair's width of defeating Soviet Russia and crushing Bolshevism? Why would the Jews want that?[/QUOTE] I don't have any moral objections against Hitlers attack on the Sovietunion. It was fully justified, and I wish he had won. But I don't think Hitler was near defeating Stalin. If he had taken Moskow it would not have made any difference.
And you give one of the main reasons in your next post:
[QUOTE] I agree with you here. All he had to do was set up a puppet state in Kiev, and he would have won. He let anti-Russian bigotry cloud his tactical judgment. [/QUOTE] And again by Antiyuppie:
[QUOTE] My main objections to Nazi policy stem from the way the occupying Germans treated their subject nations in Eastern Europe. Many Poles, Balts, Ukrainians, and Serbian Chetniks would have happily fought against the Bolsheviks alongside the Nazis had it not been for Himmler's bigotry towards them. The SS vision was to turn all Eastern European territories into a nation of helots, only to be surprised when these same people cut their losses and threw their lot with the Red Army instead. [/QUOTE] The only way Hitler could have won the war on the eastern front was to create a russian civil war. It could easily have been done with a wiser policy. The russians were certainly no Stalinlovers. And remember millions of russians helped the german army as Hiwis. And the Vlassowarmy came in much to late to make any difference.
[QUOTE] The German Army would determine the future of Britain and Europe. But the Leader of Germany allowed the British army to escape Dunkirk. This was Hitler's downfall - his greatest error. That was the defining moment. [/QUOTE] Huh..? Yes, it was a mistake, and was done of chivalry. But it could not possibly have had any significance on the outcome of WWII.
2004-05-21 14:28 | User Profile
[QUOTE]I don't have any moral objections against Hitlers attack on the Sovietunion. It was fully justified, and I wish he had won. But I don't think Hitler was near defeating Stalin. If he had taken Moskow it would not have made any difference.[/QUOTE]
I agree. Hitler, like Napolean and King Charles of Sweden, just didn't get it.
You know, Europeans generally have no intuitive grasp on the size of big countries like the United States. I remember back in my Navy days I met a couple of Brits on holiday in San Diego in a bar, and they told me that they were renting a car, driving to San Francisco, then to the Grand Canyon, on to Austin, then New Orleans, down to Miami, and then up to DC and New York. I asked them how long they were planning for all this, and they said "one week."
Man. I mean, they just didn't have a clue.
For Russia take that and multiply it times three.
I've spent years in the USSR and Russia, and even an American like me has a hard time grasping just how vast this country is. Just to give you an idea, it's covers eleven time zones. Eleven. I flown many times from Moscow to Vladivostok 9 hours while never crossing an international border. Stalin was expecting a war, you know, and they'd managed to evacuate a lot of the industry and population out to the Urals and beyond. But Uncle Joe knew they'd never get as far as the Urals. The freeking country is just to big and impenatrable. The climate is miserable, the roads were (often still are) mud tracks. The population was - what? - three times the size of Germany's, and they were trained to fight and work in industry. They had unlimited natural resources and an enormous industrial base.
Sure the Russians aren't the equals of the Germans in terms of logistics, organization, and maybe even discipline (although man for man you just can't beat Ivan for being one tough SOB, IMHO), but surely even a drooling idiot could see that the combined armies of Europe couldn't move the Russians much beyond the Volga.
I agree that the Nazis had a chance to get the locals (especially the Ukrainians) on their side and probably could have succeeded in realizing their "living space" goal, but their anit-Slav ideology got in the way of even that more modest goal. There was NO WAY IN HELL they were going to take and hold the Soviet Union, even the European parts in the best of circumstances, much less when a whole other front remained open.
It was pure hubris to even try. The stupidity of Operation Barbarossa speaks volumes about why we don't need the Nazis and their loser ideology.
They're losers and consequently have nothing to offer our movement (unless we want to be losers like them, which I don't).
Forget them.
Walter
2004-05-21 16:27 | User Profile
[QUOTE]So the Jews wanted Hitler to attack and come within a hair's width of defeating Soviet Russia and crushing Bolshevism? Why would the Jews want that?[/QUOTE]
This part of history is very obscured, and intentionally so, but Jews understood that Stalin wasn't their friend after 1937 and his decimation of the the so-called "Old Bolsheviks."
Who were those Old Bolsheviks that Uncle Joe was putting up against the nearest wall? Well, they were nearly to a man Jews.
And that's a very painful fact of history that the Tribe would prefer remain unmentioned, for then all sorts of conclusions might be drawn about who created the GULAG, persecuted the Christian Church more savagely than Nero, and intentionally starved six million (that number again!) to death in the Ukraine 1928-1933.
My take on it is, in broad outlines, the Russians and other Slavs were making their move behind the scenes to save themselves from Jewish-sponsored genocide called the Collectivization of Agriculture, and the crafty old Georgian Josip Dzhugashvili (Stalin) was consolidating his own power by playing one group off the other.
If memory serves, Trotsky (Bronshtein) wrote in his biography of Stalin something to the effect that the thing you need to understand about Stalin is that he was from the Caucus Mountains with its myriad tribes, and he thought like a Caucus Mountains tribesman. In other words, he thought tribally, like Jews, and so was immune to their universalist propaganda. His insistence on "Socialism in One Country" as opposed to Trotsky's "World Revolution" should be understood in terms of a home-boy Georgian who didn't have a lot to gain by going abroad and a very Cosmopolitain Jew who did. I didn't get the allusion when I read that at university, but it seems pretty clear what that meant now. I should re-read that, actually, I wonder what I'd make of it now.
I think that Jews in the know understood that they had basically been pushed from power in the Soviet Union, made abundantly clear by the assassination of the Jewish national hero, Trotsky/Bronshtein.
Of course, it's clearly a huge step from that to the notion that they somehow backed up the Nazis in their plans to invade, but the ever-paranoid Tribesman Henry Makow seems to believe exactly that (so that Israel could be born to serve Zionist money interests). Maybe, but it sounds like a stretch to me.
Walter
2004-05-21 17:35 | User Profile
[quote=AntiYuppie]had it not been for Himmler's bigotry towards them...
Cronyism was a major failing of Hitler's (and a lotta other politicos as well). While I admire that Hitler had loyalty to even his less-than-stellar comrades from the "old days," I really think that had Germany had better leaders in important positions, such as Galland in charge of the Luftwaffe instead of the debauched Goering, they would have stood a much better chance. The appointment of Himmler, or "Reichsheinie" as the troops called him, was a huge mistake. Himmler had some, eccentricities shall we say, even beyond the usual Jewish demonization, that made him a very poor choice to head the SS, which, theoretically, was supposed to represent the Aryan ideal.
A sort of Rumsfeld or McNamara for his day, I suppose.
2004-05-21 18:36 | User Profile
Sorry Walter, but survival trumps freedom; hence unfree negroes in the free South. When you're surrounded and outnumbered by men who intend to wipe your kind out, the delicacies often have to wait. Jeff Davis learned this the hard way, and wrote about the problem in his book. Hitler knew it beforehand.
2004-05-21 18:47 | User Profile
[QUOTE=Walter Yannis]Same for the esteemed Ruffin, whose rightful admiration for Southern traditions of individual freedom would seem to to be in the teeth of Nazi regimentation.[/QUOTE]
[QUOTE=Ruffin]Sorry Walter, but survival trumps freedom; hence unfree negroes in the free South. When you're surrounded and outnumbered by men who intend to wipe your kind out, the delicacies often have to wait. Jeff Davis learned this the hard way, and wrote about the problem in his book. Hitler knew it beforehand.[/QUOTE]
This begs the rhetorical question, is it any better or worse to be locked away in a ZOG-run gulag versus one run by a nazi totalitarian dictator? I know the latter didn't benefit Bonhoeffer, for example.
2004-05-21 18:57 | User Profile
[QUOTE=Texas Dissident]This begs the rhetorical question, is it any better or worse to be locked away in a ZOG-run gulag versus one run by a nazi totalitarian dictator? I know the latter didn't benefit Bonhoeffer, for example.[/QUOTE]
Well, I think the assumption is that under the Nazis people like us wouldn't be the ones sent to the gulags. The gulags would be reserved for the George Will's of the world. On the other hand, maybe I'm just being naive. In light of the vile ravings of an Alex Linder, maybe it's not implausible that traditional Christians like us would be the first ones on the box cars.
2004-05-21 19:10 | User Profile
[QUOTE=Mentzer]AntiYuppie
I cannot agree with your concluding assertion.
It matters little if the Irish went to arms against Britain at that time. You must be aware of that. And they did nothing. They can plant bombs. But they cannot fight. They have no discipline and fear an enemy in uniform.
The German Army would determine the future of Britain and Europe. But the Leader of Germany allowed the British army to escape Dunkirk. This was Hitler's downfall - his greatest error. That was the defining moment.
A mistake that caused, in effect, the military defeat of the fatherland.
**[/QUOTE]
I don't know about that. According to David Irving's book Hitler's War, one of Hitler's main goals throughout the late 30s and early 40s was establishing a lasting peace with Britain. Hitler sought to do this, according to Irving, by winning over the British aristocracy. This may have been a factor in why he allowed the British army to escape -- he kept hoping that the infleuntial aristocracts would come over to his side. Needless to say, that never happened -- plutocrats don't side with low ranking corporals from working class families. So it seems to me that AY's analysis is largely correct -- Hitler had more in common with working class slavs than he did with British aristocrats, and he probably had a much better chance of winning over the former than the latter.
2004-05-22 00:33 | User Profile
maybe it's not implausible that traditional Christians like us would be the first ones on the box cars.
As far as I know, the only Christians who were "rounded up" and shipped to a Nazi-run concentration camp were leftist Catholics who were complaining -- in public -- that Nazi racial policy did not dovetail with their "all humans are equal" dogma.
[Edited slightly]
2004-05-22 00:51 | User Profile
[QUOTE=Walter Yannis]He opened a second (actually, third) front by invading Russia, this despite the prior experience of the Poles, Swedes and French. He never had a chance.[/QUOTE]
I think David Irving did a good job of getting into Hitler's head in his Hitler's War. To Hitler, it looked like the Russians massing on the boarder were going to invade at any time. If he didn't beat them to it then he'd wind up in retreat before any offensive could be staged. Furthermore, it completely baffled Hitler why the west would side with Stalin against him. Hitler's view was that "Hey! Let me (Nazi Germany) be your buffer state against the Commies. I'll go to war to save the world from communism so you don't have to." He had hoped for at least grudging acceptance of Germany's mission if not enthusiasm. Pat Buchanan says we should have let Hitler do it for us. What was Poland to the Brits anyway?
2004-05-22 00:53 | User Profile
[QUOTE=Franco]As far as I know, the only Christians who were "rounded up" and shipped to a Nazi-run concentration camp were leftist Catholics who were complaining -- in public -- that Nazi racial policy did not dovetail with their "all humans are equal" dogma.
[Edited slightly]
-------[/QUOTE]
Franco,
My main concern is with modern Nazis, and in particular, what a Linder government, or an NA government, would do to Christians -- all Christians -- if they ever came to power.
According to the NA, Christianity is an "alien ideology" that has no place in an Aryan society. And as a matter of fact, I saw this viewpoint represented quite crudely when I visited the VNN forum the other day for the first time in a long time, and I ran across a particularly vile post by long time NA leader Fred Streed in which he belittled people who worship "dead kikes on a stick."
Dead kikes on a stick.
Yeah...and we're supposed to work with these people?
Come on.
And Streed was one of Pierce's most trusted leaders. Probably, Streed was just voicing Pierce's viewpoint -- as far as I know, no one in the NA has ever denied or refuted the widely known claim that Dr. Pierce favored dropping all White people who didn't agree with him into an abandoned coal mine. So clearly, from a Christian perspective, some serious skepticism of contemporary Nazism is definitely in order.
2004-05-22 01:06 | User Profile
[QUOTE=Feric Jaggar]I think David Irving did a good job of getting into Hitler's head in his Hitler's War. To Hitler, it looked like the Russians massing on the boarder were going to invade at any time. If he didn't beat them to it then he'd wind up in retreat before any offensive could be staged. Furthermore, it completely baffled Hitler why the west would side with Stalin against him. Hitler's view was that "Hey! Let me (Nazi Germany) be your buffer state against the Commies. I'll go to war to save the world from communism so you don't have to." He had hoped for at least grudging acceptance of Germany's mission if not enthusiasm. Pat Buchanan says we should have let Hitler do it for us. What was Poland to the Brits anyway?[/QUOTE]
Irving writes that Hitler wanted to by pass Moscow completely and instead concentrate on taking over oil fields and resources. But the general in charge of that Army group cared more about obtaining a "prestige" victory than actually forcing to Stalin to surrender. Hitler had many factors working against him that were beyond his control.
2004-05-22 01:43 | User Profile
[QUOTE=Valley Forge]So clearly, from a Christian perspective, some serious skepticism of contemporary Nazism is definitely in order.[/QUOTE]
Much more than skepticism, VF. Outright, serious resistance at any cost if you ask me. For whether original or contemporary, nazism's neo-pagan, totalitarianism is critically part and parcel of its ideology. Just like in 1930s Germany, it will invariably make every effort to control and distort Christ's true Church and that is an intolerable situation for any true Christian.
Some links of interest on the subject:
[url]http://forums.originaldissent.com/showthread.php?t=7604[/url]
[url]http://forums.originaldissent.com/showthread.php?t=6451[/url]
[url]http://forums.originaldissent.com/showthread.php?t=13574[/url]
2004-05-22 03:30 | User Profile
[QUOTE=Texas Dissident]Much more than skepticism, VF. Outright, serious resistance at any cost if you ask me. For whether original or contemporary, nazism's neo-pagan, totalitarianism is critically part and parcel of its ideology. Just like in 1930s Germany, it will invariably make every effort to control and distort Christ's true Church and that is an intolerable situation for any true Christian.
Well, again, whether we're talking about the contemporary incarnation, or the original version, it's important to keep in mind that 1) there are different strains of National Socialism, and 2) not all National Socialists buy into the Pierce/Linder view of Christianity. For example, Yggdrasil, Don Black, and David Duke would all probably self-describe as National Socialists, or as highly sympathetic to National Socialism, and no one in that group has ever expressed an interest in distorting the Church so far as I know. This is a factor that you, Walter, and Okie persist in ignoring -- that there are different strains, flavors, and currents within National Socialism just like there are different strains within conservatism or any other political ideology.
2004-05-22 03:32 | User Profile
[QUOTE=Texas Dissident]
[url]http://forums.originaldissent.com/showthread.php?t=7604[/url]
[url]http://forums.originaldissent.com/showthread.php?t=6451[/url]
[url]http://forums.originaldissent.com/showthread.php?t=13574[/url][/QUOTE]
Thanks for the links; I'll have look tomorrow.
You may very well be right on this point, Tex. I'm still thinking about it.
You were certainly right about Linder, and I was dead wrong; that's for sure.
2004-05-22 05:35 | User Profile
[QUOTE=Texas Dissident]This begs the rhetorical question, is it any better or worse to be locked away in a ZOG-run gulag versus one run by a nazi totalitarian dictator? I know the latter didn't benefit Bonhoeffer, for example.[/QUOTE]
A rapier shot to the chest, Tex.
Touche!
2004-05-22 12:55 | User Profile
[QUOTE=Texas Dissident]Much more than skepticism, VF. Outright, serious resistance at any cost if you ask me. For whether original or contemporary, nazism's neo-pagan, totalitarianism is critically part and parcel of its ideology. Just like in 1930s Germany, it will invariably make every effort to control and distort Christ's true Church and that is an intolerable situation for any true Christian.
Some links of interest on the subject:
[url="http://forums.originaldissent.com/showthread.php?t=7604"]http://forums.originaldissent.com/showthread.php?t=7604[/url]
[url="http://forums.originaldissent.com/showthread.php?t=6451"]http://forums.originaldissent.com/showthread.php?t=6451[/url]
[url="http://forums.originaldissent.com/showthread.php?t=13574"]http://forums.originaldissent.com/showthread.php?t=13574[/url][/QUOTE] I'm a newbie here and I have noticed that a lot of you fellows are christian. I think we have a wide cultural gap here and I fear a unbridgeable gulf between European and American nationalists. As you probably can see by my name I consider myself being pagan, but there is no big deal, I'm basicly an atheist. And I hold the view that christianity is an alien, non-european, [u]Jewish[/u] religion that do not belong in an european society.
[QUOTE] Dead kikes on a stick.[/QUOTE] One should not mock other peoples religions, but this one is hard to resist. And it is exactly what you guys worship, taken away the holiness and the hokus-pokus. Surely you could do better than that. What do we pagans have to offer? Well, we have a variety of love and beauty godesess to worship. Unfortunatly, not on a stick. Surely, that beats a "dead kike on a stick".
2004-05-22 13:44 | User Profile
[QUOTE]Surely, that beats a "dead kike on a stick".[/QUOTE]
After years of being characterized as someone who casually uses phrases like that (simply because I don't ascribe to the faith) it is extremely disheartening to actually find an idiot who [I]will [/I] volunteer such divisive and inflammatory bile - and as a how-do-you-do, no less!
A Wal-mart's worth of tree-gods and wood-sprites are without fail infinitely less potent and far more laughable than the Christian model. The power of a God relates directly to the number of believers and the intensity of their belief; thus, while Xtianity and Paganism are both irrational belief-systems, [I]you [/I] guys are more akin to the boolies in the African jungle in terms of your aggregate numbers, dimness and impact on the world around you. The only plus to paganism is nailing Goth chicks; hope you're bagging your share.
2004-05-22 14:44 | User Profile
Ragman: Your defense of Christian sensibilities is much appreciated.
On the Goth subject, my 16 year old daughter filled me in on the Goth thing. They wear black clothes and eye shadow and listen to Marilyn Manson. This is all news to me. There are other identity groups now, including skaters (we really didn't have them back when I was a kid).
I feel so damned old sometimes.
Walter
2004-05-22 15:35 | User Profile
Walter, Can you explain a little more about what you mean by the Third Position? One of the reasons I keep looking for redeeming qualities in NS is because I view NS as the only real alternative to paleoconservatism and neocon/plutocracy/globalism and various left ideologies.
2004-05-22 15:36 | User Profile
This begs the rhetorical question, is it any better or worse to be locked away in a ZOG-run gulag versus one run by a nazi totalitarian dictator? I know the latter didn't benefit Bonhoeffer, for example.
I assumed Walter was referring to the governmental structure under Hitler when he talked of "unfree", since y'all really seem to believe it was less free than most systems have been (It wasn't, but you'll never admit such). If you're talking about being locked up in a gulag then you're wrong. German "totalitarianism" was better, because it kept Germans free and locked up the anti-Germans. America otoh kills anti-Jews and lets roam anti-Americans. If you can point to German exceptions, then they're exactly that.
2004-05-22 15:46 | User Profile
[QUOTE=Texas Dissident]Much more than skepticism, VF. Outright, serious resistance at any cost if you ask me. For whether original or contemporary, nazism's neo-pagan, totalitarianism is critically part and parcel of its ideology. Just like in 1930s Germany, it will invariably make every effort to control and distort Christ's true Church and that is an intolerable situation for any true Christian.[/QUOTE]
Christianity got a WHOLE LOT more respect in 30s Germany than it has in the past century in America. While the leadership in both countries paid lip service to it, the latter has actually put it to the service of anti-Christianity. Hitler had no reason to do such a thing, and didn't, whatever his personal views.
2004-05-22 16:35 | User Profile
[QUOTE=Valley Forge]Well, again, whether we're talking about the contemporary incarnation, or the original version, it's important to keep in mind that 1) there are different strains of National Socialism, and 2) not all National Socialists buy into the Pierce/Linder view of Christianity.
True enough, VF.....in theory at least. Of course this touches on what Okie was trying to get a firm handle on from the mild-mannered triskelion. That is, what kind of heirarchy and/or levels of tolerance would be permitted in his 'organic, folkish, nationalist state.' Push come to shove, and it did in case you missed it, I would argue (others would disagree) the same baseline totalitarian streak eventually shines through. The State, race or 'folk' is a jealous god and the state is the god of national socialism. I don't see any way to get around that, but granted I'm no scholar on the subject either.
For example, Yggdrasil, Don Black, and David Duke would all probably self-describe as National Socialists, or as highly sympathetic to National Socialism,
Perhaps those gentlemen will come here and we can discuss it.
What the Nazi party and Hitler tried to do to the Christian Church in 1930s Germany is a very easily grasped, readily available historical witness of national socialist totalitarianism and that is why I referenced it here.
The bottom line is that as a White, Southron American I don't like the State. Wait, that's too mild...I detest the State. Realizing it is a necessary evil in some functions i.e. tariffs, levies, etc., I just can't see giving it any more power than it already is acquiring. Some argue that there is nothing 'bad' about a state that is serving one's interest, but I'm not so sure about that. The track record is not good and I'm of the opinion that you can't make an honest deal with the devil.
2004-05-22 16:40 | User Profile
[QUOTE=Ruffin]I assumed Walter was referring to the governmental structure under Hitler when he talked of "unfree", since y'all really seem to believe it was less free than most systems have been (It wasn't, but you'll never admit such). If you're talking about being locked up in a gulag then you're wrong. German "totalitarianism" was better, because it kept Germans free and locked up the anti-Germans. America otoh kills anti-Jews and lets roam anti-Americans. If you can point to German exceptions, then they're exactly that.[/QUOTE]
Ruffin:
I think you're misunderstanding me.
I agree with the positive points you identify in Nazism - I identified a few above.
For all their bad points, they weren't the Jewish Bolsheviks, which only stand to reason, because unlike the Jewish Bolsheviks the German Nazis identified with the majority group at home. The Jewish Bolsheviks were a dictatorship of a small minority upon a large host population that they despised and wanted to kill off. In contrast, the German Nazis purported to love the German people, and they certainly weren't trying to actively kill of the Germans as the Jewish Bolsheviks were trying to murder the Slavs.
The German Nazis were more like the Jewish Bolsheviks when viewed from the point of view of some of the countries they conquered - they saw their subject peoples as expendable resources, which is one of the big reasons they got so utterly creamed.
But none of that is the question under discussion here (at least as I understand it), which is whether and to what extent (if any) we American nationalists can look to Nazism as a model. The answer to that question is, to my mind at least, clearly that we can't gain anything from the Nazis, except maybe by way of negative example.
Our deepest national tendencies as Americans have to do with society prevailing over the state, individual autonomy, and a overarching sense of individual purpose and responsibility. Nazism, with its militaristic regimentation of all levels of society via an omnipresent state apparatus touching every aspect of a man's life, directly contradicts our traditional American view of the proper balance between state and society.
The Nazis are all about the state as society. We're all about society ruling itself, and in the course of that self-rule instituting a state to get a few things done here and there. The Nazis are heirs to Prussia, after all, while we're the heirs of Washington Indeed, America was born fighting Hessian mercenaries who worked for a Hanoverian king, right? We always were the enemies of everythiing they stood for.
Americanism and Nazism couldn't be more completely opposed to each other, and I fail to see why any American would look to them - failures that they are - for guidance and inspiration.
Regards,
Walter
2004-05-22 16:45 | User Profile
[QUOTE=Valley Forge]Walter, Can you explain a little more about what you mean by the Third Position? One of the reasons I keep looking for redeeming qualities in NS is because I view NS as the only real alternative to paleoconservatism and neocon/plutocracy/globalism and various left ideologies.[/QUOTE]
[URL=http://filebox.vt.edu/users/araughle/Soc%203304/Web%20Page/3rd%20Position/Introduction%20to%20the%20Third%20Position.htm]Link.[/URL]
[URL=http://www.PoliticalSoldier.net]Political Soldier[/URL] (this is the English group that publishes Final Conflict and who think the BNP are pussies. They like the Nazis too much for my taste, but they are otherwise staunchly Chestertonian)
The [URL=http://www.splcenter.org/intel/intelreport/article.jsp?sid=208]SPLC[/URL] kindly provided a handy list of other links.
Here's a good English [URL=http://www.englandfirst.net/]link [/URL] with a handy political platform.
Walter
2004-05-22 16:51 | User Profile
[QUOTE=Ruffin]Christianity got a WHOLE LOT more respect in 30s Germany than it has in the past century in America.
I completely agree. Both 1930s Germany and 21st Century American Empire find the State trying to bend the Church to do it's bidding. It will fail here and now for the same reasons it did back then.
While the leadership in both countries paid lip service to it, the latter has actually put it to the service of anti-Christianity. Hitler had no reason to do such a thing, and didn't, whatever his personal views.[/QUOTE]
Debatable, I'm sure. I think 'positive Christianity' is just as anti-Christian as 'Christian Zionism.' One may counter by saying at least the former was in service to the race. Looking back now, I don't think that case can be made based on the real, historical results.
2004-05-22 17:02 | User Profile
So, in your opinion, Tex, a state that considers its people the most sacred thing is as bad as a state that considers all other people more sacred than its own? Nevermind that the state you detest so much was in a state of anarchy and seige at the time it chose to try to survive rather than be thought "free" by unfree Amerikans who serve Israel and are forced to integrate with blacks.
Never in the history of white men has any nation been so regimented and submissive to authority as those in "the land of the free and the home of the brave". But it's preferable, since they're permitted, to a certain extent, to think of their nation as Christian?
Tex, I get the feeling that you resent Hitler's Germany for demonstrating that their volk ideology was able to throw off the serpents while neither servile democracy nor Christianity has been able to, and that this is why men like Okie and Walt constantly harangue against that which they wish they could obtain, Allied intervention aside.
2004-05-22 17:06 | User Profile
Debatable, I'm sure. I think 'positive Christianity' is just as anti-Christian as 'Christian Zionism.' One may counter by saying at least the former was in service to the race. Looking back now, I don't think that case can be made based on the real, historical results.
What historical results? That the "Christian" west joined with the anti-Christian east in destroying our people and ancient homeland?
2004-05-22 17:43 | User Profile
[QUOTE=Ruffin]So, in your opinion, Tex, a state that considers its people the most sacred thing is as bad as a state that considers all other people more sacred than its own?
In my opinion, the end result of either will be the same.
Nevermind that the state you detest so much was in a state of anarchy and seige at the time it chose to try to survive rather than be thought "free" by unfree Amerikans who serve Israel and are forced to integrate with blacks.
Hey, I'm not your enemy here, Ruffin. I understand the historical why and believe me, I detest this grotesque, soul-killing monstrosity that is called 'America' as much as you or anyone else. I just don't think national socialism is the answer to our current problems and to implement it would only be trading one devil for another. I still pine for a Confederacy of free, White Christian men and their families.
Tex, I get the feeling that you resent Hitler's Germany for demonstrating that their volk ideology was able to throw off the serpents...
And I don't think they did.
2004-05-22 18:41 | User Profile
Hey, I'm not your enemy here, Ruffin. I detest this grotesque, soul-killing monstrosity that is called 'America' as much as you or anyone else. I just don't think national socialism is the answer to our current problems and to implement it would only be trading one devil for another. I still pine for a Confederacy of free, White Christian men and their families.
I'm not trying to be your enemy either, in a personal sense. But I can't think of any other reason how white men who understand how they're lied to by their leaders can even remotely compare the cause of survival attempted by Hitler, however "undemocratic", with the cause of extinction lead by Jews and enforced by Americans. The situation in Germany in the 30s simply didn't permit freedom-bordering-on-Jewish-anarchy. Hell, America isn't even threatened by any rival powers and the whole country goes into a red alert and "Homeland Security" suspension of "freedom" - for the most part, willingly.
Whether NS is or isn't our best option is a whole different thing, but has nothing to do with its fitness or righteousness in Hitler's Germany, which I see several of you ripping at every turn and equating with racial suicide.
If you think you can institute American-style freedom (the kind you want, not what we have) while trying to fight a civilizational war like that with which we're faced, I ask you for a historical precedent, as I can think of none. No matter the level of freedom in peaceful times, no nation can maintain that while engaged in a life or death struggle with enemies surrounding and invading it. You can have one or the other, I think, just as we now have freedoms that aren't important to our survival while we have less and less chance of either rebuilding our idea of REAL freedom or of surviving at all.
Think of it as an army, which an entire nation is sometimes forced to become in order to survive. Armies can't function on a libertarian, or "free", model. Cooperation is mandatory - by law - or else!
Yea?
2004-05-22 18:44 | User Profile
[QUOTE=Texas Dissident]True enough, VF.....in theory at least. Of course this touches on what Okie was trying to get a firm handle on from the mild-mannered triskelion. That is, what kind of heirarchy and/or levels of tolerance would be permitted in his 'organic, folkish, nationalist state.' Push come to shove, and it did in case you missed it, I would argue (others would disagree) the same baseline totalitarian streak eventually shines through. The State, race or 'folk' is a jealous god and the state is the god of national socialism.
True. But at the same time it's undeniable that race and the Jewish Question are the defining issues of our age. The Nazis understood that better than anyone. Therefore, I think it behooves us to study their thinking very carefully before we reject it wholesale because of Alex Linder's crankish anti-Christian ravings or Hitler's misjudgment in putting a man with kookish pagan views in charge of the SS.
Let me ask you a straight up question: do you agree that the fate of Western civilization is inextricably bound up with race and the Jewish Question? If you agree, then I don't see how you or anyone else can justify the conclusion that Nazism offers absolutely nothing of value when Nazism is the only political movement ever to address these issues head on.
Perhaps those gentlemen will come here and we can discuss it.
I'm sure all three of them would reject Hollywood-style fetish Nazism. On the other hand, there is an anecdote in one of Ygg's essays where he talks about having dinner in Miami with Don Black and another "National Socialist." That suggests to me that Don Black and Ygg, neither of whom are anti-Christian (at least in public), identify to some degree with NS ideology. Which means equating NS with people like Alex Linder and Triskelion is clearly incorrect.
What the Nazi party and Hitler tried to do to the Christian Church in 1930s Germany is a very easily grasped, readily available historical witness of national socialist totalitarianism and that is why I referenced it here.
I admit, this is an element of Third Reich history I know nothing about.
I haven't looked at your links yet, but I will this weekend.
The bottom line is that as a White, Southron American I don't like the State. Wait, that's too mild...I detest the State. Realizing it is a necessary evil in some functions i.e. tariffs, levies, etc., I just can't see giving it any more power than it already is acquiring. Some argue that there is nothing 'bad' about a state that is serving one's interest, but I'm not so sure about that. The track record is not good and I'm of the opinion that you can't make an honest deal with the devil.[/QUOTE]
I think the "Nazis were authoritarian statists" argument is by far the weakest argument against Nazism, from many reasons. For one thing, we're living under an authoritarian state right now. At least the Nazis were honest about their authoritarianism. In many ways we have been living under authoritarianism since Robert E. Lee surrendered to the dictator Abraham Lincoln in 1865. Which means, among other things, that the Old Republic is dead and probably gone forever and that the managerial/authoritarian State is here to stay. The managerial/authoritarian state is here to stay for sure on any timescale that's meaningful to us, which for most of us is probably the lengths of our own lives and the lives of our immediate descendants. So let's live with it and start figuring out how we can use STATE POWER to our advantage. Because unless a comet hits the Earth, we have two and only two choices here guys: we can either use STATE POWER against our enemies -- or have our enemies use STATE POWER against us.
And once again, whatever their other failings, the Nazis understood that better than anyone.
2004-05-22 18:54 | User Profile
Oops! Missed this.
And I don't think they did.
But they did! Within a few years of Jewish "depression" on an unprecedented scale, they were thriving like never before, on their own continent. The snakes had been thrown out! Left to their own devices, they may or may not have eventually tired of emergency-type rule, but they certainly appreciated its necessity at the time.
And [I]considering their situation,[/I] that emergency-type system was quite liberal.
2004-05-22 19:03 | User Profile
Wow, VF. Thanks for reading my mind and saying it much better than I ever could.
2004-05-22 20:01 | User Profile
[QUOTE=Ruffin]Wow, VF. Thanks for reading my mind and saying it much better than I ever could.[/QUOTE]
LOL. Thanks for the kind words Ruffin.
Entirely unjustified in my opinion, but just so you know, I often think the same thing about your posts. :gunsmilie
2004-05-23 03:02 | User Profile
[QUOTE=Texas Dissident]True enough, VF.....in theory at least. Of course this touches on what Okie was trying to get a firm handle on from the mild-mannered triskelion. That is, what kind of heirarchy and/or levels of tolerance would be permitted in his 'organic, folkish, nationalist state.' Push come to shove, and it did in case you missed it, I would argue (others would disagree) the same baseline totalitarian streak eventually shines through. The State, race or 'folk' is a jealous god and the state is the god of national socialism. I don't see any way to get around that, but granted I'm no scholar on the subject either.
Just to come back to this point for a moment and clarify something, I agree that this tendency exists and that you're probably right about the way it would ultimately express itself in any society based on NS ideas. That's one of the main reasons I'm not a National Socialist. So just to be a little clearer lest my admiration for Hitler be misunderstood, my contention is not that everyone who cares about Nationalism should become an NSer.
Rather, my contention is that we Christian Nationalists should study the Nazis carefully, take what works in the National Socialist system, and leave the rest -- as opposed to simply rejecting all elements of National Socialism outright simply because the Nazis deified/glorified the Race and the State above all else.
Admittedly, those are fatal flaws in the NS system, but at the same time I think it's undeniable that are three critical areas where the Nazis got things right. First and foremost, they got the Jewish Question right. Second, they largely got race and family right too. Even Walter concedes that. Finally, and most importantly for our context, the Nazis understood the nature of power struggles and that what's really at stake in this battle for hegemony with the Jewish-Plutocratic axis is our very survival.
The Nazis understood that establishing a Nationalist regime is an essential component for ensuring the survival of both your people and their traditions. And they also understood that if a Nationalist regime is what you want, there is no way -- none -- you're going to get it unless you're willing to fight to obtain State Power and then use that power to destroy your enemies and advance Nationalist goals.
Now, in looking looking at our own situation, it should be obvious that the people who have the power to hinder our goals and destroy us us aren't just going to lay down and let us create a Nationalist regime founded on Western principles and traditional Christianity. They're working overtime right now to make sure that never happens. This means that whether we like it or not, using fascist/Nazi-like tactics may be necessary at some point in time if we want to achieve our objectives. In turn, this implies, among other things, that we may need to forget about many of the things that American conservativism has traditionally tried to conserve. The Nazis understood that. As long as we're in a fight for our survival, and I believe that we are, we need to forget democracy, forget rights, forget Constitutionalism, forget the rule of law, and forget the American tradition.
Until our biological existence has been secured and the enemy is lying dead on the ground, none of those things matter -- except maybe in so far as paying lip service to them or supporting them helps us achieve the larger goal of survival. And besides, we don't have those things now anyway. They're gone, probably for good. Let's deal with it and move on. We need to consider new paradigms. Our enemies are not preoccupied with justice and rights. We shouldn't be either.
2004-05-23 03:17 | User Profile
[QUOTE=Texas Dissident]Of course this touches on what Okie was trying to get a firm handle on from the mild-mannered triskelion. That is, what kind of heirarchy and/or levels of tolerance would be permitted in his 'organic, folkish, nationalist state.' Push come to shove, and it did in case you missed it[/QUOTE]
Tex, I missed most the fireworks with Triskelion.
I don't know what he was saying or why, but I know for sure that I don't want to be associated with him in any way.
2004-05-23 03:22 | User Profile
Let me ask you a straight up question: do you agree that the fate of Western civilization is inextricably bound up with race and the Jewish Question? If you agree, then I don't see how you or anyone else can justify the conclusion that Nazism offers absolutely nothing of value when Nazism is the only political movement ever to address these issues head on.
Yes! That is exactly right! Why do you think Nazism is so demonized even today?? BECAUSE IT WAS A DIRECT, UNIQUE THREAT TO GOD'S SPECIAL LAPDOGS. Mussolini didn't threaten God's Pets so they said little about him. But the day that Hitler took office top Jews held meetings to raise money for commie/leftist groups in Europe. The Nazis knew. Very much so. And I am glad to see that VF understands that. Too bad some of the paleos at OD do not seem to grasp the significance of the Nazis. Whether the Nazis failed in the end is moot. They only failed because FDR's Jewish cabal ordered our gentile military to sail across the ocean and invade Europe while that same Jewish cabal ignored [Jewish-led] Soviet mass-murder.
2004-05-23 04:27 | User Profile
If I may, I would like to suggest a good, balanced article by Leon Degrelle on the Third Reich and its social revolution. The article is 41 pages long, so I would suggest printing it out and, for those who are interested, devoting a couple of hours to what really occurred in Hitler's Germany when the National Socialists came to power (it's a good introductory piece) -- especially when one compares the social, economic, cultural miracle that took place within the first years of the Third Reich with the utter misery and failure of the Weimar Republic.
[url]http://www.ihr.org/jhr/v12/v12p299_Degrelle.html[/url]
2004-05-23 17:14 | User Profile
[QUOTE]Rather, my contention is that we Christian Nationalists should study the Nazis carefully, take what works in the National Socialist system, and leave the rest -- as opposed to simply rejecting all elements of National Socialism outright simply because the Nazis deified/glorified the Race and the State above all else.[/QUOTE]
Okay, fine. Examine NS and see if you can find a few nuggets in the rubble heap of that short-lived and utterly failed 20th century phenomenon. Have at it, as we used to say in the service.
My position is that we're all better off spending our precious time mining more promising ground: the great two thousand year old Christian tradition of Europe. There we will find the answers to all of our questions: faith, morals, economics, even organizational models for our own resistance movement.
We don't have unlimted time. Why waste your time on proven losers when you have clear winners to emulate?
(Psst: I hate losers, because they lose).
[QUOTE]Admittedly, those are fatal flaws in the NS system, but at the same time I think it's undeniable that are three critical areas where the Nazis got things right. First and foremost, they got the Jewish Question right. Second, they largely got race and family right too. Even Walter concedes that. Finally, and most importantly for our context, the Nazis understood the nature of power struggles and that what's really at stake in this battle for hegemony with the Jewish-Plutocratic axis is our very survival. [/QUOTE]
Again, the only reason you (and I) understand that "they got it right" is thanks to the Holy Faith that lit our way all of these centuries, and shaped our collective conscience. Note well, VF, that you judge the Nazis by Christian lights, and given the very derivative nature of Nazism that could hardly be otherwise.
And the whole thing was derivative. Their mass art and mass state organizations and parades were copied nearly verbatim from the Jewish Bolshevik script. Even the Nazi's organizaitonal ideas were derivative: they emulated the very successful Jewish Bolsheviks, who in turn emulated the Jesuits. The Nazis are nothing new under the sun.
Ineed, the very idea that we're going to find something in Nazism - mind you a thing that went down to utterly ignoble defeat in less than 25 years - that the Church hasn't run into in its 2,000 years of her history is simply preposterous. Absurd. Let me be blunt. The mere attempt to do so evinces a terrible sort of mental laziness, an adolescent lunging after quick solutions in a marketing niche designed to shock parents. It's not for serious adults.
[QUOTE]The Nazis understood that establishing a Nationalist regime is an essential component for ensuring the survival of both your people and their traditions.[/QUOTE]
I gotta call you on that one, VF. The Nazis despised the mighty Christian plinth upon which was raised the entire edifice of the great German tradition. You can't on the one hand recognize their paganism (or whatever you want to call that weird mish-mash of Nietzshe, Wagner, Hegel, Chamberlain - combined with the occultist babble of Madame Blavatskaya) and on the other proclaim Nazi love for German civilization. The Nazis came to destroy German civilization - a profoundly Christian thing - and fill the vacuum with themselves.
The results speak for themselves. They lost big time, and thus became losers. Emulate them only if your great ambition is to join them on the rubble heap.
[QUOTE]And they also understood that if a Nationalist regime is what you want, there is no way -- none -- you're going to get it unless you're willing to fight to obtain State Power and then use that power to destroy your enemies and advance Nationalist goals. [/QUOTE]
Of course, that's hardly an original thought. There have been Catholic nationalists for centuries, VF. You know that. It goes without saying here on OD that Christian kings saved Europe's bacon from the black and Asian hordes many times. The Nazis are a bunch of come-lately, bumbling "C" students compared to the glory of the Church, in this area as in all others.
[QUOTE]This means that whether we like it or not, using fascist/Nazi-like tactics may be necessary at some point in time if we want to achieve our objectives. In turn, this implies, among other things, that we may need to forget about many of the things that American conservativism has traditionally tried to conserve. The Nazis understood that. As long as we're in a fight for our survival, and I believe that we are, we need to forget democracy, forget rights, forget Constitutionalism, forget the rule of law, and forget the American tradition. [/QUOTE]
To repeat, the Nazis were nothing new under the sun. The Nazis didn't hold a candle to the Holy Inquisition (which still exists, at least in a successorship in interest sort of way).
There's nothing that they have or can add of value to the conversation.
[QUOTE]We need to consider new paradigms. Our enemies are not preoccupied with justice and rights. We shouldn't be either.[/QUOTE]
I respectfully disagree. We need to stick with the tried and true: the Father of our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ. He's seen us through thus far, and He will show us the way to turn our enemies - including the Pharisees - into our footstools.
Warmest regards,
Walter
2004-05-23 17:27 | User Profile
[QUOTE]Whether the Nazis failed in the end is moot. [/QUOTE]
With all respect, brother Franco, that is perhaps the most succint expression of a LOSER attitude I've ever come across.
If failure doesn't count, the clearly success doesn't either.
Get it?
Loser, loser, loser, loser mentality!
Shed it NOW!!!!
Success is the ONLY thing that matters. The rest is just conversation.
Just ask Darwin, he'll tell you.
The Nazis lost, ergo they are LOSERS and warrant study - if at all - as the way NOT to do things. They can serve as negative examples, fine, I have no problem with that, alhtough I'd frankly limit my time on that in favor of potentially more fruitful areas of study (like the Holy Inquisition). But, certainly it's okay to study the failed attempts so you can better understand and appreciate the ways of the winners.
But certainly losers have little to teach winners about winning, at least by way of positive emulation. And the Nazis were losers without peer.
Lose them if you want to win. Stick with them if you want to lose. It's really just that simple.
Best regards,
Walter
2004-05-23 17:30 | User Profile
[QUOTE=Walter Yannis]Okay, fine. Examine NS and see if you can find a few nuggets in the rubble heap of that short-lived and utterly failed 20th century phenomenon. Have at it, as we used to say in the service.
My position is that we're all better off spending our precious time mining more promising ground: the great two thousand year old Christian tradition of Europe. There we will find the answers to all of our questions: faith, morals, economics, even organizational models for our own resistance movement.
We don't have unlimted time. Why waste your time on proven losers when you have clear winners to emulate?
(Psst: I hate losers, because they lose).
Again, the only reason you (and I) understand that "they got it right" is thanks to the Holy Faith that lit our way all of these centuries, and shaped our collective conscience. Note well, VF, that you judge the Nazis by Christian lights, and given the very derivative nature of Nazism that could hardly be otherwise.
And the whole thing was derivative. Their mass art and mass state organizations and parades were copied nearly verbatim from the Jewish Bolshevik script. Even the Nazi's organizaitonal ideas were derivative: they emulated the very successful Jewish Bolsheviks, who in turn emulated the Jesuits. The Nazis are nothing new under the sun.
Ineed, the very idea that we're going to find something in Nazism - mind you a thing that went down to utterly ignoble defeat in less than 25 years - that the Church hasn't run into in its 2,000 years of her history is simply preposterous. Absurd. Let me be blunt. The mere attempt to do so evinces a terrible sort of mental laziness, an adolescent lunging after quick solutions in a marketing niche designed to shock parents. It's not for serious adults.
I gotta call you on that one, VF. The Nazis despised the mighty Christian plinth upon which was raised the entire edifice of the great German tradition. You can't on the one hand recognize their paganism (or whatever you want to call that weird mish-mash of Nietzshe, Wagner, Hegel, Chamberlain - combined with the occultist babble of Madame Blavatskaya) and on the other proclaim Nazi love for German civilization. The Nazis came to destroy German civilization - a profoundly Christian thing - and fill the vacuum with themselves.
The results speak for themselves. They lost big time, and thus became losers. Emulate them only if your great ambition is to join them on the rubble heap.
Of course, that's hardly an original thought. There have been Catholic nationalists for centuries, VF. You know that. It goes without saying here on OD that Christian kings saved Europe's bacon from the black and Asian hordes many times. The Nazis are a bunch of come-lately, bumbling "C" students compared to the glory of the Church, in this area as in all others.
To repeat, the Nazis were nothing new under the sun. The Nazis didn't hold a candle to the Holy Inquisition (which still exists, at least in a successorship in interest sort of way).
There's nothing that they have or can add of value to the conversation.
I respectfully disagree. We need to stick with the tried and true: the Father of our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ. He's seen us through thus far, and He will show us the way to turn our enemies - including the Pharisees - into our footstools.
[/QUOTE] I agree with that almost completely. Where does Hitler stand in comparison with, say, Charles Martel or the brave men who repelled the Moslem hordes at Vienna? Europe stood up against all enemies and survived for a millennia and a half after the collapse of the Roman empire.
We think of the Nazis as great saviours in the midst of our contemporary weaknesses. But placed in a historical context, the Nazis were not only failures but achieved little that stands high in the context of a glorious tradition of nationalism.
I would also add lastly that we need to stop thinking of Medieval Europe as the "Dark Ages". Nothing could be further from the truth. The seeds of Northern European greatness were laid in that time. Some of the most magnificent creations in the Arts and Architecture were produced in the "Dark Ages". When people use the words "Dark Ages", we conjure up images of savage hordes in need of "light" as in Africa. No savages ever built the kind of Cathedrals, Castles and Palaces that marked the "Dark Ages".
We need to revive the faith. Nothing else can save us.
2004-05-23 17:36 | User Profile
The greatest problem with Nazism is its almost total obedience to one master, one man - the failings, the foolishness and mistakes of one man make or break the project.
Thats an unsound way of organizing a nation. The Romans (though true Pagans) were much better. Their Republicanism saved them (until the rot of imperialism destroyed them from within) from committing the kinds of follies that Hitler committed during World War II.
2004-05-23 19:27 | User Profile
Walter, the biggest losers aren't the different peoples who've had their successful systems and nations torn asunder by brain-dead American patriots. The real losers are the self-righteous enablers who've lost without resisting, most without knowledge of their loss.
By the way, would you classify Jesus Christ, impaled on a stick by those who knew not what they did, a loser? Were the Jews and the Romans winners? Or would you take a longer term view about that?
Don't expect much help from the rest of the world when Americans finally realize they've committed slow and anguishing suicide.
2004-05-23 20:00 | User Profile
[QUOTE]Walter, the biggest losers aren't the different peoples who've had their successful systems and nations torn asunder by brain-dead American patriots. The real losers are the self-righteous enablers who've lost without resisting, most without knowledge of their loss.[/QUOTE]
They're all equally dead.
Shed the useless sentiment, my friend. You seem to have an unhealthy attachment to lost causes, and I say that in the spirit of brotherhood. But it's the truth. Lost causes don't win us future battles. It's not way forward.
Shed them all, now.
[QUOTE]By the way, would you classify Jesus Christ, impaled on a stick by those who knew not what they did, a loser? Were the Jews and the Romans winners? Or would you take a longer term view about that?[/QUOTE]
The answer to that is obvious, and I'm mildly surprised you ask. I take it that your question is rhetorical, since the facts are on the face of it.
The Romans long since gone, yet Christ and His Church endure.
Could it be any clearer?
Of course the Romans were losers and Christ is the winner - Christ said as much on his way to Calvary, which was after all for him the price he paid for the Resurrection. Christ is now seated at the Right Hand of the Father and He rules the heavens in glory. And just wait until He comes back. There'll be hell to pay, literally. His enemies will have their heads stomped in, but good.
Place your entire wad on that one, Ruffin. Why throw good money after a loser bet like the Nazis, when we have a sure winner in Christ?
Be a winner, not a loser.
[QUOTE]Don't expect much help from the rest of the world when Americans finally realize they've committed slow and anguishing suicide.[/QUOTE]
I expect no help, we'll have to figure this one out for ourselves.
Conversely, I don't intend to render much help to others. That stuff goes both ways.
And after the crunch comes we'll have a few scores to settle. Abortionists are the first to go up against the wall, unrepentant sodomites soon after (after a fair and public trial, of course!).
You get the picture. It's a day I really hope I live to see. But come it most certainly will.
Ruffin, you're obviously a smart guy, and you're more than capable of taking the longer view of this thing. C'mon, man, you know I'm right. The Nazis are simply a non-starter for us for any number of reasons. Look at the question, just as one example, from a simple marketing perspective. Our movement would have to overcome 60 plus years and billions of dollars in advertising molding the conscience of our people against Nazi images. Given our resources, why would you take up such a herculean task? Do you really want to spend your time and treasure on that, when we have a much more direct Christian message that our people have been conditioned to respond to positively? Mel Gibson's film proves the marketing argument beyond all doubt. Had he made a film about what a misunderstood guy Hitler was, his film wouldn't have SUCCEEDED to the tune of hundreds of millions of dollars of profits that Gibson can now use to fund his other projects. No, had Gibson made a film even mildly extoling Hitler, he would have lost not only his initial investment but would never have been taken seriously again.
I mean, isn't this all too bloody obvious for words? The thing that baffles me is why an obviously intelligent man like you doesn't get that immediately. It's this romantic love of lost causes, I guess. I think it's a Celtic thing (and a Southern thing). My Irish ancestors had it in spades. But clearly it does not good to knock back several shots of Jameson and sigh over what might have been and wallow in the resentment over past slights and self-pity for terrible unfairness of it all. If only the boom would have held over the River Boyne. If only Getteysberg would have run a slightly different course. Get beyond that whole loser mental attitude, my friend. And do it now. Because we need you on board with a plan that will win.
And to all of you, I can only say that this whole Nazi idea is a loser. It's a dog, a dud, a non-starter.
I really think we all just need to accept that and drop this idea as one that can only distract us from building on our strengths, which is of course the Christianity of our ancestors. Build on that, it's our strength, and frankly it's our only hope.
The rest of it only distracts us from that task.
Focus is ALWAYS the key. Get on board with the Christain train, my brothers. It's the only one that still works.
Walter
2004-05-23 20:20 | User Profile
Walter, I'll come back to this and make additional comments when I have more time. I really want to make time for Tex's links today, so I can begin to get a handle on the Nazi view of the Church (something I don't know that much about). On first reading though, there isn't a lot here that I disagree with. And now that I know about this Third Position concept, I agree with you that something along these lines is probably where we as Christian Nationalists need to focus our efforts.
Regards,
[QUOTE=Walter Yannis]Okay, fine. Examine NS and see if you can find a few nuggets in the rubble heap of that short-lived and utterly failed 20th century phenomenon. Have at it, as we used to say in the service.
My position is that we're all better off spending our precious time mining more promising ground: the great two thousand year old Christian tradition of Europe. There we will find the answers to all of our questions: faith, morals, economics, even organizational models for our own resistance movement.
We don't have unlimted time. Why waste your time on proven losers when you have clear winners to emulate?
(Psst: I hate losers, because they lose).
Again, the only reason you (and I) understand that "they got it right" is thanks to the Holy Faith that lit our way all of these centuries, and shaped our collective conscience. Note well, VF, that you judge the Nazis by Christian lights, and given the very derivative nature of Nazism that could hardly be otherwise.
And the whole thing was derivative. Their mass art and mass state organizations and parades were copied nearly verbatim from the Jewish Bolshevik script. Even the Nazi's organizaitonal ideas were derivative: they emulated the very successful Jewish Bolsheviks, who in turn emulated the Jesuits. The Nazis are nothing new under the sun.
Ineed, the very idea that we're going to find something in Nazism - mind you a thing that went down to utterly ignoble defeat in less than 25 years - that the Church hasn't run into in its 2,000 years of her history is simply preposterous. Absurd. Let me be blunt. The mere attempt to do so evinces a terrible sort of mental laziness, an adolescent lunging after quick solutions in a marketing niche designed to shock parents. It's not for serious adults.
I gotta call you on that one, VF. The Nazis despised the mighty Christian plinth upon which was raised the entire edifice of the great German tradition. You can't on the one hand recognize their paganism (or whatever you want to call that weird mish-mash of Nietzshe, Wagner, Hegel, Chamberlain - combined with the occultist babble of Madame Blavatskaya) and on the other proclaim Nazi love for German civilization. The Nazis came to destroy German civilization - a profoundly Christian thing - and fill the vacuum with themselves.
The results speak for themselves. They lost big time, and thus became losers. Emulate them only if your great ambition is to join them on the rubble heap.
Of course, that's hardly an original thought. There have been Catholic nationalists for centuries, VF. You know that. It goes without saying here on OD that Christian kings saved Europe's bacon from the black and Asian hordes many times. The Nazis are a bunch of come-lately, bumbling "C" students compared to the glory of the Church, in this area as in all others.
To repeat, the Nazis were nothing new under the sun. The Nazis didn't hold a candle to the Holy Inquisition (which still exists, at least in a successorship in interest sort of way).
There's nothing that they have or can add of value to the conversation.
I respectfully disagree. We need to stick with the tried and true: the Father of our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ. He's seen us through thus far, and He will show us the way to turn our enemies - including the Pharisees - into our footstools.
Warmest regards,
Walter[/QUOTE]
2004-05-23 20:32 | User Profile
few thoughts
-one of Hitler's biggest problems is that he made war on other whites. this can't be glossed over and doesn't seem to be mentinoed by people.
it wasn't just Communism that made him go east - he considered the slavs untermenschen. this was dumb because he could easily have beaten the bolsheviks if he had gotten the people on his side. in fact, many in the ukraine and other parts of eastern europe greeted the nazis as liberators - not surprising after the ukrainian famine.
conclusion is that mid 20th century European nationalism and 21st century white nationalism are really incompatible doctrines.
the best model for white nationalists today is probably Russia. Putin is onto the jews and has been seizing their assets. he also has the well being of the average russian at heart. you can see this from the recent media war on him in the west after he seized khordokovsky (sp?).
actually tho, many european countries are changing their immigration policies. i consider that to be issue #1. the ideology that gets immigration restriction doesn't matter. if it's the queer pim fortuyn, the bnp, the tancredo/buchanan pac...whatever gets the job done. it doesn't need to be nazism - it needs to work.
the major problem with nazism aside from its anti-white nature (meaning sanctioned slaughter of slavs, who are 1/3 or so of whites) and lack of elections is its economics. capitalism gets a bad rap from the people on this forum, but it is not bad as long as the taxman is not giving your money to the blacks and the mexicans. i am much more sympathetic to texas dissident's ideas on this score.
2004-05-23 20:37 | User Profile
You make some good points here Peter. And while I am beginning to come over to you and Walter's side on this issue (just like I ultimately came over to Tex's side on the Linder issue and now regard him as a phony), I don't think it's merely our "recent weakness" that makes certain aspects of Nazism appear attractive today. The problem is that the glory days of Christian Nationalists repelling the Muslim hordes were a very long time ago. The rot that is the root of our current weakness really began setting in during the Enlightenment, if not the Renaissance or the Protestant Reformation itself. In the last 300 years or so, Nazism has been the only mass movement that's come even remotely close to getting a few seriously important things right, like race and keeping Jews in check, even if they got many other things wrong. That's why a lot of Whites on our side gravitate to Nazism -- I suspect people see it as the only Nationalist precedent that's remotely applicable to our context.
[QUOTE=Peter Phillips]I agree with that almost completely. Where does Hitler stand in comparison with, say, Charles Martel or the brave men who repelled the Moslem hordes at Vienna? Europe stood up against all enemies and survived for a millennia and a half after the collapse of the Roman empire.
We think of the Nazis as great saviours in the midst of our contemporary weaknesses. But placed in a historical context, the Nazis were not only failures but achieved little that stands high in the context of a glorious tradition of nationalism.
I would also add lastly that we need to stop thinking of Medieval Europe as the "Dark Ages". Nothing could be further from the truth. The seeds of Northern European greatness were laid in that time. Some of the most magnificent creations in the Arts and Architecture were produced in the "Dark Ages". When people use the words "Dark Ages", we conjure up images of savage hordes in need of "light" as in Africa. No savages ever built the kind of Cathedrals, Castles and Palaces that marked the "Dark Ages".
We need to revive the faith. Nothing else can save us.[/QUOTE]
2004-05-23 20:39 | User Profile
Some more points, well taken.
[QUOTE=truth]few thoughts
-one of Hitler's biggest problems is that he made war on other whites. this can't be glossed over and doesn't seem to be mentinoed by people.
it wasn't just Communism that made him go east - he considered the slavs untermenschen. this was dumb because he could easily have beaten the bolsheviks if he had gotten the people on his side. in fact, many in the ukraine and other parts of eastern europe greeted the nazis as liberators - not surprising after the ukrainian famine.
conclusion is that mid 20th century European nationalism and 21st century white nationalism are really incompatible doctrines.
the best model for white nationalists today is probably Russia. Putin is onto the jews and has been seizing their assets. he also has the well being of the average russian at heart. you can see this from the recent media war on him in the west after he seized khordokovsky (sp?).
actually tho, many european countries are changing their immigration policies. i consider that to be issue #1. the ideology that gets immigration restriction doesn't matter. if it's the queer pim fortuyn, the bnp, the tancredo/buchanan pac...whatever gets the job done. it doesn't need to be nazism - it needs to work.
the major problem with nazism aside from its anti-white nature (meaning sanctioned slaughter of slavs, who are 1/3 or so of whites) and lack of elections is its economics. capitalism gets a bad rap from the people on this forum, but it is not bad as long as the taxman is not giving your money to the blacks and the mexicans. i am much more sympathetic to texas dissident's ideas on this score.[/QUOTE]
2004-05-23 21:04 | User Profile
[QUOTE=truth] - actually tho, many european countries are changing their immigration policies. i consider that to be issue #1. the ideology that gets immigration restriction doesn't matter. if it's the queer pim fortuyn, the bnp, the tancredo/buchanan pac...whatever gets the job done. it doesn't need to be nazism - it needs to work. [/QUOTE] I agree almost completely with this. But more importantly, if these movements succeed, we need to go back to the drawing board and ensure that these mistakes arent repeated again. That is our greatest challenge.
I am mildly optimistic about the future of Europe to be honest. There are nations that will be in trouble - Holland, Belgium, France being the most prominent among them but I think most of it can survive.
The troubled nations will have Race war.
But getting back to my original point, after the battle has been won and we have regained the continent, we need to revive the faith so that Europeans have children, they reproduce themselves and their children also have children. This wont happen without faith in God and love of country. So while Im willing to go along with whatever short term measures work, in the long term we need solutions that preserve the nations.
2004-05-23 21:10 | User Profile
[QUOTE=Valley Forge]In the last 300 years or so, Nazism has been the only mass movement in the last 300 years that's come even remotely close to getting a few seriouslu important things right, like race and keeping Jews in check, even if they got many other things wrong. That's why a lot of Whites on our side gravitate to Nazism -- I suspect people see at as the only Nationalist precedent that's applicable to our context.[/QUOTE] VF,
I see your point. But the problem is if you take Nazism as the precedent you get a package deal - its history which is impossible to sell to anyone except the most hard-core racialists, its totalitarianism, draconian destruction of liberty (do we foresake that completely - I tend to think we dont need to) and worst of all its classification of Russians, Poles and all Slavs as sub-humans who need to be turned into slaves.
We dont need all that. What we need is an all-encompassing Nationalism that recognises the uniqueness (and greatness) of each European nation and accords each nation the right to survive and flourish. I agree that we dont have a precedent in the modern world because Jewish power increased exponentially in the 20th century. Until the 19th century it would have seemed unnecessary to persecute Jews heavily because to most people they were a hapless people expelled from one nation after another.
So if we are going to look for precedents, we are not going to find any in recent times because the phenomenon that we confront today is a different kind of phenomenon. While it is true that Jews were successful and subversive in earlier times, they never quite managed to grab the levers of power completely as they have now.
Best regards,
Peter
2004-05-23 21:41 | User Profile
Peter, I don't disagree with anything you said except this:
if you take Nazism as the precedent you get a package deal
I'm not convinced that's true.
Clearly, just as we can use any tool, we adopt the Nazis core insights...
...and apply them to our own situation without buying the entire package. In other words, take what's useful and discard the rest.
I agree with you we don't want or need the whole package, not only because we can't turn around and sell it to anybody (definitely true), but also because of the underlying philosophical assumptions (deification of the State, adherence to materialist assumptions, etc.).
Regards,
2004-05-23 21:46 | User Profile
[QUOTE=Walter Yannis]They're all equally dead.
Shed the useless sentiment, my friend. You seem to have an unhealthy attachment to lost causes, and I say that in the spirit of brotherhood. But it's the truth. Lost causes don't win us future battles. It's not way forward.[/QUOTE]
[QUOTE]And just wait until He comes back. His enemies will have their heads stomped in, but good.[/QUOTE]
The causes I admire actually existed, recently. Yours has been swearing vengeance for how long, with what to show for it?
[QUOTE]The Romans long since gone, yet Christ and His Church endure.[/QUOTE]
Surely you've noticed that the Romans are still around, though they're called Americans now. The church is what is dead. Notice that the majority of those who don't see that are also the ones who bellow loudest about how free they are and mock the rest of the world as losers.
[QUOTE]And after the crunch comes we'll have a few scores to settle. Abortionists are the first to go up against the wall, unrepentant sodomites soon after (after a fair and public trial, of course!).
You get the picture. It's a day I really hope I live to see. But come it most certainly will.[/QUOTE]
Uh-huh. Keep the faith.
[QUOTE]Ruffin, you're obviously a smart guy, and you're more than capable of taking the longer view of this thing. C'mon, man, you know I'm right. The Nazis are simply a non-starter for us for any number of reasons. Look at the question, just as one example, from a simple marketing perspective. Our movement would have to overcome 60 plus years and billions of dollars in advertising molding the conscience of our people against Nazi images. Given our resources, why would you take up such a herculean task?[/QUOTE]
Did I advocate employing nazi imagery as a strategy? I didn't, although sixty years of negativity ain't much to overcome considering how quickly Christianity was turned on its head.
[QUOTE]Do you really want to spend your time and treasure on that, when we have a much more direct Christian message that our people have been conditioned to respond to positively? Mel Gibson's film proves the marketing argument beyond all doubt. Had he made a film about what a misunderstood guy Hitler was, his film wouldn't have SUCCEEDED to the tune of hundreds of millions of dollars of profits that Gibson can now use to fund his other projects. No, had Gibson made a film even mildly extoling Hitler, he would have lost not only his initial investment but would never have been taken seriously again.[/QUOTE]
MTV, interracial mating, rap music, and I don't know how much else is very popular too. So? Do most Americans consider Beethoven a loser? Yes, judging from the choices they make, they do. Oh well........
[QUOTE]I mean, isn't this all too bloody obvious for words? The thing that baffles me is why an obviously intelligent man like you doesn't get that immediately. It's this romantic love of lost causes, I guess. I think it's a Celtic thing (and a Southern thing). My Irish ancestors had it in spades. But clearly it does not good to knock back several shots of Jameson and sigh over what might have been and wallow in the resentment over past slights and self-pity for terrible unfairness of it all. If only the boom would have held over the River Boyne. If only Getteysberg would have run a slightly different course. Get beyond that whole loser mental attitude, my friend. And do it now. Because we need you on board with a plan that will win.[/QUOTE]
Walter, as far as I can tell, your winners consist of things that are popular now and things that have no provable basis in reality. I have more faith in the people who've only suffered temporary subjugation and now have only to wait out American suicide. I have more faith in them because their causes actually exist and are so REAL that they must be continually suppressed with smothering heaps of hocus-pocus and television "history" and hate crime laws. Indeed, it can be brutal, but it will pass as did the bolshevik brand.
And to all of you, I can only say that this whole Nazi idea is a loser. It's a dog, a dud, a non-starter.
I really think we all just need to accept that and drop this idea as one that can only distract us from building on our strengths, which is of course the Christianity of our ancestors. Build on that, it's our strength, and frankly it's our only hope.
The rest of it only distracts us from that task.
Again, you're confusing my affection for "lost causes" with the mistaken idea that I'm advocating Hollywood-style nazism as a vote-getting strategy. Why? Hell, I don't even recommend proselytising, lest a few more people get a clue and retard the downfall of the present order.
Focus is ALWAYS the key. Get on board with the Christain train, my brothers. It's the only one that still works.
You must be kidding. The "Christian train" ain't allowed out of the depot and would be headed down the wrong tracks if it was. Except maybe in Africa, where I hear it still finds some believers. Talk about a lost cause! Two millenia?
Tex,
Understand, I don't "bash" Christianity. I offer it now as a comparison to causes this fellow derides as "lost", because frankly, I can't think of a better one.
2004-05-23 22:00 | User Profile
[QUOTE=Valley Forge]Peter, I don't disagree with anything you said except this:
I'm not convinced that's true.
Clearly, just as we can use any tool, we adopt the Nazis core insights...
...and apply them to our own situation without buying the entire package.
I agree with you we don't want or need the whole package, not only because we can't turn around and sell it to anybody (definitely true), but also because of the underlying philosophical assumptions (deification of the State, adherence to materialist assumptions, etc.).
[/QUOTE] VF,
Those ideas you name were not invented by Nazis. They had been around for some time. The Nazis simply used them and other ideas and took them to "extremes", if you will.
However, what we most definitely dont need is any kind of symbolic connection in the public eye with that movement. Even a whisper of that would finish us off.
If you look at the developing movements in Europe, the majority of them have repackaged themselves. This is a crucial point in the quest for victory. If we have people from the movement running around in swastikas and Hitler posters, our goose is cooked.
I think one can develop a kind of critique of Jews based on arguments from the Left and the Right. This is actually commonplace in France and elsewhere in Europe where although you cant question the Holocaust, the majority of the media is against Israel and openly criticises it - for example.
What we need is a kind of tactical war - we ally with whoever is working against Israel, so if that means allying with the Left in the short term, so be it. This is how the Jews do it themselves - they have contempt for white southerners and would love to turn the South into Haiti but when the time comes they take the support of Christian Zionists without a flinch. Its about time we returned the favour - gave them some of their own medicine.
Best regards,
Peter
2004-05-23 22:06 | User Profile
VF - I hope my shots at Walter's popular Christianity don't irritate you out of your realistic examination of values and lessons from the NS era. IMO your attempt to separate fact from fiction, against the express orders of almost everyone for the past seventy years, is an argument in favor of the remnant theory, whether I subscribe to it or not.
2004-05-23 22:24 | User Profile
[QUOTE=Ruffin]VF - I hope my shots at Walter's popular Christianity don't irritate you out of your realistic examination of values and lessons from the NS era. IMO your attempt to separate fact from fiction, against the express orders of almost everyone for the past seventy years, is an argument in favor of the remnant theory, whether I subscribe to it or not.[/QUOTE]
Not at all Ruffin. You make some fair points. That's undeniable, I think, though as a Christian I can't fully buy into the conclusions you draw from those points.
Regards,
2004-05-23 22:39 | User Profile
Their mass art and mass state organizations and parades were copied nearly verbatim from the Jewish Bolshevik script.
What???
The Nazis wanted to restore 'real' art in Europe. In fact, they banned 'modern' art in Germany.
Their parades and rallies were largely Roman in design [watch "Triumph of the Will," which I own and have seen many times].
Have you studied Nazi culture? Have you ever seen "Triumph of the Will?"
2004-05-23 22:44 | User Profile
To Walter's "lost causes and wallowing" speech, the most successful parasites in history, the zhids, are the biggest "never forgive never forget" types, and their wallowing in past slights (and their making your children pay their respects to zhid sufferink) is only a source of strength to them, as it unites them in their cause and feeds their paranoia (that they put to good use by the way).
Incidentally, the wallowing Irish are one of the few groups with still some identity in the US.
2004-05-23 23:00 | User Profile
[QUOTE=Texas Dissident]Much more than skepticism, VF. Outright, serious resistance at any cost if you ask me. For whether original or contemporary, nazism's neo-pagan, totalitarianism is critically part and parcel of its ideology. Just like in 1930s Germany, it will invariably make every effort to control and distort Christ's true Church and that is an intolerable situation for any true Christian.
Some links of interest on the subject:
[url]http://forums.originaldissent.com/showthread.php?t=7604[/url]
[url]http://forums.originaldissent.com/showthread.php?t=6451[/url]
[url]http://forums.originaldissent.com/showthread.php?t=13574[/url][/QUOTE]
Well, Tex, it looks like I have to eat crow again -- you were right. I perused your articles and also did some other research. It appears that in the early phase of the NS movement, when the NSers probaly still needed Christian support, the Nazis feigned a favorable attitude toward Christians in order to appeal to them and garner their support. To do this, the Nazis conceived of so-called "positive Christianity," which, as you said, was pretty much an attempt to manipulate, control, and influence the church. And when the planned manipulation did not work out, the mask pretty much came off and by the 1940s the Nazis has moved on to open persecution of the Church.
This summary comes from an article from Crisis magazine.
Steigmann-Gall writes that the Nazisââ¬â¢ hostility to the churches intensified by the end of the 1930s. The persecution of the churches, which reached its climax during World War II, included the closing of religious schools, the confiscation of church property, the suppression of church periodicals, and the imprisonment and murder of the clergy. For the author, these acts do not establish that the Nazis were ââ¬Åanti-Christianââ¬Â but rather anti-clerical. Indeed, Hitler distinguished between Christianity as a religion and the Church as an institution. [url]http://www.crisismagazine.com/february2004/book5.htm[/url]
Also from the same article:
Despite his earlier statements, Hitler seemed to turn completely against Christianity during the war. ââ¬ÅThe Führer is deeply religious, though completely anti-Christian,ââ¬Â Joseph Goebbels, the minister of propaganda, wrote in his diary on December 28, 1939. ââ¬ÅHe views Christianity as a symptom of decay. Rightly so. It is a branch of the Jewish race.ââ¬Â In 1941 Hitler told his top aides that ââ¬ÅChristianity is the prototype of Bolshevism: the mobilisation by the Jew of the masses of slaves with the object of undermining society.ââ¬Â
At least now we know where the Linder Cultists get the Christianity is Jewish plot garbage and where NeoNietzsche in all likelihood got the idea that Christianity=Bolshevism.
2004-05-23 23:06 | User Profile
Two more points, well taken. It seems that in this debate neither side is really getting the upperhand -- for every point one side comes up with, it seems there is an equally compelling counter-point. I think that shows this is a clearly complex topic, and that the more simplistic viewpoints and interpretations (Everything about the Nazis was bad; Everything about the Nazis was good) are probably wrong.
[QUOTE=madrussian]To Walter's "lost causes and wallowing" speech, the most successful parasites in history, the zhids, are the biggest "never forgive never forget" types, and their wallowing in past slights (and their making your children pay their respects to zhid sufferink) is only a source of strength to them, as it unites them in their cause and feeds their paranoia (that they put to good use by the way).
Incidentally, the wallowing Irish are one of the few groups with still some identity in the US.[/QUOTE]
[quote=Franco] Their mass art and mass state organizations and parades were copied nearly verbatim from the Jewish Bolshevik script.
What???
The Nazis wanted to restore 'real' art in Europe. In fact, they banned 'modern' art in Germany.
Their parades and rallies were largely Roman in design [watch "Triumph of the Will," which I own and have seen many times].
Have you studied Nazi culture? Have you ever seen "Triumph of the Will?"
2004-05-23 23:17 | User Profile
[QUOTE=Valley Forge] In 1941 Hitler told his top aides that ââ¬ÅChristianity is the prototype of Bolshevism: the mobilisation by the Jew of the masses of slaves with the object of undermining society.ââ¬Â[/QUOTE] By the way, saying that about the Orthodox Church has been pretty mainstream. I remember even Tex saying something along those lines.
Now if you add Judeo-"Christianity" and liberal Chuches, the above won't sound as controversial anymore.
2004-05-23 23:18 | User Profile
And does it make really sense to say "the Nazis weren't Christians" or "the Nazis persecuted Christians" therefore there's nothing of value in Nazism?
That's a pretty weak argument that Christians should not buy into in my opinion.
If Christians are going to reject Nazism and indeed are going to be encouraged to not even look for redeeming value in Nazism, it should be on the basis of valid, well thought out reasons, not simplistic cliches and overgeneralizations worthy of a third grader.
Last time I checked, the civilization of the ancient Greeks -- the civilization of Homer, Aeschylus, Socrates, Plato, Aristotle, Euripides, and Sophocles -- was non-Christian.
Last time I checked, the Romans persecuted Christians.
Now, does anyone here who thinks I'm wrong on this point care to step up to the plate and argue that:
There is nothing of value in Greek and Roman thought?
That the Greek and Roman experience did not produce insights of value to our context?
That the Greeks and Romans were "losers" who should be shunned because their civilizations no longer exist?
Or, in contrast, does it make more sense to concede that these civilizations produced insights of lasting value and relevance for Christians, despite the fact that they were non-Christian and/or persecuted Christians?
Pay attention, Ruffin, this should be fun :thumbsup:
2004-05-23 23:25 | User Profile
Exactly madrussian, another good point. This is a complex topic. It's clear that Hitler persecuted the Church. What's not as clear is whether his intention was to wipe out Christianity per se, or whether his intention was simply to excise an institution that had become largely a malign influence on Germany in the same way that contemporary Judeo-Christianity/Christian Zionism has become a malign influence on the USA.
I can't support Hitler's attempt to manipulate the church, and there is evidence that he hated Christianity and that as such wanted to wipe it out. However, maybe his intention was to wipe out the Christian Zionists of his day.
It's hard to be sure what's true with Hitler, because practically no one is willing to assess the man fairly without grinding some kind of axe.
[QUOTE=madrussian]By the way, saying that about the Orthodox Church has been pretty mainstream. I remember even Tex saying something along those lines.
Now if you add Judeo-"Christianity" and liberal Chuches, the above won't sound as controversial anymore.[/QUOTE]
2004-05-23 23:33 | User Profile
And does it make really sense to say "the Nazis weren't Christians" or "the Nazis persecuted Christians" therefore there's nothing of value in Nazism?
That's a pretty weak argument that Christians should not buy into in my opinion.
If Christians are going to reject Nazism and indeed are going to be encouraged to not even look for redeeming value in Nazism, it should be on the basis of valid, well thought out reasons, not simplistic cliches and overgeneralizations worthy of a third grader.
Last time I checked, the civilization of the ancient Greeks -- the civilization of Homer, Aeschylus, Socrates, Plato, Aristotle, Euripides, and Sophocles -- was non-Christian.
The religious Right [collectively] fails to understand that WITHOUT CHRISTIANITY, THE WEST CAN EXIST, e.g. ancient Greece/Rome. BUT WITHOUT WHITES, THE WEST CANNOT EXIST.
Race trumps religion re: the future of the White race. And I challenge anyone to explain how this is not so. [If you do attempt such explaining, please use clear language and give concrete examples].
That is not Christian-bashing, that is merely a cultural and historical observation.
2004-05-23 23:44 | User Profile
The Nazis even used Christian Art in their propaganda to contrast geninue Aryan art (though Christian inspired) with sickening Jew monstrosities.
Michaelangelo's Sistine Chapel ceiling makes an appearance in The Eternal Jew, as does work by Bottecelli (sp?) and others.
So clearly the Nazis had some respect for Christianity and its art if they put iconic Christian images in their most famous propaganda film as examples of great art.
As an aside, let me mention something else. I consulted on a softare project one time with an architect who was also involved in the project (the project had to do with developing new CAD software). Anyway, what the architect told me, which didn'surpirsed me at the time, is that a dirty little secret in the architecture community is that most architects admire Third Reich architecture but are afraid to say so for obvious reasons.
The demonization of the Nazis by the Great Masters of the Lie has been so relentless that you can't even do something as harmless as express admiration for Nazi aesthetic judgments without incurring someone's wrath.
Which is the exact reason I stay skeptical when someone comes at me with the "Nazism was an unmitigated evil argument."
No one has been more lied about than the Nazis.
[QUOTE=Franco]What???
The Nazis wanted to restore 'real' art in Europe. In fact, they banned 'modern' art in Germany.
Their parades and rallies were largely Roman in design [watch "Triumph of the Will," which I own and have seen many times].
Have you studied Nazi culture? Have you ever seen "Triumph of the Will?"
--------------[/QUOTE]
2004-05-23 23:54 | User Profile
Honestly Franco, maybe Walter, Tex, or Peter can come up with someting, but I think that you're raising an unassailable point here that no Christian can rebut without relying on Christian ideas (which by definition non-Christians do not share).
So I don't expect you to buy into my reasoning here.
Basically, my take on this issue as a Christian is that the continued existence of the West hinges on as many people as possible turning to Christ. Obviously, Plato, etc. couldn't do that, because the civilization of the ancient Greeks predated Jesus.
Edit: Forgot to add one thing. This issue poses the same problem for Christians that the Argument from Evil against God's existence poses for Christians. Christians can't explain how evil exists in a universe ruled by an omnipotent, omnibenevolent God without invoking Christian theology. Most Christians explain the "problem" of evil in the context of the Fall.
Regards,
[QUOTE=Franco]The religious Right [collectively] fails to understand that WITHOUT CHRISTIANITY, THE WEST CAN EXIST, e.g. ancient Greece/Rome. BUT WITHOUT WHITES, THE WEST CANNOT EXIST.
Race trumps religion re: the future of the White race. And I challenge anyone to explain how this is not so. [If you do attempt such explaining, please use clear language and give concrete examples].
That is not Christian-bashing, that is merely a cultural and historical observation.
---------------[/QUOTE]
2004-05-24 03:50 | User Profile
VF, I'm not convinced that Hitler "persecuted the church". Like all leaders he used it to his advantage when he could, which was much less than phony "Christian" US politicians do. I don't have documentation to back this up but I think I know enough about Hitler, the situation there at the time, and how these things are done, to say that political leaders don't "hate" things the way ordinary Americans are encouraged to (Jews are a special case, both as far as they can be considered political leaders, and as far as they're dangerous enough to make hatred of them a political practicability). They do recognize dangers, and act accordingly. Any so-called "persecutions of the church" by Hitler were more than likely actions taken against saboteurs or other agents working against the German regime in some way while hiding behind the church's skirt. This is a classic method of the Jews, as we in the US have seen with the advent of "black reverends" invoking the Lord God's blessing on their righteous suffering at the hands of evil whitey - while being financed by the communist party.
Hitler thought that the church, and Christianity, were on their way out, and was at the most irritated by its role as a distractor and occasional agent of subversion, sometimes wittingly, sometimes not. But he knew better than to mess with it, as an institution, any more than was necessary for the defense of Germany.
Pardon me for saying so but I haven't seen such healthy and defined skepticism about claims against "the nazis" - from a Christian - in ages. In the last year or so, what with the new anti-semitism and all, I've seen some lighten up on them a bit, but none who cared to break down the generalizations about them.
I knew, when I was twelve years old, that there was some hidden greatness in them, simply because all of the most disgusting people in the world hated them with a passion. That was in 1968.
Anyway, this is the best thread I've read here in a long time.
2004-05-24 04:23 | User Profile
[QUOTE=Valley Forge] As an aside, let me mention something else. I consulted on a softare project one time with an architect who was also involved in the project (the project had to do with developing new CAD software). Anyway, what the architect told me, which didn'surpirsed me at the time, is that a dirty little secret in the architecture community is that most architects admire Third Reich architecture but are afraid to say so for obvious reasons. [/QUOTE]
Here's an interesting paper on the subject: [url=http://www.andrew.cmu.edu/user/oa04/Papers/NaziArch.pdf]Nazi Architecture[/url]
2004-05-24 05:27 | User Profile
Franco: You mention Triumph of the Will.
Do you not see that Soviet film influenced Triumph of the Will? Compare that to Eizenstein's earlier work. The connection is obvious. Of course, ToW is a great artistic achievement, don't get me wrong, but there's no doubt where it came from. Nazism is derivative in nearly all of its aspects.
And again, the derivative nature of Nazism is not only manifest in their mass-produced art. The labor camp system, the mass youth movements, the all-pervasive party apparatus with a single dictator on top, their reliance on ideology rather than Truth - all of that stuff was taken directly from the Bolsheviks (who in turn took a lot of it from Catholic sources. As I said, there's nothing new under the sun).
[QUOTE][B]Race trumps religion [/B] re: the future of the White race. And I challenge anyone to explain how this is not so. [If you do attempt such explaining, please use clear language and give concrete examples]. [/QUOTE] The statement in bold is the very essence of idolatry.
We Christians are monotheists; we believe that there is One God Who made everything and Who stands above and outside His creation. Human beings - and hence human racial groups - are just a part of God's creation, and therefore human race is really a small thing in comparison to the worship of Him.
We place Him first, and in doing so all the other things fall naturally into their proper order. And that includes race.
In fact, even in the broader nationalist context, race isn't the whole thing. Not by far. Nationalism is one of the pillars of the Catholic Social program, and it in turn consists of three components: (1) culture (language, literature, art), (2) sovereign territory, and (3) racial integrity.
Race is certainly a major - even central - component of the nationalist pillar, but it's just a component of a part, and not nearly the whole thing as you would idolatrously have it. I should add that the three elements of nationalism are in some tension. Race and culture are in a sense flip sides of the same coin. Race determines the natural limits and general contours of any groups cultural achievements, whereas culture creates the system of symbols that form the wall of group identity behind which a genetic group may work out its own destiny over time. Territorial sovereignty make the development of the race in tension with culture possible.
To repeat, nationalism is only one of the pillars of the Third Position:
Solidarity.
Subsidiary.
Private property.
Nationalism - including territorial sovereignty, genetic integrity, and cultural purity.
And race is but a part of nationalism.
All of that flows fresh and pure from the Natural Law, and is available to all men, even those who are not subject to the Gospel.
But the tendency of paganism is always to tear a bit from creation and to worship it instead of the Creator, may His Name be forever blessed.
Your assertion that race trumps religion is the essence of paganism, it is the very stuff of idolatry, for you would take that very subsidiary part of creation and worship it instead of the One True God. I beg of you to reconsider.
In the meantime, no Christian could have anything to do with such a statement. And by extension no Christian could have anything to do with Nazism.
Warmest regards,
Walter
2004-05-24 06:20 | User Profile
[QUOTE]Now, does anyone here who thinks I'm wrong on this point care to step up to the plate and argue that:
There is nothing of value in Greek and Roman thought?
That the Greek and Roman experience did not produce insights of value to our context?
That the Greeks and Romans were "losers" who should be shunned because their civilizations no longer exist?
Or, in contrast, does it make more sense to concede that these civilizations produced insights of lasting value and relevance for Christians, despite the fact that they were non-Christian and/or persecuted Christians?
Pay attention, Ruffin, this should be fun.[/QUOTE]
VF: I first point out that the only reason any of us know anything of the Greek and Roman pagan civilizations is due to the Church and her embrace of the best elements of the same. The Church from the beginning was more than willing to give the great pagans their due, and to build on their astonishing achievements to create the great construct we call Christendom.
My point is most emphatically not that non-Christian civilizations have nothing of value. Anyone who's seen a Buddhist country, for example, cannot help but admire Buddhism's many achievements, IMHO. Look to what I said above, brother. I am all for appreciating the achievements of others, and indeed for taking winning strategies and turning them to our own use, from whatever the source.
My point about Nazism is that they added nothing original to the conversation. Nazism was a Romanticist reaction against Maxist Jewish Bolshevism. Naturally, the Nazi movement took on the aspect of the Jewish Bolsheviks in their cultural expressions, their political organization and methodology (to paraphrase Tolstoy, you always become the thing you hate most). Nazism is an almost purely derivative thing.
Like all anti-Church heretical movements, Nazism drew its brief vitality from the truths of Christian doctrine that it reduced and perverted to its own ends. Its insistence on fecund marriage and tolerance for small property holdings are probably the two Christian truths most in evidence in Nazi ideology. Their disordered emphasis on the German race and their conflation of the "natural" with the "moral" in making a idol of slaughter are conversely perhaps the perversions most clearly in evidence.
But anyway, like the all heretical bacteria that infected the Bride of Christ in the past, Nazis wound up killing themselves in their own toxic waste. The fact that Nazism is a particularly nasty, virulent strain of the great heresies of the past is shown by the very short time it took to poison themselves, and to kill a whole lot of people - mostly white people - in the process.
So, as I said above go ahead and try to sort through the burned out rubble of Berlin 1945 for some magic Nazi talisman that's going to somehow assist us in our struggle to survive. Have at it. But I tell you it's a complete waste of time.
And while I'm at it, do you really mean to compare the achievements of the great Greek and Roman civilizations with the scurrilous nullity of Nazism? Are you seriously posing the question why the Church (which is Christendom) found much of great value in Homer but nothing of enduring value in Hitler?
I hope not.
Regards,
Walter
2004-05-24 06:25 | User Profile
[QUOTE=madrussian]To Walter's "lost causes and wallowing" speech, the most successful parasites in history, the zhids, are the biggest "never forgive never forget" types, and their wallowing in past slights (and their making your children pay their respects to zhid sufferink) is only a source of strength to them, as it unites them in their cause and feeds their paranoia (that they put to good use by the way).
Incidentally, the wallowing Irish are one of the few groups with still some identity in the US.[/QUOTE]
Hmmm . . .
So, is it fair to say that you favor wallowing in self-pty and nursing resentment as a winning strategy?
Interesting thought . . .
Walter
2004-05-24 06:32 | User Profile
Race is certainly a major - even central - component of the nationalist pillar, but it's just a component of a part, and not nearly the whole thing as you would idolatrously have it.
Nationalism means a group of people united by race, e.g. an Indian nation in a state in the midwestern U.S.A. That Indian tribe is called a nation. Race is the foundation of any nation. Not any 'god.' Not anything else. Culture is a part of any nation, yes, but the key factor is race. A race creates their own culture.
The White Race = the West. God need not appear anywhere for that to be a reality, e.g. ancient Greece/Rome. You see, I have studied nationalism and race. I own several Western Civ. books. I can see what Man created long before 'He' [God and/or Jesus] showed up.
2004-05-24 07:03 | User Profile
[QUOTE=Franco]Nationalism means a group of people united by race, e.g. an Indian nation in a state in the midwestern U.S.A. That Indian tribe is called a nation. Race is the foundation of any nation. Not any 'god.' Not anything else. Culture is a part of any nation, yes, but the key factor is race. A race creates their own culture.
The White Race = the West. God need not appear anywhere for that to be a reality, e.g. ancient Greece/Rome. You see, I have studied nationalism and race. I own several Western Civ. books. I can see what Man created long before 'He' [God and/or Jesus] showed up.
------------[/QUOTE]
That's just wrong, Franco.
God stands above His creation. The rest (including us) is just part of His creation.
Placing anything above Him is idolatry, and is the very essence of paganism.
That makes you a pagan, which is fine. Some of my best friends are pagans, so to speak.
I do think, however, that there's not much more of a basic disagreement than this. I'm a monotheist and worship the transcendent God above all else. You're a pagan of sorts because you place some created thing before Him (which just happens to be in your case race).
But this raises the question of whether two men such as us with such a fundamental disagreement can work together in the same movement. As you know, I've long since concluded that the answer to that question is no, we can't.
We can't because we want fundamentally different things. I want to do God's will (which happens to include the division of mankind into distinct nations), and you want to worship your race. Go for it, dude. Just count me out.
Best regards,
Walter
2004-05-24 08:49 | User Profile
[QUOTE]I want to do God's will (which happens to include the division of mankind into distinct nations), and you want to worship your race. [/QUOTE] Actually, Walter, [I]you [/I] want to hang out with your family, your pets, your collected CS Lewis and a whole lot of canned food up in your mountain hideaway while the rest of us go at it tooth fang and claw in a five-year-long episode of CSI: APOCALYPSE.
[QUOTE]But this raises the question of whether two men such as us with such a fundamental disagreement can work together in the same movement. As you know, I've long since concluded that the answer to that question is no, we can't.[/QUOTE]
You'll learn how soon enough, once you realize you're outnumbered 20 to 1.
2004-05-24 10:20 | User Profile
[QUOTE=il ragno]Actually, Walter, [I]you [/I] want to hang out with your family, your pets, your collected CS Lewis and a whole lot of canned food up in your mountain hideaway while the rest of us go at it tooth fang and claw in a five-year-long episode of CSI: APOCALYPSE.[/QUOTE]
You miss the point that one in no wise excludes the other. In fact, they are constituent parts of the same plan.
As in business, the tactic is always to internalize benefits while externalizing costs, while of course keeping your eye on the ball and making your move only when the time is right. Foresight and timing are everything.
[B]Of course [/B] I'd like to see my enemies wipe each other out and then for me to swoop in at the right moment. I mean, duh. That's sort of a no-brainer, no? Not that I think such a joyful outcome is anything like guaranteed.
What's CSI?
Also, I intend to raise a lot of fresh vegetables and maybe even a few livestock and keep the canned goods to a minimum. I'm a farm boy, you may recall.
[QUOTE]You'll learn how soon enough, once you realize you're outnumbered 20 to 1.[/QUOTE]
You're an optimist - the odds are much worse than 20:1 for us.
The point is to gather the like-minded around for mutual protection and support. And for me, that means my fellow European, Christian and English-speaking Americans. I really don't need outsiders around, especially in a time of crisis. At least this way I'll be surrounded by the few people I trust, instead of waiting for my friendly neighborhood Nazi (or other pagan flavour of the month) to shove the shiv in my ribs at the time of his choosing.
And you know that's what'll happen sooner or later.
Warmest regards,
Walter
2004-05-24 10:45 | User Profile
[QUOTE]You're an optimist - the odds are much worse than 20:1 for us.[/QUOTE]
Agreed, but I didn't want to start the week sounding a doomed note. Monday mornings are depressing enough already.
2004-05-24 10:52 | User Profile
[QUOTE=il ragno]Agreed, but I didn't want to start the week sounding a doomed note. Monday mornings are depressing enough already.[/QUOTE]
I know what you mean.
But don't despair.
While we'll have to slog through years of shite, our victory is a certainty.
Look to this day! For it is life, the very life of life For yesterday is but a dream and tomorrow is only a vision But today well lived makes every yesterday a dream of happiness And every tomorrow a vision of hope Look well, therefore, to this day 'Tis the visitation of the dawn!
Walter
2004-05-24 16:39 | User Profile
Walter Yannis
Who are you attempting to impress?
All this notional anti-Nazi ranting and raving is somewhat of a giveaway. Is this indicative of lazy thought or a lack of knowledge? Or perhaps deliberate subterfuge - the derivation of some thematic and concealed belief? However, it is neither original nor is it correct.
No more moralistic little statements. Give it up.
Your view is as predictable as it is erroneous.
-
2004-05-24 17:00 | User Profile
Mentzer,
Maybe you should join the battle or STFU.
Love him or hate him, Walter's posts are always well reasoned.
If he's made an error of fact, perhaps you can point it out?
You might want to do so, that is, of course, unless you don't care about exposing yourself as a fool.
[QUOTE=Mentzer]Walter Yannis
Who are you attempting to impress?
All this notional anti-Nazi ranting and raving is somewhat of a giveaway. Is this indicative of lazy thought or a lack of knowledge? Or perhaps deliberate subterfuge - the derivation of some thematic and concealed belief? However, it is neither original nor is it correct.
No more moralistic little statements. Give it up.
Your view is as predictable as it is erroneous.
-[/QUOTE]
2004-05-24 17:12 | User Profile
Well reasoned?
Walter isn't taken seriously, even by those of us who throw his hyperbole right back at him.
2004-05-24 18:15 | User Profile
[QUOTE=Ruffin]Well reasoned?
Walter isn't taken seriously, even by those of us who throw his hyperbole right back at him.[/QUOTE]
Two words: "Christian Nationalism" :whstl:
2004-05-24 18:36 | User Profile
[QUOTE=Valley Forge]It appears that in the early phase of the NS movement, when the NSers probaly still needed Christian support, the Nazis feigned a favorable attitude toward Christians in order to appeal to them and garner their support. To do this, the Nazis conceived of so-called "positive Christianity," which, as you said, was pretty much an attempt to manipulate, control, and influence the church. And when the planned manipulation did not work out, the mask pretty much came off and by the 1940s the Nazis has moved on to open persecution of the Church.
This summary comes from an article from Crisis magazine.
Also from the same article:
At least now we know where the Linder Cultists get the Christianity is Jewish plot garbage and where NeoNietzsche in all likelihood got the idea that Christianity=Bolshevism.[/QUOTE] That's what I'm talking about with bait and switch...see it here and on SF all the time. Except, once they see the gig is up, they get real nasty and post stuff about "getting rid of" Christians and jews being the only answer.
Now, they're trying the same thing with conservatives, claiming to be right wing or conservative. What's conservative about nationalizing an economy and having a few self-appointed elitist wannabes running it all? That's leftist thought, as is socialism. However, the nazis are not in history without reason. They believed in their cause and were damn good at fighting/organizing, damn smart. They also had etiquette on the battle field. I've met several WWII vets who said they'd much rather have been shooting Italians and Philipinos than Germans and Japanese.
2004-05-24 18:51 | User Profile
Valley Forge
You would do well not to offer me instruction.
Some are made fools of very easily - do not make that error.
-
2004-05-24 19:08 | User Profile
AntiYuppie
Perhaps you would feel more at home with the dysfunctional Bill and Hilary or is it Bill and Ben - you never know with her.
In any case they all belong to you.
-
2004-05-24 19:42 | User Profile
I'm fascinated, Mentzer. How do you square your apparent fondness for NS Germany with your admiration of Jew-buttboy-George? Am I missing something here, or are you confused, or...................
Are you one of those who think that killing Arabs because they're darker than AmeriJews is a good thing?
I'm not trying to set you up for a smirking reply or anything. I'm honestly interested in your perspective.
2004-05-24 21:41 | User Profile
Why don't you try it then?
[QUOTE=Mentzer]Valley Forge
You would do well not to offer me instruction.
Some are made fools of very easily - do not make that error.
-[/QUOTE]
2004-05-24 21:43 | User Profile
Ruffin, Come on man.
Mentzer simultaneously admires NS Germany and George W. -- and never contributes anything but snide remarks and insults (that I've seen).
Putting two and two together, it looks like we may have a troll on our hands here everybody. And not a very sophiscated one.
[QUOTE=Ruffin]I'm fascinated, Mentzer. How do you square your apparent fondness for NS Germany with your admiration of Jew-buttboy-George? Am I missing something here, or are you confused, or...................
Are you one of those who think that killing Arabs because they're darker than AmeriJews is a good thing?
I'm not trying to set you up for a smirking reply or anything. I'm honestly interested in your perspective.[/QUOTE]
2004-05-24 21:46 | User Profile
Our friend Mentzer failed to respond when I asked him to point out where Walter supposesly got his facts wrong.
Maybe you could give an example of hyperbole?
[QUOTE=Ruffin]Well reasoned?
Walter isn't taken seriously, even by those of us who throw his hyperbole right back at him.[/QUOTE]
2004-05-24 22:19 | User Profile
I find it hard to believe anyone could be that stupid.
[QUOTE=AntiYuppie]I suspect that Mentzer is what we call a "Hollywood Nazi." Liberal hyperbole labels George W. Bush a "Nazi" (in spite of the fact that Bush is as pro-Jew, pro-negro, and pro-mestizo as any liberal Democrat), so being pro-Bush and pro-GOP is part of the Hollywood Nazi play-act. Anybody with a serious commitment to an ideology would quickly figure out that one can't simultaneously admire Bush and NS while maintaining the slightest consistency, but such subtleties are of no consequence to the Hollywood Nazi dress-up crowd, for whom the whole thing is about affect and show anyway.[/QUOTE]
2004-05-25 00:06 | User Profile
[QUOTE=Walter Yannis]VF: I first point out that the only reason any of us know anything of the Greek and Roman pagan civilizations is due to the Church and her embrace of the best elements of the same.
This may be a slight exaggeration Walter.
Obviously, the Parthenon is still standing on the Acropolis today, so clearly -- from the perspective of a non-Christian -- people would know something about Greek civilization if Christianity had never existed. Which supports Franco's point.
Also, the Arabs played an important role in preserving the best philosophical elements of Greece and Rome when Rome disintegrated in the fifth century.
The Church did the most, of course, but it's clearly not correct to say "the only reason any of us know anything of the Greek and Roman pagan civilizations is due to the Church."
The Church from the beginning was more than willing to give the great pagans their due, and to build on their astonishing achievements to create the great construct we call Christendom.
In other words, there are elements of Christian thinking that are derivative, just like there are elements of Nazism that are derivative.
Now, since you've dismissed the positive elements of Nazism as essentially worthless because they are derived from other sources, I think it's fair to ask why, for example, St. Thomas Aquinas' thought shouldn't be similarly dismissed or held in lower esteem because his work is derived from Aristotle?
My point about Nazism is that they added nothing original to the conversation.
Not true.
The Nazi's made a indispensible contribution to the Great Conversation in the West: they linked preservation of the race with the exclusion of Jews.
And before you say not true -- many Christian nations expelled Jews -- let's remember that 1) that was a long time, and 2) in the contemporary era, the Church disowned and repudiated Father Coughlin for speaking out about Jews.
If there's nothing of value in the Nazi rubble, how do you explain the Nazis making the right decsion here and the Church the wrong one?
And while I'm at it, do you really mean to compare the achievements of the great Greek and Roman civilizations with the scurrilous nullity of Nazism?
Good grief, of course, not.
I can't support your view that the Nazis were scurrilous non-entities, but at the same time, clearly, it would be grotesque to mention their acccomplishments in the same breath as the Greeks and the Romans, though in fairness they were only on the scene twelve years, half of which were occupied by major warfare.
2004-05-25 00:37 | User Profile
Valley Forge
It will be a pleasure. It seems to me you are already afraid.
But you have made your mistake - I will rectify it in due course.
-
2004-05-25 00:41 | User Profile
Looking forward to it.
[QUOTE=Mentzer]Valley Forge
It will be a pleasure. It seems to me you are already afraid.
But you have made your mistake - I will rectify it in due course.
-[/QUOTE]
2004-05-25 00:49 | User Profile
AntiYuppie
Typical response from an American. You appear media-saturated. Perhaps obsessed? Do you seek knowledge?
It is not always apparent on celluloid. Or are you fooled by Walter? I think perhaps so. And it is laughable - for now.
Although, if I may state: I understand your concerns. And you do suspect wrongly.
-
2004-05-25 01:41 | User Profile
Valley Forge
Are you as competent at arithmetic and spelling as you are sophisticated? If so, I will require reading glasses or a calculator.
You will need to reappraise your 'troll' analogy or at least justify it - if you are able.
And if you wish to comment on German history; you must understand it. The German people that made it, the thoughts behind it, and the endeavours and the supreme singular effort that be it possible.
Mentzer.
2004-05-25 01:50 | User Profile
Mentzer,
You may very well know much more about Germany and NS than me.
I never claimed to be an expert. That's the main reason I'm here - to learn.
Just point out where I'm going wrong, and I may come over to your way to thinking on this subject.
I don't believe there's anything wrong with switching positions on something in the face of superior arguments.
Intellectually honest people do it all the time.
Now, that said, you definitely give the impression of being a troll. Do you realize you haven't made a remark on this thread yet without insulting someone?
For example, you've repeatedly asserted, without evidence, that Walter is "ignorant."
Perhaps you don't realize it, but if you don't back up a statement like that -- you're the one who ends up looking ignorant.
Basically, you always rant but you never put up.
That's why I told you to STFU earlier.
[QUOTE=Mentzer]Valley Forge
Are you as competent at arithmetic and spelling as you are sophisticated? If so, I will not require reading glasses or a calculator.
You will need to reappraise your 'troll' analogy or at least justify it - if you are able.
And if you wish to comment on German history; you must understand it. The German people that made it, the thoughts behind it, and the endeavours and the supreme singular effort that be it possible.
Mentzer.[/QUOTE]
2004-05-25 02:04 | User Profile
[QUOTE=Valley Forge]Maybe you could give an example of hyperbole?[/QUOTE]
Gladly. It's about all he does.
Like you I'm no expert in Nazism, but I think even a passing acquaintace with that ideology suffices to prove that Nazism was all about abosolute dictatorship administering itself via a huge state bureaucratic apparatus that sought to displace all organic social relations with itself. That much seems clear.
The Nazis were statists, and the state is the enemy, at least in an ultimate sense. Always has been. God didn't want Israel to have a king, you know.
Sadly, with both Mao and Hitler, the problem was one that Mao had simply too much power, and despite their obvious genius, they simply couldn't be trusted with it.
He opened a second (actually, third) front by invading Russia, this despite the prior experience of the Poles, Swedes and French. He never had a chance.
Hubris is a very human condition. The problem is that the Germans gave one man all political power, and provided no check on Hitler's inherent megalomania.
I agree. Hitler, like Napolean and King Charles of Sweden, just didn't get it.
It was pure hubris to even try. The stupidity of Operation Barbarossa speaks volumes about why we don't need the Nazis and their loser ideology.
They're losers and consequently have nothing to offer our movement (unless we want to be losers like them, which I don't).
The Nazis are all about the state as society. We're all about society ruling itself, and in the course of that self-rule instituting a state to get a few things done here and there. The Nazis are heirs to Prussia, after all, while we're the heirs of Washington Indeed, America was born fighting Hessian mercenaries who worked for a Hanoverian king, right? We always were the enemies of everythiing they stood for.
Okay, fine. Examine NS and see if you can find a few nuggets in the rubble heap of that short-lived and utterly failed 20th century phenomenon. Have at it, as we used to say in the service.
My position is that we're all better off spending our precious time mining more promising ground: the great two thousand year old Christian tradition of Europe. There we will find the answers to all of our questions: faith, morals, economics, even organizational models for our own resistance movement.
We don't have unlimted time. Why waste your time on proven losers when you have clear winners to emulate?
(Psst: I hate losers, because they lose).
And the whole thing was derivative. Their mass art and mass state organizations and parades were copied nearly verbatim from the Jewish Bolshevik script. Even the Nazi's organizaitonal ideas were derivative: they emulated the very successful Jewish Bolsheviks, who in turn emulated the Jesuits. The Nazis are nothing new under the sun.
Ineed, the very idea that we're going to find something in Nazism - mind you a thing that went down to utterly ignoble defeat in less than 25 years - that the Church hasn't run into in its 2,000 years of her history is simply preposterous. Absurd. Let me be blunt. The mere attempt to do so evinces a terrible sort of mental laziness, an adolescent lunging after quick solutions in a marketing niche designed to shock parents. It's not for serious adults.
I gotta call you on that one, VF. The Nazis despised the mighty Christian plinth upon which was raised the entire edifice of the great German tradition. You can't on the one hand recognize their paganism (or whatever you want to call that weird mish-mash of Nietzshe, Wagner, Hegel, Chamberlain - combined with the occultist babble of Madame Blavatskaya) and on the other proclaim Nazi love for German civilization. The Nazis came to destroy German civilization - a profoundly Christian thing - and fill the vacuum with themselves.
The results speak for themselves. They lost big time, and thus became losers. Emulate them only if your great ambition is to join them on the rubble heap.
The Nazis are a bunch of come-lately, bumbling "C" students compared to the glory of the Church, in this area as in all others.
To repeat, the Nazis were nothing new under the sun. The Nazis didn't hold a candle to the Holy Inquisition (which still exists, at least in a successorship in interest sort of way).
There's nothing that they have or can add of value to the conversation.
I respectfully disagree. We need to stick with the tried and true: the Father of our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ. He's seen us through thus far, and He will show us the way to turn our enemies - including the Pharisees - into our footstools.
With all respect, brother Franco, that is perhaps the most succint expression of a LOSER attitude I've ever come across.
If failure doesn't count, the clearly success doesn't either.
Get it?
Loser, loser, loser, loser mentality!
Shed it NOW!!!!
Success is the ONLY thing that matters. The rest is just conversation.
Just ask Darwin, he'll tell you.
The Nazis lost, ergo they are LOSERS and warrant study - if at all - as the way NOT to do things. They can serve as negative examples, fine, I have no problem with that, alhtough I'd frankly limit my time on that in favor of potentially more fruitful areas of study (like the Holy Inquisition). But, certainly it's okay to study the failed attempts so you can better understand and appreciate the ways of the winners.
But certainly losers have little to teach winners about winning, at least by way of positive emulation. And the Nazis were losers without peer.
Lose them if you want to win. Stick with them if you want to lose. It's really just that simple.
Shed the useless sentiment, my friend. You seem to have an unhealthy attachment to lost causes, and I say that in the spirit of brotherhood. But it's the truth. Lost causes don't win us future battles. It's not way forward.
Shed them all, now.
The Romans long since gone, yet Christ and His Church endure.
Could it be any clearer?
Of course the Romans were losers and Christ is the winner - Christ said as much on his way to Calvary, which was after all for him the price he paid for the Resurrection. Christ is now seated at the Right Hand of the Father and He rules the heavens in glory. And just wait until He comes back. There'll be hell to pay, literally. His enemies will have their heads stomped in, but good.
Place your entire wad on that one, Ruffin. Why throw good money after a loser bet like the Nazis, when we have a sure winner in Christ?
Be a winner, not a loser.
I mean, isn't this all too bloody obvious for words? The thing that baffles me is why an obviously intelligent man like you doesn't get that immediately. It's this romantic love of lost causes, I guess. I think it's a Celtic thing (and a Southern thing). My Irish ancestors had it in spades. But clearly it does not good to knock back several shots of Jameson and sigh over what might have been and wallow in the resentment over past slights and self-pity for terrible unfairness of it all. If only the boom would have held over the River Boyne. If only Getteysberg would have run a slightly different course. Get beyond that whole loser mental attitude, my friend. And do it now. Because we need you on board with a plan that will win.
And to all of you, I can only say that this whole Nazi idea is a loser. It's a dog, a dud, a non-starter.
I really think we all just need to accept that and drop this idea as one that can only distract us from building on our strengths, which is of course the Christianity of our ancestors. Build on that, it's our strength, and frankly it's our only hope.
The rest of it only distracts us from that task.
Focus is ALWAYS the key. Get on board with the Christain train, my brothers. It's the only one that still works.
My point is most emphatically not that non-Christian civilizations have nothing of value. Anyone who's seen a Buddhist country, for example, cannot help but admire Buddhism's many achievements, IMHO. Look to what I said above, brother. I am all for appreciating the achievements of others, and indeed for taking winning strategies and turning them to our own use, from whatever the source.
My point about Nazism is that they added nothing original to the conversation. Nazism was a Romanticist reaction against Maxist Jewish Bolshevism. Naturally, the Nazi movement took on the aspect of the Jewish Bolsheviks in their cultural expressions, their political organization and methodology (to paraphrase Tolstoy, you always become the thing you hate most). Nazism is an almost purely derivative thing.
Like all anti-Church heretical movements, Nazism drew its brief vitality from the truths of Christian doctrine that it reduced and perverted to its own ends. Its insistence on fecund marriage and tolerance for small property holdings are probably the two Christian truths most in evidence in Nazi ideology. Their disordered emphasis on the German race and their conflation of the "natural" with the "moral" in making a idol of slaughter are conversely perhaps the perversions most clearly in evidence.
But anyway, like the all heretical bacteria that infected the Bride of Christ in the past, Nazis wound up killing themselves in their own toxic waste. The fact that Nazism is a particularly nasty, virulent strain of the great heresies of the past is shown by the very short time it took to poison themselves, and to kill a whole lot of people - mostly white people - in the process.
So, as I said above go ahead and try to sort through the burned out rubble of Berlin 1945 for some magic Nazi talisman that's going to somehow assist us in our struggle to survive. Have at it. But I tell you it's a complete waste of time.
And while I'm at it, do you really mean to compare the achievements of the great Greek and Roman civilizations with the scurrilous nullity of Nazism? Are you seriously posing the question why the Church (which is Christendom) found much of great value in Homer but nothing of enduring value in Hitler?
I hope not.
Hmmm . . .
So, is it fair to say that you favor wallowing in self-pty and nursing resentment as a winning strategy?
Interesting thought . . .
The point is to gather the like-minded around for mutual protection and support. And for me, that means my fellow European, Christian and English-speaking Americans. I really don't need outsiders around, especially in a time of crisis. At least this way I'll be surrounded by the few people I trust, instead of waiting for my friendly neighborhood Nazi (or other pagan flavour of the month) to shove the shiv in my ribs at the time of his choosing.
And you know that's what'll happen sooner or later.
While we'll have to slog through years of shite, our victory is a certainty.
Look to this day! For it is life, the very life of life For yesterday is but a dream and tomorrow is only a vision But today well lived makes every yesterday a dream of happiness And every tomorrow a vision of hope Look well, therefore, to this day 'Tis the visitation of the dawn!
2004-05-25 02:14 | User Profile
Valley Forge
Thank you for the reply.
Germany is my land. I have made reference to Walter's ignorance because I believe there is an underlying agenda on his behalf. I may be in error in this respect and Walter may wish to comment.
Like you, I do not come here to argue with OD members. I agree with much, if not most, of what is said. But I should not be labelled a 'troll' simply because I strongly disagree with someone. And I am not over-sensitive regarding German history.
I would be pleased to contribute on German matters, contemporary or historical. And without prejudice.
You have my regard.
Mentzer.
2004-05-25 02:16 | User Profile
Fair enough, Mentzer.
I withdraw the troll remark.
When you have time, please share your thoughts on this subject.
[QUOTE=Mentzer]Valley Forge
Thank you for the reply.
Germany is my land. I have made reference to Walter's ignorance because I believe there is an underlying agenda on his behalf. I may be in error in this respect and Walter may wish to comment.
Like you, I do not come here to argue with OD members. I agree with much, if not most, of what is said. But I should not be labelled a 'troll' simply because I strongly disagree with someone. And I am not over-sensitive regarding German history.
I would be pleased to contribute on German matters, contemporary or historical. And without prejudice.
You have my regard.
Mentzer.[/QUOTE]
2004-05-25 05:33 | User Profile
[QUOTE=Ruffin]Gladly. It's about all he does.[/QUOTE]
Thank you for gathering all of that together.
I re-read that, and I have to say that I don't see much hyperbole there.
I mean, a lot of other things could be said about my rhetoric (both good and bad), but when I view that as objectively as I can I'm just not seeing the gross overstatement that you seem to find there.
Different perceptions, I guess.
All the best,
Walter
2004-05-25 05:43 | User Profile
[QUOTE]Germany is my land. I have made reference to Walter's ignorance because I believe there is an underlying agenda on his behalf. I may be in error in this respect and Walter may wish to comment.[/QUOTE]
No, no hidden agenda here. We Americans have a saying: "what you see is what you get." I certainly try to live my life that way.
I believe that our best chance for success as a movement is to build on our Christian traditions. That means excluding foreign elements and modernist accretions, like Romanticism and Marxism, that only distract us from that primary task.
This thread is proof positive that trying to work together is a terrible waste of time.
"Shoemaker, tend to thy last!" That means for us sticking to the Christian basics, and excluding all others, even while wishing them well.
I suggest that it probably means the same for Nazis and others, but I wouldn't presume to speak for them. I can only speak for myself when I say that I have naught to do with Nazism and cannot be part of any movement that would tolerate its presence.
Regards,
Walter
2004-05-25 17:49 | User Profile
[QUOTE=Walter Yannis]Thank you for gathering all of that together.
I re-read that, and I have to say that I don't see much hyperbole there.
I mean, a lot of other things could be said about my rhetoric (both good and bad), but when I view that as objectively as I can I'm just not seeing the gross overstatement that you seem to find there.
Different perceptions, I guess.
All the best,
Walter[/QUOTE]
It's all ad hominem, foundationless faith in miracles, and stretches of the imagination. Compare it with VF's practical distinctions, avoided by you. You have outlined some of your ideas in other threads, and they actually resemble NS more than they do American-style "freedom". Of course you assign them to your religion.
I admit that I have no precise recommendation for retaking our world, or at least none that will be adopted, but I find your Teddy Rooseveltian take on "losers" - and at the same time, faith in - faith, lacking seriousness. The systems and ideas you so enjoy deriding did not "fail" on their merits. They were attacked and smashed precisely because they were successful and healthy. They are constantly demonized, lest white men draw from them! Don't you recognize this trend, or M.O.?
"A defeat on principle is not an overthrow, while a victory by compromise is a defeat." ~ John C. Calhoun
2004-05-26 00:33 | User Profile
Walter Yannis
You have made your position clear. You have stated your hatred of Nazis and by implication Germans. That may be a discussion for another thread.
However, I do not believe this thread illustrates a division, in your words, a 'terrible waste of time'. I reject that notion fully. It does not, in any way, exibit seperation. And, if I may say so, you will not progress within a framework of outdated Catholic dogma - you must include your Christian brothers and sisters, if that terminology is appropriate. For you now face a greater challenge - Islam. It has come to your land and mine. It is extreme and violent. It has an aim. The eradication of Christianity. For it feeds upon liberal Christians. And that is your bloody battle. It means life, death or servitude.
I suggest to you, that you refrain from venonous hatred towards a German political movement, past or present, that offers you no harm.
It is not the past you should worry about - rather the future. For it will require strong and healthy men and women united in purpose.
-
2004-05-26 07:09 | User Profile
[QUOTE]It's all ad hominem, foundationless faith in miracles, and stretches of the imagination. [/QUOTE]
I agree with most of that, except the "ad hominem" part. I sincerely hope that I said nothing to offend you personally. Sometimes my rhetorical flights get out of hand, but as far as I know I've not launched any personal attacks against you. Perhaps I misunderstand what you mean by "ad hominem" here.
That said, I do have great faith in faith itself. Jesus said on several occasions "your faith has saved you." That's right. Faith is the thing. Faith is what saves us, and the lack of faith is the most salient feature of this our God-damned age.
Faith is the plinth upon which the edifice of our philosophy is raised. "We believe so that we can understand." St. Augustine, I think. The point here is that faith of necessity precedes reason (Kirkegaard). Applying reason to attack the faith that is accepted a priori to reason is to get the cart exactly before the horse. Faith comes first, and is not open to question. Theology reconciles our unquestioned faith postulates with reason. It cannot be otherwise. Ergo, using reason to attack faith is the hallmark of an external enemy proceeding from another, conflicting faith system.
The Nazis are such a system, as are the Marxists and other pagan movements. Since those systems seek to displace Christianity as the defining center of our people, there can be no peace between us.
I recognize that with eyes wide open. Others here attempt to avoid that (rather obvious) conclusion, and so the playing footsie with Nazis and others.
[QUOTE]Compare it with VF's practical distinctions, avoided by you. You have outlined some of your ideas in other threads, and they actually resemble NS more than they do American-style "freedom". Of course you assign them to your religion.[/QUOTE]
I'm a Christian, and to the extent that American freedom can be reconciled to Christian teaching, then I'm all for American freedom. But the area of overlap is nearly 100%. The simple truth is that American freedom is Christian freedom, and so there's not much difference there. Christian freedom is the freedom to do the right thing. It is the freedom to act broadly in accordance with the Natural Law within the boundaries of Christian revelation. While as a Catholic I would have a few disagreements with the basic Protestant program (especially as to the divorce laws), I'm basically on board with the whole program of our Christian founders. I think that's American to the core, please explain where you see my positions diverging from that.
[QUOTE]I admit that I have no precise recommendation for retaking our world, [/QUOTE]
That, I respectfuly suggest, is the basis of our disagreement. I'm here in an attempt to hammer out a practical program of action that I think will serve the goal of making once again Christianity the guiding force of our European, Christian and English-speaking American nation.
Let me then ask with all respect: what is it that you are trying to accomplish here? I think it's a legitmate question.
[QUOTE]or at least none that will be adopted, but I find your Teddy Rooseveltian take on "losers" - and at the same time, faith in - faith, lacking seriousness.[/QUOTE]
Please see above. Faith is unavoidable (again, Kirkegaard). You've displayed a great faith in your own ability to reason, and that's fine, but surely you see that by definition your reasoning proceeds from faith. Faith in faith lacking seriousness? I don't think so. Faith is the only thing one can reasonably bet one's soul on. And bet we must.
Using reason to attack faith is the thing that lacks seriousness.
[QUOTE]The systems and ideas you so enjoy deriding did not "fail" on their merits. They were attacked and smashed precisely because they were successful and healthy. They are constantly demonized, lest white men draw from them! Don't you recognize this trend, or M.O.? [/QUOTE]
You contradict yourself. They failed because they were successful?
You're saying "A is not A."
[QUOTE]"A defeat on principle is not an overthrow, while a victory by compromise is a defeat." ~ John C. Calhoun[/QUOTE]
Apply a bit of logical analysis to this, and you'll see that again it falls apart. He's saying "defeat is victory, and victory is defeat." Again, A is not A. It's nice rhetoric, but it's utterly illogical.
Your quoting this underscores my point that your motivations have to do with a love of glorious defeat - something that I'm familiar with, but a mental attitude I'm convinced we must not allow if we genuinely desire success. That's not an ad hominem attack, by the way (is that what you meant above?). It's a sober analysis of the situation as I see it. C'mon, look into your heart. Isn't there a bit of your soul hankering after a retroactive victory at Gettysberg that caused you to quote Calhoun, when you know in your heart that a college freshman in Logic 101 could pick that apart with ease? We need to lose that attitude, all of us do (including me). We need to focus on winning.
Remember well, my friend, that our minds are such that the things we focus on grow and grow, until they obscure all else. This is a simple fact of human nature, and I suggest that we deal with it.
So, if we focus on the problem and chew the cud of "that which might have been," that grows and grows by the force of our magic magnifying minds. Conversely, if we focus on the solution to our present problems, the solution will grow and grow and the problem will fade and fade. We do that by living in the solution, and not in the problem.
Avoiding restment and self-pity is just basic emotional hygiene, after all.
Ruffin, I ask you to consider leaving aside the "noble defeat" paradigm and join me in trying to work out a Christian program for victory. You tend toward hopelessness, I think. A remnant? No way. We can and we must build a mass movement, and I think Ygg is right that we're approaching a great moment of opportunity for a big break-out. Right now a few of us are floundering around trying to work out an economic program, and having a hard time of it. Why not pitch in to help?
You have a fine mind, obviously. Heck, I don't doubt that you're several quanta smarter than me. Why not drop the loser mentality and use your hyper-IQ in a cause that has the best chances of winning?
Warmest regards,
Walter
2004-05-26 07:29 | User Profile
[QUOTE]You have made your position clear. You have stated your hatred of Nazis and by implication Germans. That may be a discussion for another thread.[/QUOTE]
I'm pleased that you've recognized our irrconcialable differences, and I take it you agree that we can't work together in the same movement. And I say that in all good faith and best wishes for you and yours.
But your're wrong about my hating Germans. I don't hate Germans. Our peoples fought a couple of nasty wars, but that's all in the past as far as I'm concerned. Our countries have been allies for as long as I've been alive, and I try to keep that uppermost in my mind.
In addition, I've stated on this thread that I consider the German nation one of the greatest in history. The German nation was created by God himself (see Catechism of the Catholic Church Articles 56-58) and the German nation is to play a key role in the cosmic drama, no doubt about that.
If we made a Venn diagram of German culture and European culture, the area of overlap would be very substantial indeed. Indeed, I think it no exaggeration to say that without Germany, there can really be no Christendom, and re-instituting Christendom is the whole of my program.
[QUOTE]However, I do not believe this thread illustrates a division, in your words, a 'terrible waste of time'. I reject that notion fully. It does not, in any way, exibit seperation. And, if I may say so, you will not progress within a framework of outdated Catholic dogma - you must include your Christian brothers and sisters, if that terminology is appropriate. [/QUOTE]
I didn't understand that. Outdated Catholic dogma that doesn't include Christians? Please explain.
[QUOTE]For you now face a greater challenge - Islam. It has come to your land and mine. It is extreme and violent. It has an aim. The eradication of Christianity. For it feeds upon liberal Christians. And that is your bloody battle. It means life, death or servitude.[/QUOTE]
That's hardly news for us, Mentzer. Islam is nothing new to the Catholic Church. We've been dealing with the Islamic threat for 1300 years before Hitler was even a gleam in his daddy's eye. In fact, Catholic writer Belloc prophesied the rise of Islam later in the 20th century over 60 years ago, during Hitler's regime in Germany.
The only rational response to Islam is an "exreme and violent" Church militant - exactly the program I advocate. Clearly, latching on to a loser movement like Nazism isn't the answer.
[QUOTE]I suggest to you, that you refrain from venonous hatred towards a German political movement, past or present, that offers you no harm.[/QUOTE]
Offers me no harm? Tell that to the Poles, French, and Russians. I think they'll likely disagree - perhaps some of our representatives of those great nations could chime in on this point.
[QUOTE]It is not the past you should worry about - rather the future. For it will require strong and healthy men and women united in purpose.[/QUOTE]
Exactly, please see my response to Ruffin above.
We disagree about the thing that makes us "strong and healthy."
Christ makes us strong.
Nazism is a spiritual disease that resulted in ruin.
And that's about all that can be said about that.
Regards,
Walter
2004-05-26 07:40 | User Profile
How is it that Christians existed in Iraq, Syria, for hundreds of years if not over a thousand, and I think Turkey too, along with the Coptic Christians in Egypt all with out being attacked or driven out? I have read of a Baptist church built in Gaza in the 1890's and it was never touched by Arabs. Till Gawds pets threw them out or the Baptists U.S.A. told them to come home.. By the way who fired on the Church in Bethlehem? Hmmm? [url]www.whtt.org[/url]
2004-05-26 08:08 | User Profile
[QUOTE=Smedley Butler]How is it that Christians existed in Iraq, Syria, for hundreds of years if not over a thousand, and I think Turkey too, along with the Coptic Christians in Egypt all with out be attacked or driven out? I have read of a Baptist church built in Gaza the 1890's and was never touched my Arabs. Till Gawds pets threw them out our the Baptists U.S.A. told them to come home.. By the way who fired on the Church in Bethlehem? Hmmm? [url]www.whtt.org[/url][/QUOTE]
Islam tolerated Christians the way we should tolerate Muslims and others (at least in theory - there were of course mass forced conversions).
Christianity must rule - dominate - absolutely. But, since a forced conversion is no conversion at all, tolerance should be allowed non-Christians who do not attempt to challeng Christian rule.
The muslims had that right, and it's a program we should adopt.
We should also consider Islamic banking.
Walter
2004-05-26 13:43 | User Profile
[QUOTE=Smedley Butler]How is it that Christians existed in Iraq, Syria, for hundreds of years if not over a thousand, and I think Turkey too, along with the Coptic Christians in Egypt all with out being attacked or driven out? I have read of a Baptist church built in Gaza in the 1890's and it was never touched by Arabs. Till Gawds pets threw them out or the Baptists U.S.A. told them to come home.. By the way who fired on the Church in Bethlehem? Hmmm? [url="http://www.whtt.org"]www.whtt.org[/url][/QUOTE] Christians did exist in those nations for over a thousand years, but this is a testament to their tenacity and faith, not to any supposed "tolerance" of the Muslims. Christians were indeed attacked, regularly, and slaughtered. They were treated as slaves, and were severely limited in their rights under the law. They had their children stolen away from them to be raised as Muslims. In 1922 Turkey expelled or killed virtually all the Christians living there, and none of the Western powers made so much as a peep. In Smyrna alone, approximately 200,000 Christians were killed. The harbour was so clogged with bodies that ships had trouble traversing it, due to corpses becoming entangled in their propellers. The "tolerance" of Islam is a modern, politically correct myth. To be more blunt, it is bullsh**. I think there is a great danger here. People who dislike modern Jewish-controlled America see that it is attacking Muslims, and they therefore reason that Muslims must be our allies. They are not. Islam has never been warm and cuddly, and it never will be.
2004-05-26 14:26 | User Profile
[QUOTE]Christians did exist in those nations for over a thousand years, but this is a testament to their tenacity and faith, not to any supposed "tolerance" of the Muslims. Christians were indeed attacked, regularly, and slaughtered. [/QUOTE]
The mere fact that they exist even today proves that the Muslims didn't always force conversions.
Mohammed said to quit fighting Christians once they agree to pay the tax.
Please don't get me wrong, I'm not saying that the Christians stuck in the Umma aren't heroes, or that I don't recognize Muslim atrocities, but I am saying that we should consider Islamic success by adopting a policy of very limited tolerance to outsiders and still win.
Walter
2004-05-26 14:58 | User Profile
[QUOTE=Walter Yannis] Mohammed said to quit fighting Christians once they agree to pay the tax.[/QUOTE] Yes, among other things. Christians had to pay the poll tax (jizya) and the land tax (haraj). Christians could not display crosses, could not worship publicly, could not carry weapons, had to quarter Muslim travellers and soldiers, had to sell their slaves if the slaves converted, could not restore churches fallen into disrepair, could not vote, could not hold office, could have their places of worship confiscated at any moment, could not testify in court, and their murder could not trigger the death penalty for a Muslim. In addition, any Christian who at any time committed "blasphemy," which was interpreted very broadly indeed, was instantly sentenced to death.
[QUOTE=Walter Yannis] The mere fact that they exist even today proves that the Muslims didn't always force conversions.
This is technically correct. However, you must remember that Christians comprised the vast majority of these countries when the Muslims invaded. To suggest, because there are a relative handful of Christians left in countries where they once comprised the vast majority, that Islam is tolerant is a misreading of the facts, in my opinion.
2004-05-26 15:01 | User Profile
[QUOTE=Quantrill]Yes, among other things. Christians had to pay the poll tax (jizya) and the land tax (haraj). Christians could not display crosses, could not worship publicly, could not carry weapons, had to quarter Muslim travellers and soldiers, had to sell their slaves if the slaves converted, could not restore churches fallen into disrepair, could not vote, could not hold office, could have their places of worship confiscated at any moment, could not testify in court, and their murder could not trigger the death penalty for a Muslim. In addition, any Christian who at any time committed "blasphemy," which was interpreted very broadly indeed, was instantly sentenced to death.
This is technically correct. However, you must remember that Christians comprised the vast majority of these countries when the Muslims invaded. To suggest, because there are a relative handful of Christians left in countries where they once comprised the vast majority, that Islam is tolerant is a misreading of the facts, in my opinion.[/QUOTE]
You're no doubt correct on that.
I'm merely suggesting that we Christians emulate Muslim success in this area, with a view to preventing future outbreaks of pagansim that currently threaten to overwhelm us completely.
Walter
2004-05-26 15:15 | User Profile
Has anyone here read [URL=http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/1929631065/qid=1085584285/sr=8-2/ref=sr_8_xs_ap_i2_xgl14/002-5509697-1441642?v=glance&s=books&n=507846]this book[/URL]?
I have not.
Is this authentic?
It purports to be stenographed private conversations of Hitler that contain many anti-Christian statements contradicting his pro-Christian rhetoric cited above.
Walter
2004-05-26 15:42 | User Profile
[QUOTE=Walter Yannis]You're no doubt correct on that.
I'm merely suggesting that we Christians emulate Muslim success in this area, with a view to preventing future outbreaks of pagansim that currently threaten to overwhelm us completely.
Walter[/QUOTE] Walter, I'm not trying to pick a fight, and I do understand your point. I would respectfully submit, however, that we have enough Christian models of successfully putting down heresy, that it is unnecessary (and perhaps unwise) to begin to emulate Islam, even if only on this one point.
2004-05-26 15:43 | User Profile
[QUOTE=Quantrill]Walter, I'm not trying to pick a fight, and I do understand your point. I would respectfully submit, however, that we have enough Christian models of successfully putting down heresy, that it is unnecessary (and perhaps unwise) to begin to emulate Islam, even if only on this one point.[/QUOTE]
It's just that the Muslims succeed where we fail.
I dunno, seems to me that stealing their winning idea is a perfectly acceptable tactic.
Walter
2004-05-26 15:46 | User Profile
[QUOTE=Walter Yannis]Has anyone here read [URL=http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/1929631065/qid=1085584285/sr=8-2/ref=sr_8_xs_ap_i2_xgl14/002-5509697-1441642?v=glance&s=books&n=507846]this book[/URL]?
I have not.
Is this authentic?
Walter[/QUOTE]
Yes, it is authentic and a good read.
See, David Irving's comments: [url]http://www.fpp.co.uk/Letters/Hitler/Law200603.html[/url]
2004-05-26 18:44 | User Profile
[QUOTE=friedrich braun]Yes, it is authentic and a good read.
See, David Irving's comments: [url]http://www.fpp.co.uk/Letters/Hitler/Law200603.html[/url][/QUOTE]
The review I read states that these unguarded conversations show that Hitler was an anti-Christian, is that true?
Walter
2004-05-26 21:16 | User Profile
Tell your story sailing, Viking Prince.
2004-05-26 21:20 | User Profile
[QUOTE=Walter Yannis]The review I read states that these unguarded conversations show that Hitler was an anti-Christian, is that true?
Walter[/QUOTE]
Please read the "Table Talks" to have an accurate idea of the said conversations.
(It's more complicated than a simple "True" or "False" answer would suggest.)
2004-05-27 05:21 | User Profile
[QUOTE=friedrich braun]Please read the "Table Talks" to have an accurate idea of the said conversations.
(It's more complicated than a simple "True" or "False" answer would suggest.)[/QUOTE]
I just ordered it, and I look forward to discussing it with you.
Walter
2004-05-27 17:49 | User Profile
[QUOTE=il ragno]Tell your story sailing, Viking Prince.[/QUOTE] Yes, don't worry. I'm sailing away. Because my post were taken away, censored, not in any way inflammatory. I only said "ah, yes you're an american" I did not for example call anyone an idiot as you did. Do you feel proud? Sheltered by censors. As I said, my last post. So no reply.
2004-05-28 06:54 | User Profile
Yannis
What? You have not read it?
Being such an anti-German 'expert'. You fail to cover your ground?
That is slack. But you are no expert. Are you? You are somewhat of an idiot - Correct?
Something you see in a shop window - all show and no go. And a defective product no one would purchase.
__
2004-05-28 18:07 | User Profile
[QUOTE=Walter Yannis]I just ordered it, and I look forward to discussing it with you.
Walter[/QUOTE]
Well, there are always exceptions to the general rule!
I personally would like to see OD become a "Fuehrer Free Zone."
This would allow us to stop re-fighting WWI and resume CWI in earnest, which I'm sure will be much more interesting and enjoyable for all Americans here.
Walter
[url]http://forums.originaldissent.com/showthread.php?t=13922[/url]
2004-05-28 18:44 | User Profile
[QUOTE=Ruffin][url]http://forums.originaldissent.com/showthread.php?t=13922[/url][/QUOTE]
Your point is well taken.
I meant "Nazi Free Zone" but used "Feuhrer Free Zone" to get the phonic effect. Sacrificed exactness for euphony.
Besides, those two posts were punctuated by the unexpected return of a certain Nazi who does not share FB's (or your) cordial objectivity in historical discussions.
So, I mean to say that I'd like to see all Nazi propaganda removed from OD.
By the way, if I may be so bold, do you consider yourself a Nazi?
Regards,
Walter
2004-05-28 19:39 | User Profile
Walter, I took it to mean that you like talking about nazis (or fuehrers - same point made) but don't want to hear anything said in their favor.
Btw, are you Jewish?
2004-05-28 20:35 | User Profile
i think i understand where mentzer is coming from, and it is an interesting case study illustrative of some general principles
it makes much more sense if he is from germany
reconciling bush-love and nazi-love is impossible for an american familiar with both bushism and nazism. this is why people here thought he was a troll.
but in germany, bush is constantly called a nazi and the pc aspect of bushism is not apparent. i doubt mentzer knows about bush's mexican amnesty, for one thing. the german press almost certainly does not cover american domestic policy, only american foreign policy.
SO if one was reading the german press alone, one would conclude that bush is a christian man standing up against the muslim hordes, with self-hating white european liberals (like many germans today, esp in the media) opposing him. if all you read was the german papers beating themselves up for nazism and bashing bush as a nazi for declaring war on muslim states, it is totally consistent to admire both.
so i don't think mentzer is a troll at all, just someone who is not really familiar with american domestic politics. add to this the fact that the american center is considerably to the right of the european center on many issues and you can see why a nationalist might have a (misguided) symp for bushism.
couple of other conclusions
1] quantrill is very right about not having irrational enemy-of-enemy sympathy for muslims if you oppose jews. muslims do want to destroy western civilization. the threat is more apparent in europe than over here.
interestingly mentzer is an illustration of the opposite phenomenon, one who may dislike muslims so much that he makes common cause with jews. this is not an unreasonable position insofar as locally the turks arre a much bigger problem in germany than the jews.
same is true in britain, where the bnp has jews on staff. they think muslims are the bigger threat, though they rightly identify the neocons as batty buggers.
2004-05-29 00:55 | User Profile
Well in the "Table Talks" it seems that Hitler reveals himself to be an anti-clerical Christian, much like what Goebbels was. While he attacks "Christianity", yet when he does it seems hes attacking more the religious institutions of the faith rather than the theology itself. Nowhere in the Table Talks does Hitler speak negatively about Jesus himself and indeed has nothing but praise for the man and his teachings. He also speaks in praise of Martin Luther in the Table Talks. Its seems that Hitler however has contempt for St. Paul, who he believed perverted the faith.
So yes, as FB said one has to read the Table Talks to see in what context Hitler is speaking in. Hitler seems to be against what he considered the perversion of Christ's teachings by the churches.
2004-05-29 01:07 | User Profile
As to the original question at hand, I've had a somewhat positive image of Hitler for quite some time. Im not NS per se, but there is much in it I agree with and admire. Overall, Im a Folkish nationalist and a Slavohphile. As far as ideologies go, Im very eclectic. I support and pretty agree with many points of any geniune form of folkish nationalism: NS, Fascism, and 3rd Positionism mainly; National-Bolshevism and National-Anarchism selectively.
So I consider myself an ally of NS, but not necessarily a direct follower of its teachings.
2004-05-29 02:27 | User Profile
[QUOTE=Valley Forge]A) I'm with you VF -- I've admired Hitler for as long as I can remember. Man's best came with the Nazis.[/QUOTE]
The first impulses in this direction came in my pre-teen years. Over time, with study, I became more sophisticated in my understanding of this topic, and more able to place things in proper context (as discussed elsewhere on OD).
Fundamentally, I always sensed that because of the massive, exaggerated campaign launched against the Nazis, there must be something about them worth preserving, something about them that TPTB can't handle the public really knowing. Latest case in point would be the Schindler's List movie--you'll note how many schools had field trips to go see that one. And the mainstream commentators have the nerve and the audacity to tell us that there's no agenda here, that the Jews are "just like us?" Sad thing is tha majority of Americans right now seems to believe the mainstream commentators. For now. Well, at least I escaped their net.
Perhaps the most forbidden fruit is the sweetest--hence I shall deeply partake. Those of the "antifascist" persuasion who insist upon rooting out every vestige of "The Authoritarian Personality" are more inhumane than they accuse the Nazis of having been, simply because they would permanently excise half of man's nature, the "darker" side of his very humanity, in their doomed quest to make us all angels.
The "antifascists" resent Reality the most because they view it as arbitrary and unfair--they can't stand the idea that man has a biological side that is not symmetric and egalitarian. That's why they always whine about how a man "can't control" the genetics (or environmental circumstances) that he's born into. Tough luck, liberals, that's life--the trick is to make sure you're part of the group on top. It is that order of rank that one has the best chance of "taking control" of, and the most metaphysically rewarding contest at that.
2004-05-29 03:22 | User Profile
[QUOTE=Walter Yannis]My point about Nazism is that they added nothing original to the conversation. Nazism was a Romanticist reaction against Maxist Jewish Bolshevism. Naturally, the Nazi movement took on the aspect of the Jewish Bolsheviks in their cultural expressions, their political organization and methodology (to paraphrase Tolstoy, you always become the thing you hate most). Nazism is an almost purely derivative thing.[/QUOTE]
Interesting that you raise this point. In a sense, Nazism is "Judaism for Whites"--a mirror image. The Jews have been remarkably successful at surviving as an intact, intensely "ethnocentric" grouping. Since you admire winning strategies....
I have nothing against the Jews, in the sense that I do not join those who oppose the Jews because they think that "Jews are sneaky," etc. I could care less about the Sunday School ethics of the Jews. I oppose the Jews merely because there is ample evidence that their group strategy for survival on this planet involves the submergence of the White race (a group into which I was born, and thus I have to play those cards dealt accordingly). Incidentally, were the Jews not engaging in a form of "collective-psychological-warfare-plus" against Whites, then I would not declare myself in "opposition" to the Jews, but merely "ignore" them since they are not a natural part of my own "circle of kinship concern," and therefore they belong "over there," left alone in peace in their corner of the world (if they truly had such a corner, that is). If any true "anti-Semitism" exists, it is because the Jew brought it upon himself in his efforts to parasitize others. Indeed, "Nazism" is a "reaction" in this sense.
I see no reason why Whites can't give the Jews a dose of their own medicine. Indeed, I suspect that as Whites diminish in numbers on this planet in the coming years, the few of us that are left will have to basically follow the same methods the Jews did when they found themselves an embattled minority out there. Whites will survive to the extent they become the Jew, so to speak, emulating that model for survival.
2004-05-29 03:40 | User Profile
[QUOTE=All Old Right]Now, they're trying the same thing with conservatives, claiming to be right wing or conservative. What's conservative about nationalizing an economy and having a few self-appointed elitist wannabes running it all? That's leftist thought, as is socialism.[/QUOTE]
AntiYuppie best represents the response to this argument here on OD. The best way to answer your question on this is to reply with a question: What's conservative about capitalism, which leaves companies unfettered to ship every job that's not nailed down overseas, at the expense of American workers, in pursuit of the Almighty Dollar (since this thread touches on the identification of idols)? What's conservative about a capitalism that permits the metastasis of WalMarts across the land, ripping up the fabric old community-preserving structures that were known as Mom and Pop stores? In some quarters, capitalism is praised in the same breath as "progress" and "modernity." I'm not in that corner, for one. I'm with the forces of Tradition, and I'll admit that sometimes this makes for strange bedfellows. After all, the libertarian pan-capitalist cheerleaders have publicly remarked about Bin Laden's "War Against Modernity."
2004-05-29 09:08 | User Profile
[QUOTE=PaleoconAvatar]AntiYuppie best represents the response to this argument here on OD. The best way to answer your question on this is to reply with a question: What's conservative about capitalism, which leaves companies unfettered to ship every job that's not nailed down overseas, at the expense of American workers, in pursuit of the Almighty Dollar (since this thread touches on the identification of idols)? What's conservative about a capitalism that permits the metastasis of WalMarts across the land, ripping up the fabric old community-preserving structures that were known as Mom and Pop stores? In some quarters, capitalism is praised in the same breath as "progress" and "modernity." I'm not in that corner, for one. I'm with the forces of Tradition, and I'll admit that sometimes this makes for strange bedfellows. After all, the libertarian pan-capitalist cheerleaders have publicly remarked about Bin Laden's "War Against Modernity."[/QUOTE]
Great stuff.
What is your opinion of Distributism? I agree that capitalism is the enemy, just as socialism is.
Have you read Chesteron and Belloc?
[QUOTE]Interesting that you raise this point. In a sense, Nazism is "Judaism for Whites"--a mirror image. The Jews have been remarkably successful at surviving as an intact, intensely "ethnocentric" grouping. Since you admire winning strategies....[/QUOTE]
Fair enough, but I have no doubts as to my identity as a Catholic. We are the opposites of the Talmudic Pharisees, and not their pale reflection in some cracked Romanticist mirror.
Why should I let Jewish action sweep me up in some mindless reaction and in a very real sense, as you indicate, become a gentile verison of a Talmudic Jew?
My goal is not to become the enemy, but simply to assert my own identity as a European, Christian, and English-speaking American.
And that means we purge ourselves utterly the vile teachings of both the Pharisees and their Nazi counterparts.
I also respectfully point out that Nazism has hardly proved itself a winning strategy, and indeed is a non-starter from a marketing perspective, for the reasons discussed elsewhere.
Regards,
Walter
2004-05-29 10:40 | User Profile
[QUOTE=PaleoconAvatar]AntiYuppie best represents the response to this argument here on OD. The best way to answer your question on this is to reply with a question: What's conservative about capitalism, which leaves companies unfettered to ship every job that's not nailed down overseas, at the expense of American workers, in pursuit of the Almighty Dollar (since this thread touches on the identification of idols)? What's conservative about a capitalism that permits the metastasis of WalMarts across the land, ripping up the fabric old community-preserving structures that were known as Mom and Pop stores? In some quarters, capitalism is praised in the same breath as "progress" and "modernity." I'm not in that corner, for one. I'm with the forces of Tradition, and I'll admit that sometimes this makes for strange bedfellows. After all, the libertarian pan-capitalist cheerleaders have publicly remarked about Bin Laden's "War Against Modernity."[/QUOTE]
At bottom, capitalism equals freedom. It has become a negative force because it is divorced from the applied ethics of a devout, Protestant Christian populace. Let us not be so quick to throw the baby out with the bathwater and submit ourselves to a yoke even more burdensome.
2004-05-29 10:53 | User Profile
[QUOTE=Texas Dissident]At bottom, capitalism equals freedom. It has become a negative force because it is divorced from the applied ethics of a devout, Protestant Christian populace. Let us not be so quick to throw the baby out with the bathwater and submit ourselves to a yoke even more burdensome.[/QUOTE]
I have no problem with the free markets.
I do have grave concerns about usury and the routine use of the corporate organizational form.
Distributism is an attempt to prevent the abuses inherent in the monopoly toward which capitalism tends.
Capitalism - defined as the system we have now that is based on the separation of ownership from management and control of property along with limited liability and pervasive usury - really does tend toward socialism.
There's not much of a leap from Disney owned by millions of microscopic shareholders with positive disincentives to manage the company and controlled by Eisner ad CEO to Disney owned by the federal government and controlled by Eisner as CEO.
Marx had that much of it right.
Distributism hopes to prevent the concentration of wealth in the hands of a small managerial elite by restoring private property to the center of our social institutions through the banning of the routine use of corporations and usury in business.
What is your opinion of Distributism?
Regards,
Walter
2004-05-29 11:45 | User Profile
Capitalism works perfectly so long as the right people own the Capital or are the Managers. If Capital is owned by the Henry Fords and the Thomas Edisons, there is little to worry about. 19th century American capitalism had its faults but it made America a major power.
I dont care what system one espouses. As long as one doesnt have a mechanism to keep Jews out, the system is vulnerable - be it National Socialism, Capitalism or Distributism.
2004-05-29 12:02 | User Profile
[QUOTE=Peter Phillips]As long as one doesnt have a mechanism to keep Jews out, the system is vulnerable - be it National Socialism, Capitalism or Distributism.[/QUOTE]
The most effective, time-tested mechanism to keep jews out is traditional, orthodox Christianity. Christ alone is sufficient.
2004-05-29 13:26 | User Profile
[QUOTE=Peter Phillips]Capitalism works perfectly so long as the right people own the Capital or are the Managers. If Capital is owned by the Henry Fords and the Thomas Edisons, there is little to worry about. 19th century American capitalism had its faults but it made America a major power.[/QUOTE]
Your statement underscores my basic point about capitalism.
Henry Ford and Thomas Edison owned controlling stakes in their own companies, and as a result their businesses functioned more like sole proprietorships or general partnerships in practice, if not in legal theory. Those guys built companies that were extensions of their towering personalities, and really in spirit are quite the opposite of the modern day Ford Foundation. I always get a charge out of Randians comparing the corporate (and usually Kosher) dweebs infesting our public corporations to Rand's Ford and Edison knock-offs Roark and Galt. They're clue-less, believe me.
Now, as I've written here on many occasions, the problem with the corporate organizational form is that it separates management from control while limiting material liability. In doing so, the corporate organizational form destroys private property, and society begins to lose the many benefits the institution of private property confer.
The greater the separation of the unifying features of private property, the greater the damage done to the institution itself, and clearly in the context of close corporations the problem isn't terribly acute.
Let's take a simple example. Imagine that I incorpoate a Wisconsin LLC to handle my new carpet cleaning business called Walter's World of Rugs as the sole shareholder. From the vantage point of society, there isn't much difference between my using an LLC or a sole proprietorship, since de facto the unities of management and control are maintained, although it should be added that society loses a good deal of liability for my torts and business debts, since now if I run down somebody in a crosswalk using the company van on my way to a job the injured person can't come after my house.
Now imagine that my neighbor is interested in investing in my business, so he puts down his money but takes no other interest in the management of the business. Not only does society lose his full material liability for his torts and business debts in the amount of that investment, it also loses the benefits of his managing the property that he owns. But, okay, so far it's not a very big problem, and society can say that at least it had a business it might otherwise not have had.
But it's like pulling taffy. Now imagine that Walter's World of Rugs does so well that fifty local investors want in the deal in anticipation of taking it public. Suddenly I'm a manager of the assets that actually belong to others. Imagine that the thing gets so big that I have to hire other managers, and finally hire a CEO and become chairman of the board. Now we really have destroyed a lot of private property - which I repeat is a UNITY of management and control plus full liability for debts and torts - by burearcratizing it and turning its management over to hired help. These fifty investors are not at all interested in actually managing the company, they just are placing a bet on a horse, hoping it wins. Society just lost one of the main reasons for the institution of private property.
Now imagine that it goes public, and millions of faceless stockholders put down a few bucks each for a few shares. Now the taffy is completely broken. These millions of anonymous shareholders have in practice no effective voice in the management of their investment, and indeed don't want to even think too much about the company as any time they spend on it beyond deciding whether it's a buy or sell is a waste.
There isn't much difference between this public company Walter's World of Rugs, Inc. and a socialized version of the same. I've worked in both big corporations and government, and they sure feel the same. Instead of faceless stockholders with no real power in the "capitalist" context, you have faceless voters with no real power in the socialist context. Indeed, with pervasive state regulation throughout modern capitalism, the differences are even less substantial than that.
Do you see how the Ford Corporation lost Henry's great stamp?
Distributism thus rightly sees capitalism and socialism as being on the same side of the scale. Both tend strongly toward monoploy and bureacracy. Both DESTROY private property as an institution because they both proceed from the same poisonous assumption that it is beneficial to separate the ownership of vast amounts of material goods from its management, and to limit the liability of both managers and owners (be they faceless stockholders or faceless citizens) for their torts and even crimes.
I'll leave out discussion of the problem of usury for another time. Suffice it to say that the problem is similar in kind to the problem of corporations - both usury and the corporate organizational form separate ownership from management and control (although they do it in different ways). But both say to society "I'm just placing a bet on a horse, I'm not actually going to take an active interest in managing the investment." That is impermissible from a moral point of view.
Christ said that what God has joined together, let no man put asunder. God Himself instituted private property (implicit in the injunction against theft), and the Natural Law reveals that private property consists of the unities I described above. Both usury and the corporate organizational form put asunder that which God has joined together, and no just society can be built on their foundation, and that this should be the basic moral objection at the heart of our Christian critique of modern capitalism.
Regards,
Walter
2004-05-29 13:28 | User Profile
Capitalism is not free enterprise.
2004-05-29 13:36 | User Profile
[QUOTE=Texas Dissident]The most effective, time-tested mechanism to keep jews out is traditional, orthodox Christianity. Christ alone is sufficient.[/QUOTE] The Taliban and similar hard-core muslim societies are another mechanism that worked. What was the last time Christianity was able to keep the zhid at bay? Severl centuries ago, right.
2004-05-29 16:09 | User Profile
[QUOTE=madrussian]The Taliban and similar hard-core muslim societies are another mechanism that worked. What was the last time Christianity was able to keep the zhid at bay? Severl centuries ago, right.[/QUOTE]
I would say we were still in pretty good shape just a short hundred years ago.
You're right about the Taliban, too, but would you rather live in a Taliban-ruled society or 1900 America?
2004-05-29 16:13 | User Profile
[QUOTE=Walter Yannis]What is your opinion of Distributism?[/QUOTE]
I couldn't say Walter, as I haven't really looked into it. Shameful to admit, but I find economics and economic theory to be utterly boring, tedious and uninteresting. What can I say?
2004-05-29 16:19 | User Profile
[QUOTE=Walter Yannis]Great stuff.
What is your opinion of Distributism? I agree that capitalism is the enemy, just as socialism is.
Have you read Chesteron and Belloc?
I have heard of Distributism and Chesterton and Belloc, but have not studied them with the degree of depth they deserve. From my cursory browsing of the topic, I can tell you that I've detected only wholesome vibes there, and I suspect I'd likely endorse it upon further study. Let me put it this way: anything is a better alternative to the status quo.
Fair enough, but I have no doubts as to my identity as a Catholic. We are the opposites of the Talmudic Pharisees, and not their pale reflection in some cracked Romanticist mirror.
Why should I let Jewish action sweep me up in some mindless reaction and in a very real sense, as you indicate, become a gentile verison of a Talmudic Jew?
My goal is not to become the enemy, but simply to assert my own identity as a European, Christian, and English-speaking American.
I admire the way in which you anchor your source of identity, both political and otherwise. That is a rare trait in modern America. I can see your point in wanting to not play by the enemy's rules, so to speak. Perhaps I have less pride in my drive to pursue "counterrevolution" against TPTB.
And that means we purge ourselves utterly the vile teachings of both the Pharisees and their Nazi counterparts.
An interesting ideological project to undertake. My only reservation is that it may be difficult to so neatly make those cuts. The "derivative" nature of the Nazis that you referred to earlier complicates things--some of the elements that made the Nazis "The Nazis" existed long before "The Nazis" did. Many of those elements are also valuable in terms of their truth and power. I don't wish to appear to be a mystic here, but it'd be a tough job to make an accurate catalog of these elements on top of that.
I also respectfully point out that Nazism has hardly proved itself a winning strategy, and indeed is a non-starter from a marketing perspective, for the reasons discussed elsewhere.
Depends on the time and place--who knows what Americans will be recptive to years from now. For now, you're right, especially from a marketing perspective. That's why "coded language" is often used in such waters....
2004-05-29 16:24 | User Profile
[QUOTE=Texas Dissident]The most effective, time-tested mechanism to keep jews out is traditional, orthodox Christianity. Christ alone is sufficient.[/QUOTE] Absolutely true.
2004-05-29 16:27 | User Profile
Without the disinformation war waged against the Taliban, Americans might find more in common between it and 1900 America than between 1900 America and 2004 America. The Taliban and 1900 America may not have been prefect but neither operated, outwardly at least, against their majority population.
2004-05-29 16:32 | User Profile
[QUOTE=Ruffin]Without the disinformation war waged against the Taliban, Americans might find more in common between it and 1900 America than between 1900 America and 2004 America. The Taliban and 1900 America may not have been prefect but neither operated, outwardly at least, against their majority population.[/QUOTE]
I'm sure that is true, Ruffin. Personally, I have absolutely no quarrels with any muslim in their home lands and whatever system of governance they establish for themselves.
2004-05-29 16:38 | User Profile
[QUOTE=Peter Phillips]Absolutely true.[/QUOTE]
Thank you, Peter. That is encouraging.
Unfortunately, most men nowadays have such a high opinion of themselves and their own accomplishments and see no need to submit and defer to God's higher law when formulating any political program or moral platform. As such they will always fail, but yet continue on down the wrong path in stubborn pride.
2004-05-29 17:05 | User Profile
[QUOTE=Walter Yannis]Your statement underscores my basic point about capitalism.
Henry Ford and Thomas Edison owned controlling stakes in their own companies, and as a result their businesses functioned more like sole proprietorships or general partnerships in practice, if not in legal theory. Those guys built companies that were extensions of their towering personalities, and really in spirit are quite the opposite of the modern day Ford Foundation. I always get a charge out of Randians comparing the corporate (and usually Kosher) dweebs infesting our public corporations to Rand's Ford and Edison knock-offs Roark and Galt. They're clue-less, believe me.
Now, as I've written here on many occasions, the problem with the corporate organizational form is that it separates management from control while limiting material liability. In doing so, the corporate organizational form destroys private property, and society begins to lose the many benefits the institution of private property confer.
The greater the separation of the unifying features of private property, the greater the damage done to the institution itself, and clearly in the context of close corporations the problem isn't terribly acute.
Let's take a simple example. Imagine that I incorpoate a Wisconsin LLC to handle my new carpet cleaning business called Walter's World of Rugs as the sole shareholder. From the vantage point of society, there isn't much difference between my using an LLC or a sole proprietorship, since de facto the unities of management and control are maintained, although it should be added that society loses a good deal of liability for my torts and business debts, since now if I run down somebody in a crosswalk using the company van on my way to a job the injured person can't come after my house.
Now imagine that my neighbor is interested in investing in my business, so he puts down his money but takes no other interest in the management of the business. Not only does society lose his full material liability for his torts and business debts in the amount of that investment, it also loses the benefits of his managing the property that he owns. But, okay, so far it's not a very big problem, and society can say that at least it had a business it might otherwise not have had.
But it's like pulling taffy. Now imagine that Walter's World of Rugs does so well that fifty local investors want in the deal in anticipation of taking it public. Suddenly I'm a manager of the assets that actually belong to others. Imagine that the thing gets so big that I have to hire other managers, and finally hire a CEO and become chairman of the board. Now we really have destroyed a lot of private property - which I repeat is a UNITY of management and control plus full liability for debts and torts - by burearcratizing it and turning its management over to hired help. These fifty investors are not at all interested in actually managing the company, they just are placing a bet on a horse, hoping it wins. Society just lost one of the main reasons for the institution of private property.
Now imagine that it goes public, and millions of faceless stockholders put down a few bucks each for a few shares. Now the taffy is completely broken. These millions of anonymous shareholders have in practice no effective voice in the management of their investment, and indeed don't want to even think too much about the company as any time they spend on it beyond deciding whether it's a buy or sell is a waste.
There isn't much difference between this public company Walter's World of Rugs, Inc. and a socialized version of the same. I've worked in both big corporations and government, and they sure feel the same. Instead of faceless stockholders with no real power in the "capitalist" context, you have faceless voters with no real power in the socialist context. Indeed, with pervasive state regulation throughout modern capitalism, the differences are even less substantial than that.
Do you see how the Ford Corporation lost Henry's great stamp?
Distributism thus rightly sees capitalism and socialism as being on the same side of the scale. Both tend strongly toward monoploy and bureacracy. Both DESTROY private property as an institution because they both proceed from the same poisonous assumption that it is beneficial to separate the ownership of vast amounts of material goods from its management, and to limit the liability of both managers and owners (be they faceless stockholders or faceless citizens) for their torts and even crimes.
I'll leave out discussion of the problem of usury for another time. Suffice it to say that the problem is similar in kind to the problem of corporations - both usury and the corporate organizational form separate ownership from management and control (although they do it in different ways). But both say to society "I'm just placing a bet on a horse, I'm not actually going to take an active interest in managing the investment." That is impermissible from a moral point of view.
Christ said that what God has joined together, let no man put asunder. God Himself instituted private property (implicit in the injunction against theft), and the Natural Law reveals that private property consists of the unities I described above. Both usury and the corporate organizational form put asunder that which God has joined together, and no just society can be built on their foundation, and that this should be the basic moral objection at the heart of our Christian critique of modern capitalism.
Regards,
Walter[/QUOTE] Walter,