← Autodidact Archive · Original Dissent · Odysseus

White Nationalism?

Thread ID: 15295 | Posts: 89 | Started: 2004-10-13

Wayback Archive

Odysseus [OP]

2004-10-13 02:52 | User Profile

What exactly [I]is[/I] White Nationalism? I have yet to see a succinct definition. Does anyone want to give it a shot?

I see that the KKK is mentioned in this thread. If a member would care to reply, I'm very curious as to what the long term goals of the Klan are.

VNN? Graffiti on the boy's locker room wall.

My definition? If Pat Buchanan acknowledged the role that Liberal, Marxist Jews, (and their Gentile lackeys) have played in the slow destruction of America over the last six decades and admitted that culture is inseparable from race, he'd be well on his way to being a White Nationalist.

friedrich braun

2004-10-13 04:57 | User Profile

In the North American context White Nationalism is synonymous with separatism, i.e. Euro-Whites unwilling to live inside the same geopolitical borders with jews and other alien races.

FadeTheButcher

2004-10-17 07:03 | User Profile

[QUOTE=friedrich braun]In the North American context White Nationalism is synonymous with separatism, i.e. Euro-Whites unwilling to live inside the same geopolitical borders with jews and other alien races.[/QUOTE]Its certainly not something [url=http://www.nordish.net/forum/showpost.php?p=64757&postcount=2]you[/url] would be interested in.

I'm thinking of posting a poll:

Whom do you hate more?

1) Jews;

2) Brits;

3) Americans;

4) Poles.

Jews and Brits (I hate EVERYTHING about the British -- from demockracy (their bastard child) to their legendary perfidy and hypocrisy and various, strange, personal idiosyncracies and let's not forget their philo-Semitism. There has always been something "off" about the British). If I could, I'd nuke the entire f** island...I'd turn it into a parking lot)

Poles and Americans will have to fight it out for third place.

Petr

2004-10-17 10:07 | User Profile

Hey Fade, is it true that friedrich is actually French-Canadian, and used to have a Polish girlfriend?

Petr

Jack Cassidy

2004-10-18 02:23 | User Profile

[QUOTE=Odysseus]What exactly is White Nationalism? I have yet to see a succinct definition. Does anyone want to give it a shot?

I see that the KKK is mentioned in this thread. If a member would care to reply, I'm very curious as to what the long term goals of the Klan are.

VNN? Graffiti on the boy's locker room wall.

My definition? If Pat Buchanan acknowledged the role that Liberal, Marxist Jews, (and their Gentile lackeys) have played in the slow destruction of America over the last six decades and admitted that culture is inseparable from race, he'd be well on his way to being a White Nationalist.[/QUOTE] I disavow White Nationalism, neo-nazism, racial separatism, and neo-confederate ideologies. But I tend to agree with them on most issues.

FadeTheButcher

2004-10-18 02:25 | User Profile

If I may ask, what are you for?

Jack Cassidy

2004-10-18 03:11 | User Profile

[QUOTE=FadeTheButcher]If I may ask, what are you for?[/QUOTE] My views are a cross between Pat Buchanan's and Hutton Gibson's.

Walter Yannis

2004-10-18 03:42 | User Profile

[QUOTE=Jack Cassidy]My views are a cross between Pat Buchanan's and Hutton Gibson's.[/QUOTE]

Throw in Kevin McDonald and we would agree 100%.

Bardamu

2004-10-18 03:53 | User Profile

I'd like to see white people continue on into the future, therefore I'm a white nationalist. Without exclusive national territory whites will be blended out of existence. But I accept the fact that we are probably doomed.

FadeTheButcher

2004-10-18 05:56 | User Profile

[QUOTE=Bardamu]I'd like to see white people continue on into the future, therefore I'm a white nationalist. Without exclusive national territory whites will be blended out of existence. But I accept the fact that we are probably doomed.[/QUOTE] Bardamu,

Lets suppose that at this very moment all immigration to the United States were to cease. What would that solve? Nothing. Differential birthrates would inevitably make us a minority in our own country eventually. The only difference is that such a day would come later rather than sooner. How does Buchanan plan to win the 'Culture War'? By limiting government? How, pray tell, would that solve anything? The government is not responsible for the sort of filth that is so pervasive in our culture today. The government does not make Hollywood films. The government does not publish the New York Times or the Washington Post. The government does not push MTV onto our youth. Private entrepreneurs do all of that. They are able to do all of this because individual rights are held to be so inviolable in the United States. If anything, we have the FCC to thank for what little restraint still exists today. Howard Stern would be ecstatic if the government would simply get off his back. That is precisely what he wants.

FadeTheButcher

2004-10-18 05:59 | User Profile

I disavow White Nationalism, neo-nazism, racial separatism, and neo-confederate ideologies. But I tend to agree with them on most issues.

I don't associate myself with any of these labels either. I consider myself to be a 'racial communitarian'.

Walter Yannis

2004-10-18 07:19 | User Profile

[QUOTE=FadeTheButcher]The government is not responsible for the sort of filth that is so pervasive in our culture today. The government does not make Hollywood films. The government does not publish the New York Times or the Washington Post. The government does not push MTV onto our youth. Private entrepreneurs do all of that. [/QUOTE]

I agree with that.

The problem is that the government, media and big corporations aren't OURS anymore.

Stalin's slogan was "the cadres determine everything." If you have Jews predominating at the leadership levels of government, finance, media, big corporations and civil society institutions, then you'll get an offense Jewish agenda aimed at weakening gentile society. If you have white Christians in the same positions, you'll get the opposite thing.

We will always have institutions. The trick is to make them ours again.

But the fact is that they aren't our institutions now, and that all of those institutions are bastions of the enemy. We must first work to weaken them by playing to the hubris of our kosher masters and encouraging them to self-destruct, even as we infiltrate them and subvert them to our purposes.

It's happening now, actually. [URL=http://www.phc.edu/]Patrick Henry college [/URL], which was designed for smart Christian homeschooed kids and which has established a driect line into the federal service including especially the FBI and intelligence services, is a very encouraging phenomenon.

Those folks are actually doing it, and consciously. They're out to recapture the federal service for the good guys. I know that most have dispensationalist delusions, but it wouldn't take much to disabuse them of that. I do not doubt that there is tremendous resentment among FBI and CIA agents at the shenanigans of the neo-Khans.

We need to emulate them.

Walter

friedrich braun

2004-10-18 13:59 | User Profile

[QUOTE=FadeTheButcher]Its certainly not something [url=http://www.nordish.net/forum/showpost.php?p=64757&postcount=2]you[/url] would be interested in.[/QUOTE]

Indeed, I’ve never called myself a “White Nationalist.” I’ve got nothing in common with Bulgarians, Albanians, Sicilians, Turks and other Hottentots and I won’t pretend that I do in the name of some mystical, bogus Shangri-La. If you can call yourself a “racial communitarian” (???), I’ll in turn define myself as a Northern European “Germanic communitarian” influenced by National Socialists ideals.

Petr

2004-10-18 14:31 | User Profile

[COLOR=Blue] - "I’ve got nothing in common with Bulgarians, Albanians, Sicilians, ..."[/COLOR]

What's categorically wrong with these people, friedrich?

Do you really equate them with "Turks and other Hottentots"?

If so, you really are, by definition, a has-been national chauvinist.

(What's your policy of Slavs?)

Petr

friedrich braun

2004-10-18 15:02 | User Profile

Petr,

Shouldn't you be reading the Bible right now? You know, that Middle Eastern book that contains the answers to all life's questions.

Petr

2004-10-18 15:11 | User Profile

[COLOR=Red] - "Shouldn't you be reading the Bible right now? You know, that Middle Eastern book that contains the answers to all life's questions.""[/COLOR]

Translation:

"I cannot/do not want to answer a straightforward question as to why I consider Sicilians to be on the same level as Hottentots, so I perform quite a pitiful dodge."

Alphabets also came from the Middle East, btw.

Petr

friedrich braun

2004-10-18 15:16 | User Profile

I find it a bit rich being called a "has-been" by a Medieval Bible fetishist. :yawn:

There's nothing "wrong" with Bulgarians, Albanians, etc. I just don't believe to have a lot in common with the above worthy nationals, Petr.

Petr

2004-10-18 15:26 | User Profile

[COLOR=DarkRed] - "I find it a bit rich being called a "has-been" by a Medieval Bible fetishist."[/COLOR]

The truth hurts, doesn't it?

The Gospel is ever-relevant.

[COLOR=Blue]"Jesus Christ is the same yesterday, today, and forever" [/COLOR] (Heb. 13:8)

Can you say the same thing about A. Hitler?

Petr

friedrich braun

2004-10-18 15:49 | User Profile

[QUOTE]The truth hurts, doesn't it?[/QUOTE]

?

[QUOTE]The Gospel is ever-relevant.[/QUOTE]

What is the Church attendance rate in Finland, Ayatollah? How "relevant" is the Gospel today in Scandinavia and Finland?

[QUOTE][COLOR=Blue]"Jesus Christ is the same yesterday, today, and forever" [/COLOR] (Heb. 13:8)[/QUOTE]

:yawn: :yawn: :yawn:

Heb. 13:8 referred to Jesus? Another instance of ahistoric, retrospective Christian projection of Christian themes upon the jewish scriptures.

[QUOTE]Can you say the same thing about A. Hitler?[/QUOTE]

I can.

Petr

2004-10-18 16:07 | User Profile

[COLOR=DarkRed] - " What is the attendance rate in Finland, Ayatollah? How "relevant" is the Gospel today in Scandinavia and Finland? "[/COLOR]

The Gospel is relevant WHETHER MEN LIKE IT OR NOT. This is not a democratic popularity contest we're having here.

What is the number of National Socialists in Germany nowadays?

[COLOR=DarkRed] - "Heb. 13:8 referred to Jesus? Another instance of ahistoric, retrospective Christian projection of Christian themes upon the jewish scriptures."[/COLOR]

You CANNOT be this ignorant about the Bible, can you? "The Epistle to the Hebrews" is part of the NEW TESTAMENT, silly.

-[COLOR=DarkRed] "I can."[/COLOR]

"Hitler loves me, this is know, 'cause Mein Kampf tells me so..."

Petr

FadeTheButcher

2004-10-18 16:50 | User Profile

[QUOTE=friedrich braun]Indeed, I’ve never called myself a “White Nationalist.”

I have never described myself as a White Nationalist.

I’ve got nothing in common with Bulgarians, Albanians, Sicilians, Turks and other Hottentots and I won’t pretend that I do in the name of some mystical, bogus Shangri-La.

That does not come as a surprise to me. Then again, you also hate the living shit out of pretty much everyone who isn't German for some reason or another, especially Anglo-Saxons. Why do you live in Canada, braun? Why does Germar Rudolf live in Chicago? Tell me. If you are that uncomfortable here, then why don't you simply return to the Fatherland? Why don't you take Ernst Zundel and Germar Rudolf with you?

If you can call yourself a “racial communitarian” (???), I’ll in turn define myself as a North European “Germanic communitarian” influenced by National Socialists ideals.[/QUOTE] You are a national chauvinist, simply put. Furthermore, Northern Europeans are generally repulsed by Fascism and Nazism, both of which have strong Mediterranean antecedents. It never went anywhere in the Netherlands, England, Denmark, Iceland or Norway. You can add Sweden, Finland, Russia, Canada, America, New Zealand, and Australia to that list as well.

"It might have been expected that Iceland would easily fall prety to fascist ideology. The pride in its old Germanic culture, a predilection for ideas that were at least related to human eugenics (see Ch. 4.2), and of course a burning inferiority complex over being among the smallest of nations might have provided fertile soil for ideas propounded by German Nazism. And indeed one finds in Iceland, as perhaps in all countries, sentiments that are unpleasantly reminiscent of Nazism. Even imperialism reared its head in the powerless Iceland of the 1920s and 1930s, when the idea of reclaiming Greenland as an old satellite of the country (see Ch. 1.4) gained considerable support. However, as a political movement Nazism never gained any foothold in Iceland, having its best results in local elections in Reykjavik in 1934 -- 2.8% support. In national elections it only had candidates in a few constituencies and never exceeded 5% support in any of them, while the Communists collected more than 8% nationally.

There is no doubt of the sympathy of an overwhelming majority of the Icelandic population for the Western Allies in the world war that broke out on 3 September 1939."

Gunnar Karlsson, [I]The History of Iceland [/I] (Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press, 2000),p.313

FadeTheButcher

2004-10-18 16:56 | User Profile

[QUOTE=friedrich braun]Petr, Shouldn't you be reading the Bible right now? You know, that Middle Eastern book that contains the answers to all life's questions.[/QUOTE] Does anyone recall friedrich braun describing himself as a Protestant Christian several months ago? I do. I also seem to recall him meekly suggesting that the Poles should not be slaughtered and one should not live in the past. What happened to this friedrich braun?

friedrich braun

2004-10-18 18:01 | User Profile

If you want to engage in name-calling don't talk to me.

Of course, there were significant differences between Italian Fascism and German National Socialism -- a uniquely German phenomenon and a product of German history, culture, and circumstances. Unlike communism, National Socialism never laid any claims to universalism ("National Socialism is not for export"), so you're building a straw man. On the contrary, National Socialism was always a tribal ideology that spoke to the Teuton mind and soul and blood. Why would I start agitating for Irish independence? Why would Icelanders pine for Adolf Hitler when all he wanted was to make Germans and Germany great?

friedrich braun

2004-10-18 18:29 | User Profile

[QUOTE]The Gospel is relevant WHETHER MEN LIKE IT OR NOT. This is not a democratic popularity contest we're having here.[/QUOTE]

How can your Gospel be in any way “relevant” in Northern Europe and to Northern Europeans when the Church attendance in Scandinavia and Finland hovers in the low single digits? You’re very atypical of the average Finn, Petr.

[QUOTE]What is the number of National Socialists in Germany nowadays?[/QUOTE]

I don’t know, since publicly admitting such a political allegiance in the present judaised anti-German Bastardstate guarantees one a one-way ticket to prison.

[QUOTE]You CANNOT be this ignorant about the Bible, can you?[/QUOTE]

Calm down. I misread Hebrews for Ezekiel. Nevertheless, my overall point about Christian exegesis remains valid, of course.

[QUOTE]"Hitler loves me, this is know, 'cause Mein Kampf tells me so..."[/QUOTE]

How old are you? Your thoughts on Adolf Hitler mean about as much to me as those of a bone-in-the-nose Australian aborigine.

Kevin_O'Keeffe

2004-10-18 19:36 | User Profile

[QUOTE=friedrich braun]Indeed, I’ve never called myself a “White Nationalist.” I’ve got nothing in common with Bulgarians, Albanians, Sicilians, Turks and other Hottentots and I won’t pretend that I do in the name of some mystical, bogus Shangri-La.[/QUOTE]

While I might loosely refer to myself as a White Nationalist, I don't think race is the sole criteria for nationhood, i.e. I don't think there should be just one White nation containing all White people. I do think that all White nations (at least those that eventually arrive at the point of having sane, spiritually healthy governments) should have some sort of mutual defense & free trade pact, something like a combination of NATO and the old European Common Market, before it got transmogrified into "the European Union." I do think the greatest nation in human history is one day likely to consist of the territories of the continental United States, Alaska, Anglo-Canada (that is, all but Quebec), the British Isles (hopefully including all of Ireland), Australia, New Zealand and perhaps the Western Cape of South Africa, Greenland and Antarctica (it might be valuable one day, and if so, better we own it than China). I do not think that any nation should attempt to absorb significant numbers of people who are not committed to the lingua franca, racial community or no racial community (Danish-speaking Greenlanders and Irish Gaeltachters are one thing; Quebec, or France proper for that matter, is another; I'd actually like to see a union of France and Quebec within a White Nationalist context, as it so happens).

Jack Cassidy

2004-10-18 19:41 | User Profile

[QUOTE=Petr][color=blue] - "I’ve got nothing in common with Bulgarians, Albanians, Sicilians, ..."[/color]

What's categorically wrong with these people, friedrich?

Do you really equate them with "Turks and other Hottentots"?

If so, you really are, by definition, a has-been national chauvinist.

(What's your policy of Slavs?)

Petr[/QUOTE] Muslim Albanians notwithstanding, this is crazy. I'll take whites wherever I can get them, even the warm personality-challenged, sour Krauts.

Kevin_O'Keeffe

2004-10-18 19:47 | User Profile

[QUOTE=FadeTheButcher]Why do you live in Canada, braun? Why does Germar Rudolf live in Chicago? Tell me. If you are that uncomfortable here, then why don't you simply return to the Fatherland? Why don't you take Ernst Zundel and Germar Rudolf with you?

What have you got against Ernst Zundel?

[QUOTE=FadeTheButcher]Northern Europeans are generally repulsed by Fascism and Nazism, both of which have strong Mediterranean antecedents. It never went anywhere in the Netherlands, England, Denmark, Iceland or Norway. You can add Sweden, Finland, Russia, Canada, America, New Zealand, and Australia to that list as well.

I may have to re-examine the historical record in order to be certain, but I'm pretty sure you can subtract Finland from that list. Additionally, the British forcibly occupied Iceland in 1940 (along with the Canary Islands of Spain and the Portuguese Azores), so we'll never really know for sure how the Icelanders would have behaved had they been free to make their own choices, rather than being corralled with Churchill's bayonets....

Petr

2004-10-18 19:52 | User Profile

[COLOR=DarkRed] - "How can your Gospel be in any way “relevant” in North Europe and to North Europeans when the Church attendance in Scandinavia and Finland hovers in the low single digits? "[/COLOR]

You just don't get it. The judgment day is coming, even if not a single man would believe that it is true.

(You also are not aware or do not care about the existence of small, independent hardline churches. The Christians invented the whole concept of invisible "underground movement"...)

You also assume that this process is irreversible - if masses are not Christian anymore, they will never be again. Funny that you don't think that way about Nazism.

If the White race (or Germans) think they can get along without Christ, ALL THE WORSE FOR THEM.

[COLOR=Purple]"The influential anti-Semitic historian and political activist Heinrich von Treitschke viewed Germany's self-conception as a Christian civilization as a critical component of his overarching goal of producing a politically and culturally unified Germany. Treitschke stated that although many Germans had ceased being active Christians, "the time will come, and is perhaps not so far off, when necessity will teach us once more to pray.... The German Jewish Question will not come to rest . . . before our Hebrew fellow-citizens have become convinced, by our attitude, that we are a Christian people and want to remain one" (in Pulzer 1988, 242).

...

National unification was a component of the "Volkische" intellectual tradition. Rather than accepting the pan-national, universalist ideology that characterized the Christian Middle Ages, the Volkische ideal of social cohesion was often combined with nationalistic versions of a peculiarly Germanic form of Christianity, as in the writings of Treitschke, Paul de LaGarde, and Houston Stewart Chamberlain. Thus for Chamberlain, "Christianity was an indispensable cohesive force in a class-torn nation; religious rebirth alone . . . could renew the spiritual basis of society, reaffirming the principles of monarchy, social hierarchy, loyalty, discipline, and race.... [R]eligion, not politics, was the basis of a new Germany" (Field 1981, 302).

This tradition idealized the Middle Ages as a period of Volksgemeinschaft, a sense of social cohesion, organic unity, cooperation, and hierarchical harmony among all social classes. This tradition can be traced to Johann Gottfried Herder (1744-1803; see Herder 1774, 189ff), and it attracted the majority of German intellectuals during the period spanning the 19th century to the rise of National Socialism (Mosse 1970, 8). "[/COLOR]

[url]http://www.euvolution.com/articles/chapt5.htm[/url]

[COLOR=DarkRed]- "I don’t know, since publicly admitting such a political allegiance in the present judaised anti-German Bastardstate guarantees one a one-way ticket to prison."[/COLOR]

How handy for you. I'd venture to claim that there are more committed Christians than committed Nazis in Germany today.

By the way, how would you comment on this claim made by Michael A. Hoffman:

[COLOR=Blue]"In 2002 it was revealed that the leaders of the NDP party in Germany were members of the German secret police. Neo-Nazism is very useful to the Establishment. " [/COLOR]

[url]http://www.hoffman-info.com/revisionist13.html[/url]

[COLOR=DarkRed] - "Nevertheless, my overall point about Christian exegesis remains valid, of course."[/COLOR]

"Of course?" No, it doesn't.

[COLOR=DarkRed] - "Your thoughts on Adolf Hitler mean about as much to me as those of a bone-in-the-nose Australian aborigine."[/COLOR]

Your thoughts on Christian exegesis mean about as much to me as those of a bone-in-the-nose Australian aborigine.

Besides, my mocking is quite justified, for the attitude of types like you and Dr. Brandt towards Hitler is so obviously pseudo-religious.

A Michael A. Hoffman puts it:

"[COLOR=Blue]I do not call Horst Mahler "Nazi." I never use that term for anyone who was not a contemporary of Hitler. [SIZE=4]Nazism today is politically dead, because Hitler is dead and Nazism was a movement based on the messiahship of one man. [/SIZE] There is, however, an ideal of racial ecology with both pre-Christian and medieval European antecedents, which was personified in the 20th century by philosophers such as Gregor Strasser and others. Many of these thinkers were murdered by Hitler so as to make room for the NSDAP fuhrerprinzip. The older philosophy of racial ecology, which carries with it no intrinsic logic of persecution, still lives, while the Hitler movement is dead, except in so far as the secret police of the U.S. and Germany animate it from time to time."[/COLOR]

[url]http://www.hoffman-info.com/revisionist13.html[/url]

Petr

Kevin_O'Keeffe

2004-10-18 20:04 | User Profile

[QUOTE=Petr]By the way, how would you comment on this claim made by Michael A. Hoffman:

[COLOR=Blue]"In 2002 it was revealed that the leaders of the NDP party in Germany were members of the German secret police. Neo-Nazism is very useful to the Establishment. " [/COLOR][/QUOTE]

I would say that its interesting Mr. Hoffman makes this claim, but having been following the NDP since 1996, I can't help but think I would have heard mention of this previously. Perhaps not, as our media doesn't go out of their way to publicize small, national socialist parties in Germany, to say the least, and their website doesn't have English-language content (presumably they would make some attempt to either refute such charges, or to assure their members that the moles had been dismissed), so I suppose its possible I missed such a startling development. But I remain highly sceptical.

Petr

2004-10-18 20:10 | User Profile

I did a quick web search on "ndp secret police germany", and came up with this article:

[COLOR=Navy][SIZE=4]"Germany: Massive state infiltration of far-right party"[/SIZE]

By Marius Heuser 17 October 2002[/COLOR]

[url]http://www.wsws.org/articles/2002/oct2002/npd-o17_prn.shtml[/url]

Petr

Kevin_O'Keeffe

2004-10-18 20:26 | User Profile

[QUOTE=Petr]I did a quick web search on "ndp secret police germany", and came up with this article:

[COLOR=Navy][SIZE=4]"Germany: Massive state infiltration of far-right party"[/SIZE]

By Marius Heuser 17 October 2002[/COLOR]

[url]http://www.wsws.org/articles/2002/oct2002/npd-o17_prn.shtml[/url][/QUOTE]

The German government claims it has 30 agents among the top 200 leaders of the NDP. While disgraceful, this is not quite as big a deal as what was seemingly being implied by Mr. Hoffman when he claimed "the leaders" of the NDP were "secret police." 1 in 7 is clearly too many, but its far from all. I'm also a little unclear what this proves, other than that the German government is a soft-core police state, much like America or Canada (as we already knew). Additionally, only six agents were revealed. We have to take on faith the existence of the other 24....

Petr

2004-10-18 20:29 | User Profile

[COLOR=Navy] - "While disgraceful, this is not quite as big a deal as what was seemingly being implied by Mr. Hoffman when he claimed "the leaders" of the NDP were "secret police." 1 in 7 is clearly too many, but its far from all."[/COLOR]

That's the OPTIMISTIC description of this pathetic case.

The PESSIMISTIC description of this debacle would include words "tip of the iceberg"...

Petr

Kevin_O'Keeffe

2004-10-18 20:41 | User Profile

[QUOTE=Petr][COLOR=Navy] - "While disgraceful, this is not quite as big a deal as what was seemingly being implied by Mr. Hoffman when he claimed "the leaders" of the NDP were "secret police." 1 in 7 is clearly too many, but its far from all."[/COLOR]

That's the OPTIMISTIC description of this pathetic case.

The PESSIMISTIC description of this debacle would include words "tip of the iceberg"...[/QUOTE]

I'm not sure how optimistic an appraisal of the integrity of the NDP we can expect from an author who publishes his work at the World Socialist Website....

Petr

2004-10-18 20:47 | User Profile

[COLOR=Navy] - "I'm not sure how optimistic an appraisal of the integrity of the NDP we can expect from an author who publishes his work at the World Socialist Website...."[/COLOR]

To begin with, I was talking about YOUR optimistic analysis of that article.

I thought it was an usual mainstream-newspiece that just happened to be published on that site, like many WN sites publish articles from mainstream sources too.

And there's still chance for Mr. Hoffman to be literally correct, for it is not mentioned HOW high in the party hierarchy these infiltrators were/are...

If out of 20 top leaders more than 10 were spies, would you consider the party to have been infiltrated?

(Update: it is apparently from the "Guardian")

[url]http://www.alphalink.com.au/~radnat/kangarooreich/partsix.html[/url]

Petr

FadeTheButcher

2004-10-18 22:46 | User Profile

[QUOTE=Kevin_O'Keeffe]What have you got against Ernst Zundel?

Nothing.

I may have to re-examine the historical record in order to be certain, but I'm pretty sure you can subtract Finland from that list.

Finland did not have a fascist government.

Additionally, the British forcibly occupied Iceland in 1940 (along with the Canary Islands of Spain and the Portuguese Azores), so we'll never really know for sure how the Icelanders would have behaved had they been free to make their own choices, rather than being corralled with Churchill's bayonets....[/QUOTE] In order to protect those areas from German attack, in light of the German occupation of Denmark. The Icelanders were overwhelmingly pro-Allied as well.

FadeTheButcher

2004-10-18 22:59 | User Profile

If you want to engage in name-calling don't talk to me.

Then stop calling others names.

Of course, there were significant differences between Italian Fascism and German National Socialism -- a uniquely German phenomenon and a product of German history, culture, and circumstances.

There are differences, sure, but the similarities are far more profound. The volkish ideology was not unique to Germany either. While it had no parallel in either France or Italy, it was pervasive in Eastern European variations of fascism.

Unlike communism, National Socialism never laid any claims to universalism ("National Socialism is not for export"), so you're building a straw man.

There were National Socialist parties in Denmark and Sweden. The Danish Nazis are still around today, in fact. Both received substantial support from Hitler's government.

On the contrary, National Socialism was always a tribal ideology that spoke to the Teuton mind and soul and blood.

I disagree. National Socialism is profoundly alien to both Germanic culture and Northern Europe in particular. It is an imported product from the Mediterranean South. The only reason it had such appeal in Germany to begin with is because Germany was heavily Romanised during the Middle Ages whereas Britain and Scandinavia preserved their indigenous Germanic traditions.

Why would I start agitating for Irish independence?

Ireland was a neutral and independent country during the Second World War.

Why would Icelanders pine for Adolf Hitler when all he wanted was to make Germans and Germany great?

The Icelanders were repulsed by Nazism, as were Northern Europeans generally. In fact, Iceland has one of the oldest democratic traditions in the world, one that stretches far back into the Middle Ages.

Petr

2004-10-18 23:04 | User Profile

[COLOR=Navy] - "Finland did not have a fascist government."[/COLOR]

This is correct. In fact, there were even a handful of Finnish Jews fighting in the ranks of the Finnish army against the USSR in the 1941-1944 war - a unique phenomenon in the WW II.

From the website of Finnish Jews:

[COLOR=Purple][SIZE=3]The Second World War and Finnish Jewry [/SIZE]

During the Finnish-Russian War of 1939-40 (the Winter War), Finnish Jews fought alongside their non-Jewish fellow countrymen. During the Finnish-Russian War of 1941-44, in which Finnish Jews also took part, Finland and Nazi-Germany were co-belligerents. Despite strong German pressure, the Finnish Government refused to take action against Finnish nationals of Jewish origin who thus continued to enjoy full civil rights throughout the War. There are many interesting anecdotes from this period, concerning, among others, the presence of a Jewish prayer tent on the Russian front virtually under the Nazi's noses and the food help given to Russian-Jewish POWs by the Jewish communities of Finland. [/COLOR]

[url]http://www.jchelsinki.fi/history.htm[/url]

Petr

Petr

2004-10-18 23:12 | User Profile

[COLOR=DarkRed] - "National Socialism is profoundly alien to both Germanic culture and Northern Europe in particular. It is an imported product from the Mediterranean South."[/COLOR]

Hey, that's just what pagan Nazis like to say about Christianity!

:lol:

[COLOR=DarkRed] - "The only reason it had such appeal in Germany to begin with is because Germany was heavily Romanised during the Middle Ages whereas Britain and Scandinavia preserved their indigenous Germanic traditions."[/COLOR]

Yes - didn't National Socialism first "get rolling" in Catholic Austria and Bavaria, and weren't those anti-Hitler Wehrmacht generals mainly from Protestant Prussia?

Petr

friedrich braun

2004-10-19 01:57 | User Profile

[QUOTE=Kevin_O'Keeffe]I would say that its interesting Mr. Hoffman makes this claim, but having been following the NDP since 1996, I can't help but think I would have heard mention of this previously. Perhaps not, as our media doesn't go out of their way to publicize small, national socialist parties in Germany, to say the least, and their website doesn't have English-language content (presumably they would make some attempt to either refute such charges, or to assure their members that the moles had been dismissed), so I suppose its possible I missed such a startling development. But I remain highly sceptical.[/QUOTE]

Kevin,

The NDP is NOT--I repeat--NOT a National Socialist party. Nevetheless, they're still of some value, since their recent electoral successes serve to make German nationalism more acceptable.

friedrich braun

2004-10-19 02:01 | User Profile

[QUOTE=Petr][COLOR=DarkRed] - "National Socialism is profoundly alien to both Germanic culture and Northern Europe in particular. It is an imported product from the Mediterranean South."[/COLOR]

Hey, that's just what pagan Nazis like to say about Christianity!

:lol:

[COLOR=DarkRed] - "The only reason it had such appeal in Germany to begin with is because Germany was heavily Romanised during the Middle Ages whereas Britain and Scandinavia preserved their indigenous Germanic traditions."[/COLOR]

Yes - didn't National Socialism first "get rolling" in Catholic Austria and Bavaria, and weren't those anti-Hitler Wehrmacht generals mainly from Protestant Prussia?

Petr[/QUOTE]

Hmmm...stick to the Bible, Petr. The bulk of the National Socialist voters consisted of upper-middle-class Protestants. I actually wrote an undergrad paper in university on this topic. Unfortuntely, I lost it...probably during one of my moves : (

Get your hands on:

Who voted for Hitler?
By: Richard F Hamilton Type: English : Book : Non-fiction Publisher: Princeton, N.J. : Princeton University Press, ©1982. ISBN: 0691093954 : 0691101329

friedrich braun

2004-10-19 02:24 | User Profile

[B]- "National Socialism is profoundly alien to both Germanic culture and Northern Europe in particular. It is an imported product from the Mediterranean South."[/B]

Only your ignorance equals your stupidity ("but I'm about to get a BS in political science from the prestigious Auburn University :clown: ...yoopeee!...I know all there is to know...I've read all the post-WW II conformist court historians singing the same tune in unison...boy, am I smart or what?"). National Socialism is in fact distilled Germanism. But obviously a pontificating 23 year-old hick from rural Alabama knows more about National Socialism than Germans whose grandparents fought and bled and died for National Socialism and our Fatherland (hey, even the all-American "mom and pop" WNs at SF couldn't stomach your vanity, arrogance and affected "elitism", see MuadDib:

[QUOTE]There are many reasons why he is still moderated ... his many exits, posting under multiple usernames, his "holier than thou" attacks on those that don't see the "FadeTheButcher" way. He has the phora to espouse his version of WN. He can insult others there to his heart's content.[url]http://www.stormfront.org/forum/showthread.php?t=157010&page=15&pp=10[/url][/QUOTE]

You're a narcissistic -- but thoroughly worthless and untrustworthy little puke and Judas -- who in reality has no clue but thinks the world of himself.

BTW, do your cheerleader Petr a favour a tell him what you think of his Bible-believing sort, Mr. Atheist.

FadeTheButcher

2004-10-19 06:32 | User Profile

Only your ignorance equals your stupidity ("but I'm about to get a BS in political science from the prestigious Auburn University ...yoopeee!...I know all there is to know...I've read all the post-WW II conformist court historians singing the same tune in unison...boy, I'm a smart or what?").

Puerile insults. Nothing to respond to here.

National Socialism is in fact distilled Germanism.

Yeah right. Perhaps that is true if you subtract Goethe, Herder, Spengler, Kant, Luther, Nietzsche and high culture in general from German culture and return to the pure barbarism of the 1st century AD. Nothing is more hilarious than to see pretentious little German bourgeoisie rant about German culture when they have yet to read so much of a word of German philosophy or literature in their entire lives. Militant national chauvinism was imported into Germany from France in the aftermath of the Wars of Liberation. Germany, so to speak, caught the French disease. In the words of Goethe's devil, "he calls it reason, yet uses it solely to behave more bestially than any beast." An apt description of Nazism, if you ask me.

But obviously a pontificating 23 year-old hick from rural Alabama knows more about National Socialism than Germans whose grandparents fought and bled and died for National Socialism and our Fatherland. . .

Yawns. Some more insults. Nothing to respond to yet again. But I will tell you this: most Germans living today had relatives who fought and died in Hitler's war. They believe (quite correctly) that Adolf Hitler brought down ruin and destruction upon their country. And that is why they despise Nazism and everything it stood for. Its why they take every measure to ensure that such people never come to govern their society again. No vast worldwide conspiracy is necessary to explain their profound disgust with an ideology that is foreign and alien to the Germanic spirit anyway.

(hey, even the all-American "mom and pop" WNs at SF couldn't stomach your vanity, arrogance and affected "elitism", see Muaddib

The primary reason that I quit posting at that website is because it is still full of so many wannabee American Nazis.

You're a narcissistic -- but thoroughless worthless and untrustworthy little puke and Judas -- who in reality has no clue but thinks the world of himslef.

friedrich braun graces us one again with his profound intellect. LMAO.

"The very nature of my origin allowed me an outlook transcending merely local, merely national and limited horizons, it cost me no effort to be a "good European." -- Friedrich Nietzsche

[url]http://www.geocities.com/thenietzschechannel/eh3.htm[/url]

Petr

2004-10-19 12:24 | User Profile

[COLOR=Red] - "National Socialism is in fact distilled Germanism."[/COLOR]

[COLOR=Blue] - " Perhaps that is true if you subtract Goethe, Herder, Spengler, Kant, Luther, Nietzsche and high culture in general from German culture and return to the pure barbarism of the 1st century AD. "[/COLOR]

From "GERMANIA" by Cornelius Tacitus:

[url]http://www.fordham.edu/halsall/source/tacitus1.html[/url]

...

[COLOR=Purple]If their native state sinks into the sloth of prolonged peace and repose, many of its noble youths voluntarily seek those tribes which are waging some war, both because inaction is odious to their race, and because they win renown more readily in the midst of peril, and cannot maintain a numerous following except by violence and war. Indeed, men look to the liberality of their chief for their war-horse and their bloodstained and victorious lance. Feasts and entertainments, which, though inelegant, are plentifully furnished, are their only pay. The means of this bounty come from war and rapine. Nor are they as easily persuaded to plough the earth and to wait for the year's produce as to challenge an enemy and earn the honour of wounds. [SIZE=3]Nay, they actually think it tame and stupid to acquire by the sweat of toil what they might win by their blood. [/SIZE]

[SIZE=3]Habits in Time of Peace. [/SIZE]

Whenever they are not fighting, they pass much of their time in the chase, and still more in idleness, giving themselves up to sleep and to feasting, [SIZE=3]the bravest and the most warlike doing nothing, and surrendering the management of the household, of the home, and of the land, to the women, the old men, and all the weakest members of the family. [/SIZE] They themselves lie buried in sloth, a strange combination in their nature that the same men should be so fond of idleness, so averse to peace.

It is the custom of the states to bestow by voluntary and individual contribution on the chiefs a present of cattle or of grain, which, while accepted as a compliment, supplies their wants. They are particularly delighted by gifts from neighbouring tribes, which are sent not only by individuals but also by the state, such as choice steeds, heavy armour, trappings, and neck-chains. We have now taught them to acccept money also.

...[/COLOR]

This sounds suspiciously like lazy Negro gangstas letting de wimmen do all the work for them, and being bought off with bling-bling.

The whole concept of "German work ethics" would have not existed without the influence of Christianity, and especially Protestantism.

Petr

Petr

2004-10-19 12:31 | User Profile

[COLOR=Red] - "BTW, do your cheerleader Petr a favour a tell him what you think of his Bible-believing sort, Mr. Atheist."[/COLOR]

I am perfectly aware of Fade's irreligious beliefs, Freddy.

(He still has time to mature and change them, God willing)

Are you that stupid that you really thought I would be so stupid as not to know?

[COLOR=Red] - "The bulk of the National Socialist voters consisted of upper-middle-class Protestants."[/COLOR]

True, and the majority of Red Army soldiers were ordinary Russian peasants and workers.

However, the intellectual basis (like Ariosophy) and leadership for Nazism originated from the Austrian-Bavarian borderlands.

[COLOR=Red] - "The NDP is NOT--I repeat--NOT a National Socialist party."[/COLOR]

I see. If your requirements for being a "National Socialist" are that strict, then there are certainly more committed Christians than committed Nazis in Germany today.

Petr

Kevin_O'Keeffe

2004-10-19 13:22 | User Profile

[QUOTE=FadeTheButcher]Finland did not have a fascist government.

I didn't think that was the purpose of the list. You had said something about fascists not making any headway in those societies, or words to that effect. Finland was allied with Germany, and Hitler was widely admired in Finland. And there were explicitly national socialist members elected to the Finnish parliament. That is what I meant by subtracting Finland from your list, not that it had an explicitly fascist government.

[QUOTE=FadeTheButcher]In order to protect those areas from German attack, in light of the German occupation of Denmark. The Icelanders were overwhelmingly pro-Allied as well.[/QUOTE]

I'm not sure why British occupation/"attack" is necessarily to be preferred in this context to German occupation/"attack," especially in the case of Iceland. Iceland, as well as the people of the Canary and Azores archipelagoes, chose not to militarily resist the British occupation, but had they done so, the result would have been very similar to if they had militarily resisted a German attempt at occupation.

Kevin_O'Keeffe

2004-10-19 13:27 | User Profile

[QUOTE=friedrich braun]The NDP is NOT--I repeat--NOT a National Socialist party. Nevetheless, they're still of some value, since their recent electoral successes serve to make German nationalism more acceptable.[/QUOTE]

Perhaps technically not, but their belief that Hitler was the greatest German statesman since the founding of Germany in 1870 (I believe NDP chairman Udo Voight said that recently), strongly suggests a general leaning in that direction.

Bardamu

2004-10-19 13:29 | User Profile

[QUOTE=FadeTheButcher]Bardamu,

Lets suppose that at this very moment all immigration to the United States were to cease. What would that solve? Nothing. Differential birthrates would inevitably make us a minority in our own country eventually. The only difference is that such a day would come later rather than sooner. How does Buchanan plan to win the 'Culture War'? By limiting government? How, pray tell, would that solve anything? The government is not responsible for the sort of filth that is so pervasive in our culture today. The government does not make Hollywood films. The government does not publish the New York Times or the Washington Post. The government does not push MTV onto our youth. Private entrepreneurs do all of that. They are able to do all of this because individual rights are held to be so inviolable in the United States. If anything, we have the FCC to thank for what little restraint still exists today. Howard Stern would be ecstatic if the government would simply get off his back. That is precisely what he wants.[/QUOTE]

Well, this is a complete non sequitur. When I talk about white people needing their own exclusive territories to be ecologically viable it doesn't necessarily have anything to do with American immigration policy, or even America.

Texas Dissident

2004-10-19 14:47 | User Profile

[QUOTE=FadeTheButcher]National Socialism is profoundly alien to both Germanic culture and Northern Europe in particular. It is an imported product from the Mediterranean South. The only reason it had such appeal in Germany to begin with is because Germany was heavily Romanised during the Middle Ages whereas Britain and Scandinavia preserved their indigenous Germanic traditions.[/QUOTE]

Any particular place or book where this theory is expounded, Fade?

friedrich braun

2004-10-19 19:20 | User Profile

Petr,

I’m writing just to let you know that you’re going “ignore” from now on because to answer you I would have to take the gloves off and unload on the Bible and Christianity and I don’t want to do it on Original Dissent. Secondly, I’d be forced to belittle Finland (a particularly arduous task with Finland’s massive cultural and artistic achievements and all…when not a province of Sweden, it was Russian property…) and I don’t want to do that either since I genuinely like Finns. You could've done better than citing a 1st Century Roman mouth-piece and propagandist, if you think that you quoted fairminded, real history than I've got a bridge to sell you.

As to Fade’s post, I’ll have to wait to get home before exposing his mendacity and falsehoods – the list is long (boy, was wintermute ever right when he warned The Phora’s members about his mendacity and untrustworthy character). I’ll get to it tonight, if I can find a minute.

FadeTheButcher

2004-10-19 19:47 | User Profile

[QUOTE=Texas Dissident]Any particular place or book where this theory is expounded, Fade?[/QUOTE] Cantor discusses it in his The Civilisation of the Middle Ages. I have seen the same argument made in other sources as well. During the Holy Roman Empire, Germany fell heavily under the influence of Roman culture.

From one of my previous posts. This is taken from Henri Pirenne's Mohammad and Charlemagne:

"From whatever standpoint we regard it, then, the period inaugurated by the establishment of the Barbarians within the Empire introduced no absolute historical innovation. What the Germans destroyed was not the Empire, but the Imperial government in partibus occidentis. They themselves acknowledged as much by installing themselves as foederati. Far from seeking to replace the Empire by anything new, they established themselves within it, and although their settlement was accompanied by a process of serious degradation, they did not introduce a new scheme of government; the ancient palazzo, so to speak, was divided up into apartments, but it still survived as a building. In short, the essential character of "Romania" still remained Mediterranean. The frontier territories, which remained Germanic, and England, played on part in it as yet; it is a mistake to regard them at this period as a point of departure. Considering matters as they actually were, we see that the great novelty of the epoch was a political fact: in the Occident and plurality of States had replaced the unity of the Roman State. And this, of course, was a very considerable novelty. The aspect of Europe was changing, but the fundamental character of its life remained the same. These States, which have been described as national States, were not really national at all, but were merely fragments of the great unity which they had replaced. There was no profound transformation except in Britain.

There the Emperor and the civilisation of the Empire had disappeared. Nothing remained of the old tradition. A new world had made its appearance. The old law and language and institutions were replaced by those of the Germans. A civilisation of a new type was manifesting itself, which we may call the Nordic or Germanic civilization. It was completely opposed to the Mediterranean civilisation syncretised in the Late Empire, that last form of Antiquity. Here was no trace of the Roman state with its legislative ideal, its civil population, and its Christian religion, but a society which had preserved the blood tie between its members; the family community, with all the consequences which it entailed in law and morality and economy; a paganism like that of the heroic poems; such were the things that constituted the originality of these Barbarians, who had thrust back the ancient world in order to take it place. In Britain a new age was beginning, which did not gravitate towards the South. The man of the North and conquered and taken for his own this extreme corner of that "Romania" of which he had no memories, whose majesty he repudiated, and to which he owed nothing. In every sense of the word he replaced it, and in replacing it he destroyed it.

The Anglo-Saxon invaders came into the Empire fresh from their Germanic environment, and had never been subjected to the influences of Rome. Further, the province of Britain, in which they had established themselves, was the least Romanised of all the provinces. In Britain, therefore, they remained themselves: the Germanic, Nordic, Barbarian soul of peoples whose culture might almost be called Homeric has been the essential factor in the history of this country."

Henri Pirenne, Mohammad and Charlemagne (London: George Allen & Unwin Ltd, 1954), pp.140-141

Here is another interesting excerpt. In many respects, England is a more Germanic country than Germany itself. The latter was romanised during the Middle Ages, whereas England clung to Germanic traditions.

England's Germanic Culture

"It is apparent that little can be said in favour of the early Germanic legal process. Yet German law made one great contribution to western civilisation in its political implications. Roman law found origin in the will of the despotic emperor and favoured political absolutism. The king had no control over Germanic law; his only legal function was to see that the community courts met and decided cases, and even in this regard his contribution was negligable. Germanic law was based on the principle that law resided in the folk, that law was the custom of the community, and that the king could not change this law without the assent of the community. Because of this difference between Germanic and Roman law and because England, even in the High Middle Ages, remained relatively untouched by Roman law, the Victorian historians found the origin of English parliamentary institutions and the idea of the rule of law in the forests of Germany. Although it has been fashionable among twentieth century writers to scoff at this interpretation, there is an element of truth in it. The Victorians, with their organic conception of institutional development, erred in thinking that the great oak of English liberalism grew inevitably out of the acorn of German law. There was nothing inevitable about this development; in 1200 England appeared to be going in the direction of absolutism, and it took centuries of experience and political strife before the legislative supremacy of Parliament triumphed. But it is true that from German law England received a legal heritage of supremacy of the community over the king. All western European countries could have drawn upon the same legal tradition. [u]But after 1100 the Roman principle of legal absolutism slowly won out on the Continent, whereas England alone preserved the early Germanic idea that law resides in the folk, rather than in the will of the king."[/u]

Norman F. Cantor, The Civilisation of the Middle Ages (New York: HarperPerennial, 1994), pp.98-99

More on England's Germanic culture and legal system:

[u]"England was the only country whose legal system did not come heavily under the influence of the Justinian code. While the civil law was beginning to penetrate into the juristic systems of Germany and France in the twelfth century, English law went off in another direction, developing both institutions and principles that were remarkably different from the theory and procedure of Roman law. [/u]The departure had a profound effect on both the later government and law of England, and it constitutes one of the outstanding ways in which the intellectual changes of the twelfth century influenced th subsequent course of European history. Therefore, no study of the twelfth century can avoid the question of why England developed its own non-Roman legal system."

Ibid., p.315

Petr

2004-10-19 19:54 | User Profile

[COLOR=DarkRed] - "... to answer you I would have to take the gloves off and unload on the Bible and Christianity and I don’t want to do it on Original Dissent."[/COLOR]

More likely you cannot answer my points, and would like to relieve your frustrations by performing irrelevant attacks on my religion.

And do you think you are scaring me? I've already seen a whole variety of desperate blasphemers from all political directions during my times in the Net.

[COLOR=DarkRed]- "Secondly, I’d be forced to belittle Finland ..."[/COLOR]

Why would you be forced to do that, except in order to deliver some petty ad hominem insults?

[COLOR=DarkRed]- "…when not a province of Sweden, it was Russian property..."[/COLOR]

Heh, you childish national chauvinist. Do you think I care about such ancient grudges?

[COLOR=DarkRed]- "You could've done better than citing a 1st Century Roman mouth-piece and propagandist, if you think that you quoted fairminded, real history than I've got a bridge to sell you."[/COLOR]

Sour grapes, sour grapes. Would you also be ready to characterize Tacitus' put-down of Jews as prejudiced propaganda?

Perhaps you can give me some better source to describe the culture of pre-Christian Germanic tribes?

[COLOR=DarkRed]- "(boy, was wintermute ever right when he warned The Phora’s members about his mendacity and untrustworthy character)."[/COLOR]

Both you and Winnie have too high opinion of your own talents and intelligence, and consequently you switch to a repulsive crybaby mode when someone out-debates you.

Petr

FadeTheButcher

2004-10-19 19:59 | User Profile

I didn't think that was the purpose of the list. You had said something about fascists not making any headway in those societies, or words to that effect.

That's correct. And as I pointed out, Finland did not have a fascist government. Fascism did not make any real headway in Finland either. It failed throughout Scandinavia, even in Denmark and Norway under the German occupation.

Finland was allied with Germany, and Hitler was widely admired in Finland.

So was Imperial Japan and Romania. But that does not turn Finland into a fascist state.

And there were explicitly national socialist members elected to the Finnish parliament.

How many?

That is what I meant by subtracting Finland from your list, not that it had an explicitly fascist government.

Fascism had some support in Denmark and Sweden as well. But Fascism never made any real headway in Finland, just as it did not ever make any real headway in the rest of Scandinavia either. I will reply to the rest of your post once I retrieve some of my sources.

friedrich braun

2004-10-20 02:51 | User Profile

Alright, since I don’t want to further waste my time talking to an anti-German, Bible-thumping Finn who optimistically thinks that Scandinavia is ripe for a – wait for it – re-evangelization (unless a general intellectual obtuseness occurs on the continent and takes Northern Europe back to a pre-scientific age, such a scenario is highly improbable, friend) and an anti-German (now, that’s a fresh development) and a not particularly bright, unstable, fickle, twenty-three year-old hick from rural Alabama, I’ll conclude my participation in this tiresome thread on this last post.

[QUOTE]Yeah right. Perhaps that is true if you subtract Goethe, Herder, Spengler, Kant, Luther, Nietzsche and high culture in general…[/QUOTE]

How many of those authors have you actually read? I thought that you avoided literature, poetry, theology, and philosophy, in order to focus on history and political science.

Indeed, all of the above intellectuals were/are part of the German Volk. You could also add Leibnitz, Hegel, Bach, Fichte, Beethoven, and so many more – Germany has the highest culture the world has ever known.

You could’ve also mentioned Carl Schmitt (the great European jurist of the Twentieth Century was a National Socialist), Moeller van den Bruck, Martin Heidegger (the great philosopher of the Twentieth Century was a National Socialist), Rudolf Steiner, Ernst Haeckel (the jewish historian Daniel Gasman in his work Haeckel’s Monism and the Birth of Fascist Ideology promotes the idea that the work and thought of Haeckel (the morphologist and evolutionist) in the social realm – what one might loosely refer to as German “Social Darwinism” – was the overriding major input into National Socialism), Richard Wagner (whose music was thoroughly permeated by the German volkish spirit), etc., etc., etc. The fact is that National Socialism was an amalgam of disparate German and European conceptions. You could say that the French aristocrat and diplomat Count Arthur Joseph de Gobineau (Essay on the Inequality of Human Races) and Richard Wagner’s son-in-law, the English author Houston Stewart Chamberlain (The Origins of the Nineteenth Century) also played an important role, since they both lauded the “volkish” German tradition and viewed it as a project which could involve non-Germans who saw in the German a generalized expression of the superiority of the Aryan race. Both authors were enthusiastic Germanophiles who regarded the German as the natural leader of Europe. You could say that Oswald Spengler was instrumental in the philosophical development of National Socialism, since his work Decline of the West contrasted Western Civilization (democracy, individualism, urbanism, capitalism) with German culture (authoritarianism, collectivism, spirituality, militarism). In order for German culture to be protected Spengler argued that Germany needed to be united under an authoritarian dictator. While Spengler’s aristocratic Prussianism was somewhat at odds with the middle class nature of the National Socialist party much of his work provided intellectual scaffolding for the structures Adolf Hitler was to create. Similarly Moeller van den Bruck – who believed that Adolf Hitler’s plebian origins made him unsuitable to lead Germany provided ideological input to the National Socialist movement. Bruck believed that liberalism and freedom were a symptom of culture chaos and decadence. The role of good government was to restore authority and stability, which could only be achieved by the implementation of a new authoritarian political order which Bruck christened “The Third Reich.”

I would also point out that many historians situate the National Socialist movement within the larger European tradition, for e.g., I would argue that the intellectual roots of National Socialism can be traced back to voluntaristic philosophers such as Arthur Schopenhaur, Friedrich Nietzsche, and Henri Bergson and to German Social Darwanism and perhaps such late-nineteenth century writers as Julias Langbehn, Alfred Schuler, and Paul de Lagarde (it’s too bad that AY exited OD, I’d like to have his input on this issue):

'A Genuine Intellectual' Reflecting the ideological perspective that prevails in the Western world today, scholars of Hitler and Third Reich Germany have tended to dismiss the German leader's intellectual outlook as simplistic and crude -- or even crazy. Many play down or simply deny Hitler's place in Western culture "as a means of sanitizing that culture," says Birken. "But if we are to read Hitler neither to condemn nor to praise but merely to understand, then we come away with a very different conclusion about his place in European history." Scholars and others have made a major mistake in failing to take Hitler seriously as a thinker, argues Birken, who believes that the German political leader "must be regarded as a genuine intellectual" on a par with Karl Marx and Sigmund Freud. Birken's assessment is not as startling as many might believe. As he notes, as early as 1953, British historian Hugh R. Trevor-Roper "evoked the image of Hitler as a kind of synthesis of Spengler and Napoleon, noting that of all world conquerors the German leader had been the most 'philosophical'..."* More recently, German historian Rainer Zitelmann established in a study of impressive scholarship that Hitler's outlook was rational, self-consistent and "modern." (R. Zitelmann, Hitler: Selbtsverständnis eines Revolutionärs [second edition, 1989].) Moreover, Hitler's outlook was very much a part of the Western intellectual tradition. In his "combination of an almost religious faith with a revolutionary secularism," writes Birken, "Hitler represented the continuation of an essentially Enlightenment style of thought... Nazism, and especially Hitler's exposition of it, represented an attenuated and popularized form of the Enlightenment style of thought."

Hitler had a gift for presenting his message in an attractive, accessible form. Writes Birken:

The most attractive feature of Hitler's ideology was thus its optimism. It was not merely his mood but his message that carried an infectious excitement. He was a secular messiah proclaiming a Germanic version of the "good news." The possibility of class reconciliation, the plans for a national revival, the identification of a universal enemy whose elimination would usher in the millennium, all stirred his audiences to the very depths. Hitler spoke the language of the [Enlightenment] philosophes, a language that had almost passed out of existence in the rarefied strata of the grand intelligentsia. However, placing Hitler and Hitlerism in the intellectual tradition of the West, Birken continues, "should do less to raise our opinion" of Hitlerism, than to "lower our opinion" of "the intellectual history of the West."*

[url]http://www.ihr.org/jhr/v16/v16n5p34_Weber.html[/url]

[QUOTE]from German culture and return to the pure barbarism of the 1st century AD.[/QUOTE]

At this juncture I’m immensely tempted to point out to those who aren’t denizens of The Phora that the individual known as FadetheButcher only recently sported the National Socialist leaders Reinhard Heydrich and Heinrich Himmler in his avatars and signatures. I suppose that his current incarnation as a fire-breathing scorner of National Socialism is only one of his periodic “ideological” transformations. Yawn. What happened to the amoral iconoclast and despiser of sanctimonious moralizers, if I may ask? Oh how I miss that Fade…my good friend Fade…maybe one day he’ll return?

[QUOTE]Nothing is more hilarious than to see pretentious little German bourgeoisie rant about German culture when they have yet to read so much of a word of German philosophy or literature in their entire lives.[/QUOTE]

If this is addressed to me, I’d like to reassure FadetheButcher that I’ve read quite a bit of German philosophy and literature.

[QUOTE]Militant national chauvinism was imported into Germany from France in the aftermath of the Wars of Liberation. Germany, so to speak, caught the French disease.[/QUOTE]

The intellectual origins of National Socialism are multifarious and a fascinating topic, what made it a uniquely German phenomenon was its racism, anti-Semitism and the Prussian-Germanic militaristic tradition.

[QUOTE]In the words of Goethe's devil, "he calls it reason, yet uses it solely to behave more bestially than any beast." An apt description of Nazism, if you ask me.[/QUOTE]

Only a few months ago I saw FadetheButcher laugh uproariously at similar simplistic, primitive, and Manichean statements.

See above.

[QUOTE]Yawns. Some more insults. Nothing to respond to yet again. But I will tell you this: most Germans living today had relatives who fought and died in Hitler's war. They believe (quite correctly) that Adolf Hitler brought down ruin and destruction upon their country. And that is why they despise Nazism and everything it stood for. Its why they take every measure to ensure that such people never come to govern their society again. No vast worldwide conspiracy is necessary to explain their profound disgust with an ideology that is foreign and alien to the Germanic spirit anyway.[/QUOTE]

FadetheButcher is blowing smoke again. What brought ruin to Germany was the unholy alliance of Judeo-Bolshevism and plutocracy as exemplified by the Soviet Union, the British Empire, and the United States.

As to the alleged lack of ardour among Germans for the ideals of National Socialism, let’s look at the facts and not at FadetheButcher’s spin and lies. In 1948 the Allies established a "Parliamentary Council" (Just like the "Provisional Authority” in Iraq today). They set up a "parliament" based upon the elections of 1932 - excluding of course - All Nationalist Parties (NSDAP, DNVP, Stahlhelm, etc., etc., etc.). With this phony rump parliament, which excluded almost 60% of German voters of 1932, they then ran their phony Parliament. And of course - only people were allowed to vote in the coming "elections", that were not members of the NSDAP or any of its sub-organizations, or were involved in any other patriotic organization. At the same time millions of German soldiers were still being held in Allied camps to rot and starve away or were sent off to slave-labour camps all over Europe. The riff-raff, which crawled out of the camps and the imported immigrants, which fought the War on the other side, were then placed at the top. They then banned every single Newspaper and founded new ones, which they edited themselves. (Fweedom of the Press, you say?) Of course Germans couldn't publish anything, without getting a license from the military authorities, who obliged them to stay within a strict frame of political correctness or they would lose their license again. The "Parliamentary Commission" then was given the task to write a Constitution. General Clay then approved this farcical “Constitution” with his signature and NOT through a plebiscite of the German people or their representatives.

As for the Soviet Sector: They had just as many parties as in the West. Exact copies CDU, FDP, etc., etc., etc. They were called "block-parties" because they just sang to the tune that the Soviets played, like the rest of the "DDR-Regime". In the West it is no different at all! Watch what happens if any politician would make the suggestion of leaving NATO. LOL - he'd be politically dead over night!

As for Nationalism not being popular: What does a hick from rural Alabama know about my country? Nothing, of course. In the 1950s the "Socialist Reichs-Party" was outlawed. It managed to get over 35% in Northern Germany and its popularity was spreading fast. In the 1960s the NPD managed to get into the Bundestag. What did the Kosher-Nostra of the establishment do? It declared the entire elections "dubious" and found some "irregularities" and then simply repeated the elections and – lo’ and behold - the NPD didn’t make it into Parliament again! Coincidence? I think not!

So yes - the BRD can very well be compared to the Stalinist puppet-state.

To recapitulate: A Constitution written by enemy occupants; political parties that were installed by enemy troops; newspapers and publishing companies that were set up by enemy intelligence officers; laws that forbid any criticism of enemy troops or "incitement of hate against them"; the destruction and dismemberment of the state of Prussia through Allied decree. In other words, the whole range of Judeo-American DeMOCKracy. I know you consider this "Freedom" - we certainly don't!

Finally, the most in-depth and thorough de-Nazification happened in the American sector:

The decadent GFR exists, in large measure, because of Americans:

*The Allies did not seek merely to punish the leadership of the National Socialist regime, but to purge all elements of national socialism from public life. One phase of the denazification process dealt with lower-level personnel connected with the Naz i regime. Their pasts were reviewed to determine if the parts they had played in the regime were sufficiently grievous to warrant their exclusion from roles in a new Germany's politics or government. Germans with experience in government and not involved in the Nazi regime were needed to cooperate with occupation authorities in the administration of the zones.

The process of denazification was carried out diversely in the various zones. The most elaborate procedures were instituted in the United States zone, where investigated individuals were required to complete highly detailed questionnaires concerning t heir personal histories and to appear at hearings before panels of German adjudicators. In the British and French zones, denazification was pursued with less vigor because the authorities thought it more important to reestablish a functioning bureaucracy in their sectors.*

[url]http://www.1upinfo.com/country-guid.../germany37.html[/url]

[QUOTE]The primary reason that I quit posting at that website is because it is still full of so many wannabee American Nazis.[/QUOTE]

Bulshit! Nobody likes insufferable and pretentious assholes, and that’s why they booted you out several times already.

FadeTheButcher

2004-10-20 05:04 | User Profile

. . . and a not particularly bright, unstable, fickle, twenty-three year-old hick from rural Alabama, I’ll conclude my participation in this tiresome thread on this last post.

Why are you choosing to exit this thread so fast, freddie? Are you afraid those swastika cookies you are baking for Dr. Brandt are about to get burned? Was he not impressed last night when you shined his shoes and made him dinner?

How many of those authors have you actually read?

I have read every single one of them. And every single one of them would have been profoundly disgusted with Nazism or actually were disgusted by Nazism while they were alive, like Oswald Spengler, for instance. Spengler never joined the Nazi party. As Spengler himself put it, what Germany needed was a hero, not a heroic tenor.

I thought that you avoided literature, poetry, theology, and philosophy, in order to focus on history and political science.

I am thoroughly familar with German literature, poetry, theology, and philosophy. I know a thing or two about German history too. For instance, did you know that Kaiser Wilhelm was disgusted by the plebian lowlifes in the National Socialist movement?

Indeed, all of the above intellectuals were/are part of the German Volk.

I agree. But you see, German culture (much less the German people) and Nazism are not the same thing. That's your problem. That is what you have failed to realise.

You could also add Leibnitz, Hegel, Bach, Fichte, Beethoven, and so many more – Germany has the highest culture the world has ever known.

I noticed you didn't bother to include Goebbels (his book Michael) or Rosenberg (his book The Myth of the Twentieth Century) in that list. And I don't really blame you. That would only through into relief the depths to which philosophy and literature had degenerated in Germany under National Socialism.

You could’ve also mentioned Carl Schmitt (the great European jurist of the Twentieth Century was a National Socialist)

Why would I have mentioned Carl Schmitt? As anyone who is familar with Carl Schmitt's life well knows, he only reluctantly joined the Nazi Party after National Socialism had come to power. Within just several short years, he became profoundly disgusted with Nazism. He was almost thrown into a concentration camp, in fact.

Moeller van den Bruck

Moeller van den Bruck was a Conservative Revolutionary. Try again.

Heidegger (the great philosopher of the Twentieth Century was a National Socialist)

Haha! Heidegger joined the Nazi Party, true, but he was simply an opportunist. He thought he could play the role of philosopher-king and use National Socialism for his own purposes. When this backfired in his face, Heidegger also became utterly disgusted with Nazism like Carl Schmitt. He later denounced National Socialism several times after the war. It does not surprise me though that you would fail to mention that. I notice you didn't mention the sexual affair he had with Hannah Arendt either, a Jewess. I don't really blame you. That would have really hurt your case and caused you profound embarrassment.

Rudolf Steiner

Rudolf Steiner died in 1925. So why are you mentioning him?

Ernst Haeckel

Ernst Haeckel died in 1919. So why are you mentioning him?

(the morphologist and evolutionist) in the social realm – what one might loosely refer to as German “Social Darwinism” – was the overriding major input into National Socialism)

Social Darwinism is yet another example of a theory imported into Germany from abroad. It is actually of English extraction. But that would make sense, since the eugenics movement itself originated in Great Britain and America, not Germany.

Richard Wagner (whose music was thoroughly permeated by the German volkish spirit), etc., etc., etc.

Richard Wagner was an antisemite but he was never a Nazi. Nazism did not even exist in his day. There were no Richard Wagner's in the Third Reich either.

You could say that the French aristocrat and diplomat Count Arthur Joseph de Gobineau (Essay on the Inequality of Human Races)

Gobineau was not a Nazi or a German either. Indeed, one can even describe Gobineau as the father of modern scientific racialism. This just goes to illustrate my point: that Great Britain, France, America and other Western nations were light years ahead of Germany in racial science prior to the 1930s. Hitler borrowed many of his ideas from non-German thinkers and utterly vulgarised them. This makes a parody out your assertion that National Socialism is 'distilled Germanism'.

and Richard Wagner’s son-in-law, the English author Houston Stewart Chamberlain (The Origins of the Nineteenth Century) also played an important role

You once again make my point. Houston Stewart Chamberlain was an Englishman.

since they both lauded the “volkish” German tradition and viewed it as a project which could involve non-Germans who saw in the German a generalized expression of the superiority of the Aryan race.

I am still trying to grasp where you are coming from. You claim that National Socialism is 'distilled Germanism' and then cite the works of a French diplomat and an English racialist to butress your self-refuting argument. You could have also mentioned Henry Ford, whose ideas Hitler freely drew upon on numerous occasions, such as autobahns, which he plucked straight out of Ford's autobiography.

Both authors were enthusiastic Germanophiles who regarded the German as the natural leader of Europe.

I noticed that you did not cite Nietzsche or Herder to support your claim here, both of whom would have been utterly disgusted with Hitler's plan to grab lebensraum at the expense of the Slavs.

You could say that Oswald Spengler was instrumental in the philosophical development of National Socialism, since his work Decline of the West contrasted Western Civilization (democracy, individualism, urbanism, capitalism) with German culture (authoritarianism, collectivism, spirituality, militarism). In order for German culture to be protected Spengler argued that Germany needed to be united under an authoritarian dictator.

Its funny you should mention Oswald Spengler of all people here. For Oswald Spengler certainly did not see in National Socialism any saviour of Europe, on the contrary, he regarded it as one of the clearest signs of Western degeneration into 'civilisation'. You could say he was underwhelmed by National Socialism, but that would be a bit of an understatement. He was actually disgusted by it, which is why he never bothered to join the Nazi Party. He pointed out in Hour of Decision that the European empire was in danger of being squandered by incompetant leadership.

Reservations About Hitler

There is much in Spengler's thinking that permits one to characterize him as a kind of "proto-Nazi": his call for a return to Authority, his hatred of "decadent" democracy, his exaltation of the spirit of "Prussianism," his idea of war as essential to life. However, he never joined the National Socialist party, despite the repeated entreaties of such NS luminaries as Gregor Strasser and Ernst Hanfstängl. He regarded the National Socialists as immature, fascinated with marching bands and patriotic slogans, playing with the bauble of power but not realizing the philosophical significance and new imperatives of the age. Of Hitler he supposed to have said that what Germany needed was a hero, not a heroic tenor. Still, he did vote for Hitler against Hindenburg in the 1932 election. He met Hitler in person only once, in July 1933, but Spengler came away unimpressed from their lengthy discussion.

His views about the National Socialists and the direction Germany should properly be taking surfaced in late 1933, in his book The Hour of Decision [translation of Die Jahre der Entscheidung]. He began it by stating that no one could have looked forward to the National Socialist revolution with greater longing than he. In the course of the work, though, he expressed (sometimes in veiled form) his reservations about the new regime. Germanophile though he certainly was, nevertheless he viewed the National Socialists as too narrowly German in character, and not sufficiently European.

Although he continued the racialist tone of Man and Technics, Spengler belittled what he regarded as the exclusiveness of the National Socialist concept of race. In the face of the outer danger, what should be emphasized is the unity of the various European races, not their fragmentation. Beyond a matter-of-fact recognition of the "colored peril" and the superiority of white civilization, Spengler repeated his own "non-materialist" concept of race (which he had already expressed in Decline): Certain men -- of whatever ancestry -- have "race" (a kind of will-to-power), and these are the makers of history.

Predicting a second world war, Spengler warned in Hour of Decision that the National Socialists were not sufficiently watchful of the powerful hostile forces outside the country that would mobilize to destroy them, and Germany. His most direct criticism was phrased in this way: "And the National Socialists believe that they can afford to ignore the world or oppose it, and build their castles-in-the-air without creating a possibly silent, but very palpable reaction from abroad." Finally, but after it had already achieved a wide circulation, the authorities prohibited the book's further distribution.

Oswald Spengler, shortly after predicting that in a decade there would no longer be a German Reich, died of a heart attack on May 8, 1936, in his Munich apartment. He went to his death convinced that he had been right, and that events were unfolding in fulfillment of what he had written in The Decline of the West. He was certain that he lived in the twilight period of his Culture -- which, despite his foreboding and gloomy pronouncements, he loved and cared for deeply to the very end.

[url]http://www.bayarea.net/~kins/AboutMe/Spengler/Stimely_Spengler_Intro.html[/url]

While Spengler’s aristocratic Prussianism was somewhat at odds with the middle class nature of the National Socialist party much of his work provided intellectual scaffolding for the structures Adolf Hitler was to create

This is more laughable nonsense. Spengler's entire theory of history was one of irreversible Western degeneration into civilisation. As the author above points out, he also thought the National Socialists were too narrowly German and would bring down destruction upon Germany. He also embraced a non-materialist definition of race which was directly at odds with National Socialist race-materialism.

Similarly Moeller van den Bruck – who believed that Adolf Hitler’s plebian origins made him unsuitable to lead Germany provided ideological input to the National Socialist movement.

You could have mentioned Karl Haushofer as well. It was from Haushofer, via Hess, that Hitler got the notion of lebensraum in his head. Hitler utterly vulgarised Haushofer's theory as well, which had nothing whatsoever to do with Slavic inferiority or even racialism.

Bruck believed that liberalism and freedom were a symptom of culture chaos and decadence.

He was a Conservative Revolutionary. That does not make him into a Fascist or a Nazi, however.

The role of good government was to restore authority and stability, which could only be achieved by the implementation of a new authoritarian political order which Bruck christened “The Third Reich.”

I agree. But the "Third Reich" that Adolf Hitler ultimately created was certainly not what van den Bruck had in mind. It wasn't what Carl Schmitt or Martin Heidegger had in mind either, much less Nietzsche, and even still less Goethe or Herder.

I would also point out that many historians situate the National Socialist movement within the larger European tradition

Most historians would agree that Adolf Hitler drew upon and vulgarised the ideas of many thinkers, Nietzsche in particular. Nietzsche would have been repulsed by National Socialism in every fibre of his being. Hitler also heavily borrowed from Mussolini and the entire fascist political style (e.g., the 'Brownshirts').

I would argue that the intellectual roots of National Socialism can be traced back to voluntaristic philosophers such as Arthur Schopenhaur, Friedrich Nietzsche, and Henri Bergson and to German Social Darwanism and perhaps such late-nineteenth century writers as Julias Langbehn, Alfred Schuler, and Paul de Lagarde (it’s too bad that AY exited OD, I’d like to have his input on this issue)

Nietzsche was a pan-European philo-Semite and militant anti-national chauvinist. Henri Bergson was half-Jewish. Schopenhauer would have been disgusted by Nazism.

At this juncture I’m immensely tempted to point out to those who aren’t denizens of The Phora that the individual known as FadetheButcher only recently sported the National Socialist leaders Reinhard Heydrich and Heinrich Himmler in his avatars and signatures.

Yeah. I also had a Hammer and Sickle in my signature at one time too. Most people have the intelligence not to take jokes seriously. Never have I described myself as a National Socialist or a White Nationalist.

I suppose that his current incarnation as a fire-breathing scorner of National Socialism is only one of his periodic “ideological” transformations.

I have never been just another narrow-minded national chauvinist who hates the living shit out of other Europeans. On the other hand, if anyone has undergone the profound ideological transformation, then it is yourself. Just several months ago you described yourself as a Protestant Christian yet here you are in this thread bashing Christianity. What happened to this friedrich braun?

"At any rate, I believe that Dr. Brandt’s attitude regarding Poles is too harsh and stuck in the past and brings nothing new to the table. We will not change geography and the Poles are not going anywhere. Today’s generations cannot be held accountable for the arrogance and stupidity of the Polish (unelected) pre-war government. Hating Poles and dreaming dreams of mass slaughter of a European population is distasteful to me on many levels. Pro-German Poles (or at least those who are not hostile) should be assiduously cultivated and promoted and you do not achieve this by running around in circles chanting “Jeder Schlag ein Polack.” Poland’s historic destiny is that of a German satellite (ditto for most of Eastern Europe and the Baltic States) and that is why working on behalf of closer cultural, business, tourist, linguistic ties should be the main focus. I invite Dr. Brandt to take a long vacation in the beautiful Zakopane (I spent an enchanting weekend there a few years ago on a business trip to Poland ) to unwind and seize the occasion to chat a little with the friendly locals – in sum, a harmonious relationship is in everyone’s interests."

[url]http://www.thephora.org/forum/showpost.php?p=7152&postcount=3[/url]

"So what's your solution? There will never again be a war over territory in Central Europe. Everyone has their atrocity stories. I cannot hate all Poles because some were/are anti-German, chauvinistic assholes and expelled my ancestors. I refuse to act like the jews and continuously dwell on the past."

[url]http://www.thephora.org/forum/showpost.php?p=7190&postcount=5[/url]

Yawn. What happened to the amoral iconoclast and despiser of sanctimonious moralizers, if I may ask?

Postmoralism was never about repudiating ethics wholesale. That has yet to change, btw.

Oh how I miss that Fade…my good friend Fade…maybe one day he’ll return?

Whatever happened to my friend friedrich braun who did not believe in living in the past, the fellow who found the wholesale slaughter of entire European populations to be distasteful, the man who described himself as a Protestant Christian? At what point did this guy begin to have fantasies about miscegenating the British out of existence and nuking the entire island of Great Britain?

If this is addressed to me, I’d like to reassure FadetheButcher that I’ve read quite a bit of German philosophy and literature.

No. That was not addressed to you. It was addressed to Dr. Brandt whom you have become a mere echo of lately. You are not even a German yourself. You are a Canadian.

The intellectual origins of National Socialism are multifarious and a fascinating topic, what made it a uniquely German phenomenon was its racism, anti-Semitism and the Prussian-Germanic militaristic tradition.

It wasn't a uniquely German phenomenon. You have demonstrated that yourself in this very thread! You have pointed out yourself how Hitler took many of his ideas from non-Germans. It is true that racism and anti-Semitism were not as pervasive in Italian and French fascism as was the case in Germany. On the other hand, racism and anti-Semitism both flourished within American and Eastern European fascist movements.

Only a few months ago I saw FadetheButcher laugh uproariously at similar simplistic, primitive, and Manichean statements.

I suppose you can say that I have become more and more disgusted with National Socialism as I have learned more about it. True. But that doesn't mean I have changed my views. I have never described myself as a National Socialist. I have always been pro-European in my sentiments. It was precisely those sentiments that have led to my revulsion with Nazism.

FadetheButcher is blowing smoke again.

I would be more than willing to take a straw poll of modern Germans.

What brought ruin to Germany was the unholy alliance of Judeo-Bolshevism and plutocracy as exemplified by the Soviet Union, the British Empire, and the United States.

This is more nonsense. The guest workers did not begin to pour into West Germany until the 1960s, years after the occupation was over. They also came primarily to work in the industries created by the German economic miracle of the 1950s.

friedrich braun regurgitates his usual bile about postwar Germany. For an in-depth refutation of his arguments, I advise the gallery to see:

1.) Ralph Willet, [I]The Americanisation of Germany, 1945-1949[/I] (New York Routledge, 1989) 2.) Edward N. Peterson, [I]The American Occupation of Germany: Retreat to Victo[/I]ry (Detroit: Wayne State University Press, 1977) 3.) Timothy R. Vogt, [I]Denazification in Soviet-Occupied Germany: Brandenberg, 1945-1949 [/I] (Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 2000) 4.) James H. Critchfield, [I]Partners at the Creation: The Men Behind Germany's Postwar Defence and Intelligence Establishments [/I] (Annapolis: Naval Institute Press, 2003) 5.) Richard Hiscocks, [I]The Adenauer Era [/I] (Philidelphia: J.B. Lippincott Company, 1966) I will quote from these sources extensively tommorrow and this weekend. I have a Sociology midterm to study for tommorrow however that I have to get back to at the moment.

Bulshit! Nobody likes insufferable and pretentious assholes, and that’s why they booted you out several times already.

I am not banned from Stormfront. On the other hand, not only has Dr. Brandt been banned from Stormfront, he has also been banned from Skadi and The Phora. I believe he was banned from this website as well.

friedrich braun

2004-10-20 15:14 | User Profile

Since OD was down this morning I posted by reply on The Nordish Portal while adding some additional information and commentary.

[url]http://www.nordish.net/forum/showthread.php?t=4558&page=1&pp=10[/url]

I’m not particularly interested in endlessly debating an unstable 23-year old boy from rural backwaters (“Kikel with a library card”, as wintermute amusingly described our fickle boy – btw, the hammer and sickle referred to by FadetheButcher figured in his avatar when the little hick was going through his “National Bolshevist” period…I’m anxiously waiting for him to eventually become a full-blown bleeding-heart liberal and philo-Semite…he’s well on his way towards that destination, I believe) who doesn’t know what he is or what he believes, thence, I will briefly say only a few things:

Following WW II Carl Schmitt and Martin Heidegger never repudiated their association with the National Socialist party even though tremendous pressure was put upon them to do so. As with everything else surrounding WW II, we witness a great deal of spinning and lying by folks who want to “rescue” both individuals and their intellectual output from the obloquy of National Socialism. No group of people has ever been lied about more than the National Socialist -- one should always keep that in mind while reading Allied court historians. How long do you think a scholar would last in the academia today if he or she wrote a pro-Hitler book?

Here's what I wrote:

...

Additionally, when one hales from a country that stole its land from the original, indigenous populations (and then merrily exterminated them) and Mexicans, engaged in the slave-trade and slavery, is still the only nation in world history to have used nuclear arms on an adversary (not once but twice!), massively firebombed civilians in WW II (in conjunction with the peace-loving British…the same people who rejected Hitler’s six peace offers, btw) and allied itself with the bloodiest dictatorship on earth, a degree of humility is in order; and let's not forget the British who were the first people to use concentration camps where they've put Northern Europeans (Boer Wars) and where 30 000 women and children died as a result of British perfidy:

The concentration camps in which Britain killed 27 000 Boer women and children(24000) during the Second War of Independence (1899 - 1902) today still have far-reaching effects on the existence of the Boerevolk.

[url]http://www.boer.co.za/boerwar/hellkamp.htm[/url]

And I could go on for ever...with such a golden track-record one should think twice before throwing around easy epithets and accusing others of "barbarity." But introspection and humbleness were never the Yanks’ forte.

In conclusion, I’ll let my dear friend Dr. Brandt speak:

Not to long ago he had a subforum called "The Bananarepublik". That has been deleted and now he is scorning NS and shows understanding for the idiot Lemmings and their corrupt leaders of this Bananarepublik.

Instead of wasting your time answering him, just dig out his old posts with Cerberus and use his past quotes against him. No wait - don't. Better yet - just ignore him!

BTW: They showed "American Psycho" on TV here. Only managed to see parts of it. But what I saw makes me understand why he likes that movie so much and idolizes that charakter with is Atavar: A young rich narcist snob, who likes to throw around with his money, thinks he can simply buy anything he wants and who just loves to hear himself talk.

friedrich braun

2004-10-20 15:15 | User Profile

No vast worldwide conspiracy is necessary to explain their profound disgust with an ideology that is foreign and alien to the Germanic spirit anyway

The abovementioned hick from rural Alabama wouldn't know what the German spirit is if it came up to him and hit him in the face with a baseball bat.

Petr

2004-10-20 15:40 | User Profile

[COLOR=Blue] - "The abovementioned hick from rural Alabama wouldn't know what the German spirit is if it came up to him and hit him in the face with a baseball bat."[/COLOR]

Are you now having fantasies, Fred?

:biggrin:

Petr

Texas Dissident

2004-10-20 15:45 | User Profile

[QUOTE=friedrich braun]...hick from rural Alabama...[/QUOTE]

Them's my people you're trying to insult, Fred.

:gunsmilie

You do know that it is jewish metrosexuals that always disdain the rural blood and soil folk, right?

Quantrill

2004-10-20 16:02 | User Profile

[QUOTE=Texas Dissident]You do know that it is jewish metrosexuals that always disdain the rural blood and soil folk, right?[/QUOTE] That's because rural folk have common sense and a high resistance to intellectual faddism. Ironically, the lower average level of education among rural folk actually contributes to these qualities, since it is in the clutches of the educational establishment that much of the indoctrination is done. As Orwell said, 'there are some ideas so stupid, that only an intellectual could believe them.'

FadeTheButcher

2004-10-20 16:32 | User Profile

I’m not particularly interested in endlessly debating an unstable 23-year old boy from rural backwaters (“Kikel with a library card”, as wintermute amusingly described our fickle boy

Of course. You can't. That is why you chose to exit the debate and resort to insults instead (which are obviously impressing no one). I don't have to rely upon insults to make my case. The evidence speaks for itself.

btw, the hammer and sickle referred to by FadetheButcher figured in his avatar when the little hick was going through his “National Bolshevist” period…

There never was any 'National Bolshevist' period. nateddi made me a 'National Bolshevist' sig and I paraded it around for a day or so in order to irritate Wehrmacht as a joke. nateddi also made LaundryBob one and he did the same thing. But speaking of periods, it sure is interesting how friedrich braun seems to have moved from his Protestant period to his anti-Christian period.

I’m anxiously waiting for him to eventually become a full-blown bleeding-heart liberal and philo-Semite…

I am not in favour of National Socialism myself, or Judaism for white people. You keep asserting that I have changed my views. Actually, as the gallery can clearly see from the quotes I posted above, you are the one here who has undergone the profound ideological transformation.

he’s well on his way towards that destination, I believe)

You have believed lots of things, at some time or another. For instance, just several months ago you were purportedly a Protestant Christian who found the slaughter of entire European populations to be utterly distasteful.

who doesn’t know what he is or what he believes, thence, I will briefly say only a few things

And this is coming from the guy who was lecturing others just several months ago about living in the past. LMAO. Look in the mirror.

Following WW II Carl Schmitt and Martin Heidegger never repudiated their association with the National Socialist party even though tremendous pressure was put upon them to do so.

Nonsense. Both Schmitt and Heidegger repudiated National Socialism after the war, publically, on several occasions. Both Schmitt and Heidegger were opportunists as well who became disgusted with National Socialism during the course of the war. See Rudiger Safranski's book Martin Heidegger: Between Good and Evil as well as Paul Gottfried's Carl Schmitt: Politics and Theory. You don't know what the **** you are talking about, as usual.

As with everything else surrounding WW II, we witness a great deal of spinning and lying by folks who want to “rescue” both individuals and their intellectual output from the obloquy of National Socialism.

Haha. For starters, Schmitt was a Catholic authoritarian conservative from the Rhineland (hardly any bastion of Nazism) who joined the party only after it had came to power. He was actually almost thrown into a concentration camp, as I pointed out above. Heidegger became disillusioned with Nazism shortly after he joined the party as well. He was later to criticize it in his Freiburg lectures and denounce it after the war was over.

No group of people has ever been lied about more than the National Socialist

Schmitt and Heidegger both survived the war and lived for several decades. Both distanced themselves from National Socialism as well.

one should always keep that in mind while reading Allied court historians.

i.e. historians that contradict friedrich braun's ridiculous ideological worldview.

How long do you think a scholar would last in the academia today if he or she wrote a pro-Hitler book?

Lets see some evidence of your conspiracy theory.

Additionally, when one hales from a country that stole its land from the original, indigenous populations

I am scratching my head here. I am trying to figure out how Americans 'stole' the land of the Indians.

(and then merrily exterminated them) and Mexicans, engaged in the slave-trade and slavery, is still the only nation in world history to have used nuclear arms on an adversary (not once but twice!)

It wasn't against international law to use nuclear weapons during the Second World War. Slavery was also perfectly legal.

massively firebombed civilians in WW II (in conjunction with the peace-loving British…

Yawns. As if you have any moral objection whatsoever to the firebombing of civilians. You Nazis really are a piece of work.

the same people who rejected Hitler’s six peace offers, btw)

I have already dealt with Hitler's so-called peace offers in the mugwort thread.

and allied itself with the bloodiest dictatorship on earth

The United States was not allied to Nazi Germany.

a degree of humility is in order

LOL I actually feel sorry for you people. You sore losers have nothing better to do than whine about losing World War 2 on the internet everyday. That's pathetic, in my view.

and let's not forget the British who were the first people to use concentration camps where they've put Northern Europeans (Boer Wars) and where 30 000 women and children died as a result of British perfidy

The British never had any policy to exterminate Boer women and children.

The concentration camps in which Britain killed 27 000 Boer women and children(24000)

Tell me. How many millions of civilians did the Nazis kill? Does anyone even know?

during the Second War of Independence (1899 - 1902) today still have far-reaching effects on the existence of the Boerevolk.

More crocodile tears from friedrich braun.

And I could go on for ever...

Without making any essential point. You have no sincere objection to such methods, so to sit here and waste our time with the pretense that you do hardly helps your case.

with such a golden track-record one should think twice before throwing around easy epithets and accusing others of "barbarity."

Nazi Germany is widely regarded as being one of the most barbaric regimes to ever exist in world history. That's not simply my view of the matter.

But introspection and humbleness were never the Yanks’ forte.

Funny how Nazis are outcasts in Germany today.

In conclusion, I’ll let my dear friend Dr. Brandt speak

Dr. Brandt has been speaking all along!

Not to long ago he had a subforum called "The Bananarepublik".

We had lots of subforums. We had a Heart of Darkness forum too and an Islamic forum as well. We merged those because we had too many forums.

That has been deleted

Lots of forums were deleted and/or merged.

and now he is scorning NS

Because I have came to the conclusion that is formulated savagery.

and shows understanding for the idiot Lemmings and their corrupt leaders of this Bananarepublik.

I can understand why the average citizen of the Federal Republic of Germany finds Nazism to be repugnant to every fibre of their being, yes.

Instead of wasting your time answering him, just dig out his old posts with Cerberus and use his past quotes against him.

I have already acknowledged that I gradually became more and more disgusted with Nazism as I learned more and more about it. And yes, the research that I was doing in all those debates with cerberus was the key factor in my reassessment of my previous conclusions. I am an open-minded person.

No wait - don't. Better yet - just ignore him!

Why aren't you ignoring me, braun?

BTW: They showed "American Psycho" on TV here.

So Brandt tunes in to the electronic Jew? :p

Only managed to see parts of it. But what I saw makes me understand why he likes that movie so much and idolizes that charakter with is Atavar

Bateman never actually killed anyone in the movie. It was all in his head.

A young rich narcist snob, who likes to throw around with his money, thinks he can simply buy anything he wants and who just loves to hear himself talk.[/QUOTE] Is that a Bolshevik I hear?

FadeTheButcher

2004-10-20 16:33 | User Profile

[QUOTE=Texas Dissident]Them's my people you're trying to insult, Fred.[/QUOTE] Freddie is superior to all of us lowlife Americans by virtue of being a wannabee Nazi living in Canada. :p

FadeTheButcher

2004-10-20 16:51 | User Profile

Its too bad freddie left the debate. I was just getting started.

"Anyone who actually read his works, Schmitt retorted, could not possibly get this impression. His writings were merely scholarly analyses of an existing situation and had nothing to do with planning or promoting aggressive wars. Regarding his work in National Socialist legal affairs, Schmitt maintained that he always wrote under the control of the party, and that his anti-Semitic remarks must also be viewed in that context. From the very beginning, Schmitt said, he had considered Nazi Jewish policies a great misfortune, and he was proud of the fact that after 1936 he no longer worked for the party. When asked whether he was ashamed of what he had written under the Nazis, Schmitt replied: "Today, certainly . . . it is definitely horrible. Nothing else can be said about it."

Joseph W. Bendersky, [I]Carl Schmitt: Theorist for the Reich [/I] (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1983), pp.268-269

FadeTheButcher

2004-10-20 17:02 | User Profile

Schmitt became disillusioned with National Socialist barbarism. He ultimately himself became a victim of Nazi anti-intellectualism.

"As the months passed without further incidents, Schmitt felt more and more secure in his belief that Goering's intervention had definitely ended the SD campaign. He had been greatly shaken by this experience and would do everything possible to avoid attracting the attention of the party. When the SD ceased its attacks on him, a relieved yet suspicious Schmitt withdrew from public life. Never again did he provide legal or political advice for Nazi officials or institutions; thereafter questions related to Nazi laws and domestic policies were never addressed in any of his works. Similarly, his personal associations with Goering and Frank were broken off in 1936; he never met Goering again, and he had only a few brief encounters with Frank in the years that followed. Taking refuge in his professorial duties at the University of Berlin, Schmitt received no public attention for the next two years. His withdrawal from public life, however, was certainly not unique. Many German intellectuals, out of disdain for the Nazis from the very beginning or out of eventual disillusionment with the regime, had entered into a state of "inner emigration," avoiding political questions by escaping into esoteric areas of scholarship. But few of them had gone as far as Schmitt had in his compromises with the Nazis before facing rejection. Therefore, when Schmitt joined the ranks of the inner emigration he encountered a cold reception. He was now mistrusted by all sides, whether for his insincerity or for his closeness to the party."

Ibid., p.243-244

FadeTheButcher

2004-10-20 17:23 | User Profile

"Heidegger, therefore, showed no sense of guilt. But in fact neither did he feel any. The situation, as he saw it, was this: he had, for a short while, committed himself to the National Socialist revolution because he had regarded it as a metaphysical revolution. When it failed to live up to its promises -- and what its promises to him had been he never accurately disclosed -- he had withdrawn and pursued his philosophical work, unaffected by the party's approval or rejection. He had made no secret of his critical distance from the system but openly declared it in his lectures. To that extent he was less responsible for the system than the vast majority of scholars who had adapted, and none of whom was now being made to justify himself. What did he have to do with the crimes of the system? Heidegger was actually surprised to be required to justify himself at all. He experienced, as he later admitted to Jaspers on April 8, 1950, "shame" at having for a short time collaborated -- that he admitted. But it was shame at having made a mistake, of having been "deluded."

Rudiger Safranksi, [I]Martin Heidegger: Between Good and Evil[/I] (Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1998), pp.337-338

Petr

2004-10-20 17:38 | User Profile

[COLOR=Red] - "How many millions of civilians did the Nazis kill? Does anyone even know?"[/COLOR]

Fade, do you think that we could give any credit to this witness statement given by SS Obergruppenführer Bach-Zelewski at Nuremberg?

[COLOR=Purple]COL. POKROVSKY: You have told us that the Germans intended to destroy the Slav population in order to reduce the number of Slavs to 30 million. Where did you get this figure and this order?

VON DEM BACH-ZELEWSKI: I must correct that: Not to reduce to 30 million, but by 30 million. Himmler mentioned this figure in his speech at the Weselsburg.

COL. POKROVSKY: Do you confirm the fact that actually all the measures carried out by the German commanders and by the Wehrmacht in the occupied Russian territories were directed to the sole purpose of reducing the number of Slavs and Jews by 30 million?

VON DEM BACH-ZELEWSKI: The meaning of that is not quite clear to me. Did the Wehrmacht know that the Slav population was to be diminished by 30 million? Would you please repeat the question, it wasn't quite clear?

COL. POKROVSKY: I asked: Can you actually and truthfully confirm that the measures taken by the Wehrmacht Command in the district administrative areas then occupied by the Germans were directed to the purpose of diminishing the Slavs and Jews by 30 million? Do you now understand the question?

VON DEM BACH-ZELEWSKI: I believe that these methods would definitely have resulted in the extermination of 30 million if they had been continued, and if developments of that time had not completely changed the situation. [/COLOR]

[url]http://www.mazal.org/archive/imt/04/IMT04-T485.htm[/url]

And what about this quotation:

[COLOR=Blue]"For example, Reichmarshal Goering, who was next to Hitler in power said: "This year between twenty and thirty million persons will die [in Ukraine and] and Russia of hunger. Perhaps it is well that it should be so, for certain nations must be decimated." -- Hermann Goering, Nov. 24-27, 1941 (Dallin p. 123)." [/COLOR]

[url]http://www.infoukes.com/history/ww2/page-19.html[/url]

Did that new "Harvest of Despair" book by Karel Berkhoff you were talking about mention anything about such plans?

Petr

FadeTheButcher

2004-10-21 08:45 | User Profile

It should also be pointed out, much to friedrich braun's chagrin, that Schmitt's entire philosophy is pretty much nothing but footnotes to Thomas Hobbes.

Kevin_O'Keeffe

2004-10-26 14:40 | User Profile

[QUOTE=Texas Dissident]Them's my people you're trying to insult, Fred.

As someone who was born in Selma, and as one who happens to share Mr. Braun's sympathies with national socialism, I would really like to hear a lot less said about "hicks from Alabama" and the like. It makes this place sound like a hang-out for liberals.

Kevin_O'Keeffe

2004-10-26 15:40 | User Profile

[QUOTE=FadeTheButcher]Schmitt and Heidegger both survived the war and lived for several decades. Both distanced themselves from National Socialism as well.

Yeah, but didn't you just recently state they were opportunists? Who's to say when their opportunism was more greatly in evidence? Was it when they were supporters of national socialism or of liberal democratic capitalism (or whatever they were into; I know very little about Martin Heidegger and nothing at all about the other fellow; it just seemed like a logical point to make).

[QUOTE=FadeTheButcher][color=red]How long do you think a scholar would last in the academia today if he or she wrote a pro-Hitler book?[/color]

Lets see some evidence of your conspiracy theory.

Like a great many things which are true, it isn't necessarily real easy to prove (however, the rabid denunciations of fairly mild and reasonable men like Dr. Charles Murray, to the effect that he was essentially a "nazi" himself, merely for having the courage to note that some of the disparities in European and African lifestyles may have a genetic basis of some sort, particularly one pertaining to cognitive functioning, which is a little like a physicist writing a length treatise in order to prove that water is wet, does tend to inspire in one some appreciation for how the academic community would react to bona fide national socialist advocacy).

Instead of noting the absence of objective evidence, why don't you answer this question: Do you believe that a budding scholar, who submitted his (very well-researched, very scholarly and erudite) pro-Hitler, pro-national socialist, anti-Semitic doctoral thesis would necessarily even be awarded his P.h.D. at all, despite having earned it, let alone ever be hired as a professor anywhere outside of maybe Syria or Iran? Do you?

[QUOTE=FadeTheButcher][color=red]Additionally, when one hales from a country that stole its land from the original, indigenous populations[/color]

I am scratching my head here. I am trying to figure out how Americans 'stole' the land of the Indians.

The Indians did inhabit all 48 of the continental United States, correct? They were physically forced off their lands (or killed for their refusal to go) in a pervasive pattern from the Florida Keys to Puget Sound, correct? Their numbers were greatly reduced in order, at least in large part, to facilitate our acquisition of their lands, whether for settlement or commercial exploitation, right? Is there something I'm leaving out? Or do the Indiands not count, as their lands were not held within the borders of their own recognized nation-states?

Mr. Braun's point, that Germany and America are BOTH responsible, over the centuries (admittedly, Herr Hitler speeded up the process quite a bit in Germany from 1939-1945, although there is certainly a good deal of blame to go around with regard to Messrs. Stalin, Roosevelt and Churchill - not to mention those Conservative Party MPs who backed Churchill against Chamberlain in the spring of 1940), for essentially murdering (or at least man-slaughtering, so to speak) millions of innocent people. We Americans who find it so easy to criticize the German people for their broad, popular support of the NSDAP (up until about '43, anyway) would do well to remember that just because a good chunk of the millions of dead victims of American imperialism didn't actually all mange to die in a series of camps, where they could be conveniently photographed and used to shame and demonize us for decades (or is it going to be centuries?), doesn't mean we didn't kill our Cherokee/Lakota/Huk/Vietnamese/Iraqi/etc., etc. victims just as dead as any SS man ever killed a Jew. Liberal democratic capitalism can be pretty barbaric too, and its really hard to say how national socialism might have evolved if it had lasted more than 12 years and been victorious in the war.

[QUOTE=FadeTheButcher][color=red]engaged in the slave-trade and slavery, is still the only nation in world history to have used nuclear arms on an adversary (not once but twice!)[/color]

It wasn't against international law to use nuclear weapons during the Second World War. Slavery was also perfectly legal.

Is that really the point? Mere legality? If child molestation becomes legal tomorrow, are you going to start dating four-year olds? I'm not trying to be rude, but how else does one interpret the ramifications of your statement above? Slavery was morally wrong in every conceivable analysis, from national socialists to communists, as well as libertarians and anyone on any point of the political spectrum. Its evil was self-evident. The Founding Fathers were ashamed of it. Our engaging in it from 1783 (when we gained our indepence, unless I'm a year off) until 1865, is a stain on our nation approximataly equivalent to anything ever undertaken in Germany.

[QUOTE=FadeTheButcher][color=red]and allied itself with the bloodiest dictatorship on earth[/color]

The United States was not allied to Nazi Germany.

Surely you can't possibly be that unaware of the far more numerous and destructive crimes unleashed by the regime of Lenin and Stalin? Not to mention, that in sheer numbers of people killed, Mao's China leaves the Soviet Union almost as far behind as the Soviet Union leaves Nazi Germany behind....

FadeTheButcher

2004-10-27 12:14 | User Profile

Yeah, but didn't you just recently state they were opportunists?

They were opportunists. Both of them were ideologically very far from National Socialism, as anyone who is familar with their work well knows.

Who's to say when their opportunism was more greatly in evidence?

During the Nazi period. This is utterly clear in the historical record. Both Heidegger and Schmitt stopped cooperating with the Nazis eventually as well.

Was it when they were supporters of national socialism or of liberal democratic capitalism (or whatever they were into; I know very little about Martin Heidegger and nothing at all about the other fellow; it just seemed like a logical point to make).

Heidegger and Schmitt were not any real fans of National Socialism or Liberal Capitalist Democracy. Schmitt was a neo-Hobbesian decisionist and Heidegger was a proto-postmodernist.

Like a great many things which are true, it isn't necessarily real easy to prove (however, the rabid denunciations of fairly mild and reasonable men like Dr. Charles Murray, to the effect that he was essentially a "nazi" himself, merely for having the courage to note that some of the disparities in European and African lifestyles may have a genetic basis of some sort, particularly one pertaining to cognitive functioning, which is a little like a physicist writing a length treatise in order to prove that water is wet, does tend to inspire in one some appreciation for how the academic community would react to bona fide national socialist advocacy).

Its interesting that you should bring up Charles Murray of all people. For starters, I have never had any problem purchasing any of his books at my local bookstore. His book Human Accomplishment is even dedicated to several Jewish neoconservatives. Anyway, this is a nonresponsive post. I asked for evidence of the conspiracy to exclude National Socialists from academia. No evidence was presented to that effect. So I will dispense with this point.

Instead of noting the absence of objective evidence

It is not incumbent upon me to bother with unsupported assertions.

why don't you answer this question: Do you believe that a budding scholar, who submitted his (very well-researched, very scholarly and erudite) pro-Hitler, pro-national socialist, anti-Semitic doctoral thesis would necessarily even be awarded his P.h.D. at all, despite having earned it, let alone ever be hired as a professor anywhere outside of maybe Syria or Iran? Do you?

Does the name Revilio P. Oliver ring any bells?

The Indians did inhabit all 48 of the continental United States, correct?

I would like you to explain to me how occupation of land conferred a legal title upon property owners under 15th and 16th century international law. Thanks.

They were physically forced off their lands (or killed for their refusal to go) in a pervasive pattern from the Florida Keys to Puget Sound, correct?

You are generalizing the issue. Be specific. If you are going to make a legal argument then cite legal precedents in contemporary American and international law.

Their numbers were greatly reduced in order, at least in large part, to facilitate our acquisition of their lands, whether for settlement or commercial exploitation, right?

Their numbers were reduced primarily because of the spread of disease which spread well in advance of white colonial settlers. And as I noted above, if you are going to make a legal argument, then cite legal precedents.

Is there something I'm leaving out?

Yes. You are making a BASELESS argument. So there is nothing to discuss in this regard.

Or do the Indiands not count, as their lands were not held within the borders of their own recognized nation-states?

I see you are using the sleight of hand 'their lands' here, as if the indians had any conception of private property anyway, much less was it recognised under international law at the time. This is a red herring anyway, as it has nothing logically to do with the state of international law in the 1930s.

Mr. Braun's point, that Germany and America are BOTH responsible, over the centuries

False analogy. The two situations are essentially different as international law had changed significantly by the 1930s.

(admittedly, Herr Hitler speeded up the process quite a bit in Germany from 1939-1945, although there is certainly a good deal of blame to go around with regard to Messrs. Stalin, Roosevelt and Churchill - not to mention those Conservative Party MPs who backed Churchill against Chamberlain in the spring of 1940),

So basically you are equating the situation of the Indians during the 16th and 17th century to that of civilised Europeans who were slaughtered and murdered by Adolf Hitler in the 20th century. Once again, this is a baseless argument, as international law in the 15th and 16th century was structured around a distinction in international law between Christian and non-Christian nations.

for essentially murdering (or at least man-slaughtering, so to speak) millions of innocent people.

Please explain to me how the Western Allies murdered millions of innocent people during the Second World War.

We Americans who find it so easy to criticize the German people for their broad, popular support of the NSDAP (up until about '43, anyway)

Its very easy to criticize Nazi Germany, as they threw international law and normative ethics entirely out the window in the heart of civilised Europe.

would do well to remember that just because a good chunk of the millions of dead victims of American imperialism didn't actually all mange to die in a series of camps

Oh. I see. As far as you are concerned, the Dutch or the Danes might just as well be the Indians.

where they could be conveniently photographed and used to shame and demonize us for decades (or is it going to be centuries?), doesn't mean we didn't kill our Cherokee/Lakota/Huk/Vietnamese/Iraqi/etc., etc. victims just as dead as any SS man ever killed a Jew.

This is a false analogy. As I pointed out to you, you are entirely ignoring the state of international law in the Early Modern Era and how it had changed by the 1930s. The New World was regarded as free space under 16th century international law and European ethical norms were not held to apply there at the time.

Liberal democratic capitalism can be pretty barbaric too, and its really hard to say how national socialism might have evolved if it had lasted more than 12 years and been victorious in the war.

Hitler made his intentions utterly clear in the Table Talk. He wanted to destroy Russia, deport the Slavs to the other side of the Urals, and reduce them to serfdom. He fully intended to destroy Norway, Belgium, Switzerland, Luxembourg, Denmark, Sweden, the Netherlands, and France for good. This is on top of his destruction of Poland, Czechoslovakia, Yugoslavia, and Austria.

Is that really the point? Mere legality?

You are setting up a false analogy by ignoring how international law has evolved over time.

If child molestation becomes legal tomorrow, are you going to start dating four-year olds?

Child molestation is not going to become legal tommorrow. There is no evidence it will become legal tommorrow either.

I'm not trying to be rude, but how else does one interpret the ramifications of your statement above?

I have not made the argument that ethical and legal norms are eternal and unchanging objective truths that do not change across time.

Slavery was morally wrong in every conceivable analysis

This is nonsense because you are asserting the existence of an objective morality. Its the abolition of slavery, actually, that is the historical anamoly.

from national socialists to communists, as well as libertarians and anyone on any point of the political spectrum. Its evil was self-evident.

It is not self-evident at all that slavery is objectively morally wrong for all peoples at all times. That is a piece of ahistorical rubbish.

The Founding Fathers were ashamed of it.

You are generalising once again.

Our engaging in it from 1783 (when we gained our indepence, unless I'm a year off) until 1865, is a stain on our nation approximataly equivalent to anything ever undertaken in Germany.

Your premise is that there is an equivilence in the treatment of Negro savages and civilised Western Europeans. This is precisely the sort of argument that an egalitarian would make, as such an individual would not recognise the essential racial and cultural distinction that separates the two.

Surely you can't possibly be that unaware of the far more numerous and destructive crimes unleashed by the regime of Lenin and Stalin?

The Soviet Union did not attack (or intended to attack) virtually every nation in Europe. There is quite a difference between erecting a despotism over the remains of Tsarist Russia and erecting a tyranny over the civilised peoples of Western Europe.

Not to mention, that in sheer numbers of people killed, Mao's China leaves the Soviet Union almost as far behind as the Soviet Union leaves Nazi Germany behind....

Not proportionally.

Kevin_O'Keeffe

2004-10-27 14:04 | User Profile

[QUOTE=FadeTheButcher][color=red]Like a great many things which are true, it isn't necessarily real easy to prove (however, the rabid denunciations of fairly mild and reasonable men like Dr. Charles Murray, to the effect that he was essentially a "nazi" himself, merely for having the courage to note that some of the disparities in European and African lifestyles may have a genetic basis of some sort, particularly one pertaining to cognitive functioning, which is a little like a physicist writing a length treatise in order to prove that water is wet, does tend to inspire in one some appreciation for how the academic community would react to bona fide national socialist advocacy).[/color]

...this is a nonresponsive post. I asked for evidence of the conspiracy to exclude National Socialists from academia. No evidence was presented to that effect. So I will dispense with this point.

The more-or-less complete absence of national socialists from academia is perhaps indicative of something other than a presumption that none of them are objectively qualified to serve in such posts, nor interested in doing so (although admittedly, since they are all White and disproportionately male, they would suffer the same affirmative action set-backs the rest of us must contend with, yet other White male professors are still occassionally hired).

The fact that professors I have known will only admit to certain ideas, ideas far less radical than ones you will admit to adhering to (such as their being skeptical of, or even mildly hostile to, multiculturalist dogmas), in hushed tones behind locked doors, sugests they are in fear of something. Are you maintaining that national socialists would be welcome (in the sense of being treated neutrally by the academic committees who do such hiring) in academia today? Doesn't that strike you as a bit far-fetched, despite my inability to prove the concrete physical existence of a "conspiracy" (really more of a rigid tendency) to exclude national socialists, and White racialists generally (such as yourself, although you may well prefer another label), from the professorships at American colleges and universities? Doesn't the existence of such a general pattern of behavior on the part of contemporary academicians, most of whom will profess their hatred of racism and "fascism" in any circumstance where it seems appropriate (obviously it happens less in the physics department than in the humanities), whether or not it rises to the level of your term "conspiracy," strike you as a trifle self-evident? If not, is there some reason(s) why it doesn't? I mean, I'd really like to know what you have seen to cause you not make that conclusion.

[QUOTE=FadeTheButcher][color=red]ou answer this question: Do you believe that a budding scholar, who submitted his (very well-researched, very scholarly and erudite) pro-Hitler, pro-national socialist, anti-Semitic doctoral thesis would necessarily even be awarded his P.h.D. at all, despite having earned it, let alone ever be hired as a professor anywhere outside of maybe Syria or Iran? Do you?[/color]

Does the name Revilio P. Oliver ring any bells?

The man died in 1994. He was hired sometime around 70 years ago. Additionally, he wasn't a national socialist at the time, as he didn't become one until the 1950s or 60s. Would a young man with an ideological track record equivalent to that of Dr. Oliver, and the numerous public writings and speeches to prove it, be afforded objective treatment by academic selection committees today? Do you really think so? Plus, there's the fact one professor in one century isn't much of a refutation here. Its more of the exception which could perceived to be proving the rule.

[QUOTE=FadeTheButcher][color=red]for essentially murdering (or at least man-slaughtering, so to speak) millions of innocent people.[/color]

Please explain to me how the Western Allies murdered millions of innocent people during the Second World War.

I never intended to make such a claim, as I was speaking about the fact both Germany and America have committed many atrocious violations of human rights and moral decency, resulting in a great many unnecessary deaths. The thousands of Serbian and Albanian civilians murdered by order of President Clinton in 1999 would accrue to the U.S. total, for example. So would the tens of thousands of dead Iraqis killed since 1993, not to mention over one million of dead Iraqis from our first war with Iraq, and our subsequent economic sanction from 1991-2003. Its generally acknowledged we are responsible for over 1 million civilian deaths in Indochina, during the Vietnam conflict. Naturally, the deaths of Red Indians and Vietnamese bother both of us a good deal less than the deaths of Poles or Danes, but its still not the sort of thing one should be ideally doing. Murder is wrong (liquidating an alien subset of one's population who, if left to their own devices, can reasonably be expected to turn the liquidation tables upon one's people eventually - not to mention their unreliability in so far as a possible Soviet invasion of Germany might have been concerned, which was proven via Jewish leadership of the Commnist Party cadres which turned Germany, Hungary, Russia and much central and eastern Europe into a bloodbath immediately following the First World War - is not the same as murder, however). I do not defend Hitler for his invasion of Poland, by the way. The man was wrong about that. I don't share the anti-Slavic or anti-English (despite my Irish-Catholic ancestry) or anti-nonGerman proclivities of some of the seemingly more demented national socialists whom I've become acquainted with over at the Phora.

[QUOTE=FadeTheButcher][color=red]would do well to remember that just because a good chunk of the millions of dead victims of American imperialism didn't actually all mange to die in a series of camps[/color]

Oh. I see. As far as you are concerned, the Dutch or the Danes might just as well be the Indians.

I was talking about Jews, not Dutch and Danes. How many anti-Communist Dutch or Danish Gentile heterosexuals (I don't think liquidating homosexuals is the way to go, but I can see how one could reasonably deem it otherwise) were sent off to the camps for liquidaton? Not bloody many, unless you have evidence to the contrary. And some of those were no doubt common criminals and the like.

Let us also remember that Germany had experienced a nearly successful Communist revolution after the First World War (it was briefly successful in Bavaria, as well as in Hungary and some other places, in addition to the whole Soviet nightmare), and the threat of Soviet imperialism hung like a cloud over Europe (the Molotov-von Ribbentrop Pact was obviously a ruse Hitler used in order to buy preparatory time; perhaps it was the same thing for Stalin). A Mr. Sudoplatov, formerly of the KGB, has authored a book called "Operation Icebreaker," which makes this exact claim, i.e. that if it weren't for Operation Barbarossa, there would have been a massive Soviet offensive from the east, with Lisbon being its final target. We'll never know, but under the circumstances, perhaps instead of initiating a major war with Germany over Poland, Britain & her Dominons plus France would have acted much wisely for all by having permitted Hitler a free hand to deal with the Soviet threat (Stalin did, after all, manage to conquer about half the territory Sudoplatov claims he coveted, by the time of the Czechoslovakian Communist coup of 1948). Whatever Hitler's long-term goals, and how they might or might not have been put into effect at some future date, he simply didn't have any need to invade (and thus kill any of the inhabitants) of Denmark, Norway, the Netherlands, Belgium, Luxembourg or France, absent a war with the powers that declared one of him in response to his violation of Polish sovereignty. It is unlikely, absent a war with Britain, he'd have felt he needed to move on Yugoslavia and Greece either.

[QUOTE=FadeTheButcher][color=red]where they could be conveniently photographed and used to shame and demonize us for decades (or is it going to be centuries?), doesn't mean we didn't kill our Cherokee/Lakota/Huk/Vietnamese/Iraqi/etc., etc. victims just as dead as any SS man ever killed a Jew.[/color]

This is a false analogy. As I pointed out to you, you are entirely ignoring the state of international law in the Early Modern Era and how it had changed by the 1930s. The New World was regarded as free space under 16th century international law and European ethical norms were not held to apply there at the time.

Not all the victims of American aggression did their dying in the 15th and 16th centuries. Most of the Indians that were killed by our military and armed civilian militias and the like, were killed during the 19th century. Iraqis are being killed today. Serbs were being killed just five years ago (and we are aiding and enabling their Albanian murderers today as well).

[QUOTE=FadeTheButcher][color=red]Our engaging in it from 1783 (when we gained our indepence, unless I'm a year off) until 1865, is a stain on our nation approximataly equivalent to anything ever undertaken in Germany.[/color]

Your premise is that there is an equivilence in the treatment of Negro savages and civilised Western Europeans. This is precisely the sort of argument that an egalitarian would make, as such an individual would not recognise the essential racial and cultural distinction that separates the two.

Perhaps that would be true, had I meant the statement in the way an egalitarian would have meant it. But unlike the egalitarian, I take note of a series of very salient facts you are ignoring here. Namely, the fact that African slavery has been extremely harmful to the interests of White Americans, not just the Negro savages (who still deserved to be left alone in Africa). From lower wages for working class Whites in the 17th century, to drive-by shootings and taxes to pay for their welfare benefits today, the presence of the Negro has been a great tyranny upon the lives of White Americans. We both know you have regard for that fact.

[QUOTE=FadeTheButcher][color=red]Surely you can't possibly be that unaware of the far more numerous and destructive crimes unleashed by the regime of Lenin and Stalin?[/color]

The Soviet Union did not attack (or intended to attack) virtually every nation in Europe.

Not according to the previously referenced Mr. Sudoplatov....and Stalin's subsequent conquest of Poland, Hungary, Czechoslovakia, Romania (including the annexation of Moldavia), Bulgaria and eastern Germany, as well as his earlier conquests of Lithuania, Latvia, Estonia, eastern Poland and his attempted conquest of Finland, all suggests a rather strong tendency in an imperialist direction that does lend credence to Mr. Sudoplatov's theory.

NeoNietzsche

2004-10-28 13:44 | User Profile

[QUOTE=FadeTheButcher]

I have not made the argument that ethical and legal norms are eternal and unchanging objective truths that do not change across time. [/QUOTE]

Fade-bot writes with forked finger.

He has repeatedly resorted to the analogy with rape in regard to the German conquest and occupation of Poland, and he would have the gallery acquiesce in the notion of rape as universally execrable - and resistance thereto as a trancendent moral imperative - thus implicitly condemning German actions.

Fade-bot continues thus to dishonestly resort to "international law" as moral imperative as it suits his argument (the British were (at least initially) compelled to resist NS German expansion out of moral compulsion), and to disregard the same imperative when confronted with counter-evidence as to his allegation regarding the universal, ethical resistance of "nations" to mutual aggression (NS Germany reduced to "outlaw" status, but the USA exonerated).

Fade-bot will presumably wish to re-define "nation"-hood in terms of commercially-oriented, Jew-manipulated plutocracy in order to radically restrict the class "nation" in order to save his thesis.

NN

Petr

2004-10-28 15:16 | User Profile

Tell us about the hidden Soviet Union, NN.

Petr

NeoNietzsche

2004-10-28 18:25 | User Profile

A taunt, from an otherwise comic-book-distracted heckler in the Peanut Gallery, regarding Soviet strategic deception, is comprehensively disposed of by a reading of Edward Jay Epstein's Deception.

NN

NeoNietzsche

2004-10-28 18:43 | User Profile

[QUOTE=Kevin_O'Keeffe]

A Mr. Sudoplatov, formerly of the KGB, has authored a book called "Operation Icebreaker," which makes this exact claim, i.e. that if it weren't for Operation Barbarossa, there would have been a massive Soviet offensive from the east, with Lisbon being its final target.[/QUOTE] Fade-bot, when authoritatively confronted with the commonplace of knowledge regarding armored operations in WWII (about which his "serious scholar" professors/senior prostitutes had failed to inform him), that the Soviet Union had manufactured some 22,000-24,000 tanks (3X the rest of the world combined) and a proportionate air capability prior to the war, then asked how the arrival of this overwhelming Soviet force at the Channel would have threatened Britain.

I trust that introducing this implicit concession will expedite discussion on the point.

NN

Petr

2004-10-28 18:43 | User Profile

Yup, that Epstein book (published in April 1. of 1989, prior to the fall of the Berlin Wall) isn't outdated or anything.

[COLOR=DarkRed]"Then Epstein looks at Glasnost in the Soviet Union. It's all happened before -- five times by his count -- so Gorbachev's Glasnost must be fakery as well, designed to provide the USSR with easy cash and credits from the West."[/COLOR]

[url]http://www.namebase.org/sources/MA.html[/url]

I don't see here any argumentation for an upcoming invasion of the Western Europe by the re-incarnated USSR - can you tell us on what pages does Epstein say something like that?

Petr

NeoNietzsche

2004-10-28 19:15 | User Profile

[QUOTE=Petr]

[COLOR=DarkRed] - "I find it a bit rich being called a "has-been" by a Medieval Bible fetishist."[/COLOR]

The truth hurts, doesn't it?

The Gospel is ever-relevant.

[COLOR=Blue]"Jesus Christ is the same yesterday, today, and forever" [/COLOR] (Heb. 13:8)

Can you say the same thing about A. Hitler?

Petr[/QUOTE]

=============================================

51 And, behold, the veil of the temple was rent in twain from the top to the bottom; and the earth did quake, and the rocks rent;

52 And the graves were opened; and many bodies of the saints which slept arose,

53 And came out of the graves after his resurrection, and went into the holy city, and appeared unto many.

=============================================

But a Jew could never be parted from his opinions. At that time I was still childish enough to try to make the madness of their doctrine clear to them; in my little circle I talked my tongue sore and my throat hoarse, thinking I would inevitably succeed in convincing them how ruinous their Marxist madness was; but what I accomplished was often the opposite. It seemed as though their increased understanding of the destructive effects of Social Democratic theories and their results only reinforced their determination. The more I argued with them, the better I came to know their dialectic. First they counted on the stupidity of their adversary, and then, when there was no other way out, they themselves simply played stupid. If all this didn't help, they pretended not to understand, or, if challenged, they changed the subject in a hurry, quoted platitudes which, if you accepted them, they immediately related to entirely different matters, and then, if again attacked, gave ground and pretended not to know exactly what you were talking about. Whenever you tried to attack one of these apostles, your hand closed on a jelly-like slime which divided up and poured through your fingers, but in the next moment collected again. But if you really struck one of these fellows so telling a blow that, observed by the audience, he couldn't help but agree, and if you believed that this had taken you at least one step forward, your amazement was great the next day. The Jew had not the slightest recollection of the day before, he rattled off his same old nonsense as though nothing at all had happened, and, if indignantly challenged, affected amazement; he couldn't remember a thing, except that he had proved the correctness of his assertions the previous day. Sometimes I stood there thunderstruck. I didn't know what to be more amazed at: the agility of their tongues or their virtuosity at lying. Gradually I began to hate them. All this had but one good side: that in proportion as the real leaders or at least the disseminators of Social Democracy came within my vision, my love for my people inevitably grew. For who, in view of the diabolical craftiness of these seducers, could damn the luckless victims? How hard it was, even for me, to get the better of thus race of dialectical liars ! And how futile was such success in dealing with people who twist the truth in your mouth who without so much as a blush disavow the word they have just spoken, and in the very next minute take credit for it after all. No. The better acquainted I became with the Jew, the more forgiving I inevitably became toward the worker. In my eyes the gravest fault was no longer with him, but with all those who did not regard it as worth the trouble to have mercy on him, with iron righteousness giving the son of the people his just deserts, and standing the seducer and corrupter up against the wall. Inspired by the experience of daily life, I now began to track down the sources of the Marxist doctrine. Its effects had become clear to me in individual cases; each day its success was apparent to my attentive eyes, and, with some exercise of my imagination, I was able to picture the consequences. The only remaining question was whether the result of their action in its ultimate form had existed in the mind's eye of the creators, or whether they themselves were the victims of an error. I felt that both were possible. In the one case it was the duty of every thinking man to force himself to the forefront of the ilI-starred movement, thus perhaps averting catastrophe; in the other, however, the original founders of this plague of the nations must have been veritable devils- for only in the brain of a monster-not that of a man-could the plan of an organization assume form and meaning, whose activity must ultimately result in the collapse of human civilization and the consequent devastation of the world. In this case the only remaining hope was struggle, struggle with all the weapons which the human spirit, reason, and will can devise, regardless on which side of the scale Fate should lay its blessing. Thus I began to make myself familiar with the founders of this doctrine, in order to study the foundations of the movement. If I reached my goal more quickly than at first I had perhaps ventured to believe, it was thanks to my newly acquired, though at that time not very profound, knowledge of the Jewish question. This alone enabled me to draw a practical comparison between the reality and the theoretical flim-flam of the founding fathers of Social Democracy, since it taught me to understand the language of the Jewish people, who speak in order to conceal or at least to veil their thoughts; their real aim is not therefore to be found in the lines themselves, but slumbers well concealed between them. For or me this was the time of the greatest spiritual upheaval I have ever had to go through. I had ceased to be a weak-kneed cosmopolitan and become an anti-Semite. Just once more-and this was the last time-fearful, oppressive thoughts came to me in profound anguish. When over long periods of human history I scrutinized the activity of the Jewish people, suddenly there rose up in me the fearful question whether inscrutable Destiny, perhaps Or reasons unknown to us poor mortals, did not with eternal and immutable resolve, desire the final victory of this little nation. Was it possible that the earth had been promised as a reward to this people which lives only for this earth? Have we an objective right to struggle for our self-preservation, or is this justified only subjectively within ourselves? As I delved more deeply into the teachings of Marxism and thus in tranquil clarity submitted the deeds of the Jewish people to contemplation, Fate itself gave me its answer. The Jewish doctrine of Marxism rejects the aristocratic principle of Nature and replaces the eternal privilege of power and strength by the mass of numbers and their dead weight. Thus it denies the value of personality in man, contests the significance of nationality and race, and thereby withdraws from humanity the premise of its existence and its culture. As a foundation of the universe, this doctrine would bring about the end of any order intellectually conceivable to man. And as, in this greatest of ail recognizable organisms, the result of an application of such a law could only be chaos, on earth it could only be destruction for the inhabitants of this planet. If, with the help of his Marxist creed, the Jew is victorious over the other peoples of the world, his crown will be the funeral wreath of humanity and this planet will, as it did thousands l of years ago, move through the ether devoid of men. Eternal Nature inexorably avenges the infringement of her commands. Hence today I believe that I am acting in accordance with the will of the Almighty Creator: by defending myself against the Jew, I am fighting for the work of the Lord.

=======================================

NN

NeoNietzsche

2004-10-28 19:41 | User Profile

[QUOTE=FadeTheButcher]

Perhaps that is true [NS is Germanic] if you subtract Goethe, Herder, Spengler, Kant, Luther, Nietzsche and high culture in general from German culture and return to the pure barbarism of the 1st century AD. [/QUOTE]

=========================================

242

Whether that which now distinguishes the European be called “civilization” or “humanization” or “progress”; whether one calls it simply, without implying any praise or blame, the democratic movement in Europe: behind all the moral and political foregrounds indicated by such formulas a great physiological process is taking place and gathering greater and ever greater impetus—the process of the assimilation of all Europeans, their growing detachment from the conditions under which races dependent on climate and class originate, their increasing independence of any definite milieu which, through making the same demands for centuries, would like to inscribe itself on soul and body—that is to say, the slow emergence of an essentially supra-national and nomadic type of man which, physiologically speaking, possesses as its typical distinction a maximum of the art and power of adaptation. This process of the becoming European, the tempo of which can be retarded by great relapses but which will perhaps precisely through them gain in vehemence and depth—the still-raging storm and stress of “national feeling” belongs here, likewise the anarchism now emerging—: this process will probably lead to results which its naive propagators and panegyrists, the apostles of “modern ideas,” would be least inclined to anticipate. The same novel conditions which will on average create a leveling and mediocritizing of man—a useful, industrious, highly serviceable and able herd-animal man—are adapted in the highest degree to giving rise to exceptional men of the most dangerous and enticing quality. For while that power of adaptation which continually tries out changing conditions and begins a new labor with every new generation, almost with every new decade, cannot make possible the powerfulness of the type; while the total impression produced by such future Europeans will probably be that of multifarious, garrulous, weak-willed and highly employable workers who need a master, a commander, as they need their daily bread; while, therefore, **the democratization of Europe will lead to the production of a type prepared for slavery in the subtlest sense: in individual and exceptional cases the strong man will be found to turn out stronger and richer than has perhaps ever happened before—thanks to the unprejudiced nature of his schooling, thanks to the tremendous multiplicity of practice, art and mask. What I mean to say is that the democratization of Europe is at the same time an involuntary arrangement for the breeding of tyrants—in every sense of that word, including the most spiritual.

243

I hear with pleasure that our sun is moving rapidly in the direction of the constellation of Hercules: and I hope that men on the earth will in this matter emulate the sun. And we at their head, we good Europeans! —**

+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

898 (Spring-Fall 1887)

The strong of the future.-- That which partly necessity, partly chance has achieved here and there, the conditions for the production of a stronger type, we are now able to comprehend and consciously will: we are able to create the conditions under which such an elevation is possible.

Until now, "education" has had in view the needs of society: not the possible needs of the future, but the needs of the society of the day. One desired to produce "tools" for it. Assuming the wealth of force were greater, one could imagine forces being subtracted, not to serve the needs of society but some future need.

Such a task would have to be posed the more it was grasped to what extent the contemporary form of society was being so powerfully transformed that at some future time it would be unable to exist for its own sake alone, but only as a tool in the hands of a stronger race.

The increasing dwarfing of man is precisely the driving force that brings to mind the breeding of a stronger race--a race that would be excessive precisely where the dwarfed species was weak and growing weaker (in will, responsibility, self-assurance, ability to posit goals for oneself).

The means would be those history teaches: isolation through interests in preservation that are the reverse of those which are average today; habituation to reverse evaluations; distance as a pathos; a free conscience in those things that today are most undervalued and prohibited.

The homogenizing of European man is the great process that cannot be obstructed: one should even hasten it. The necessity to create a gulf, distance, order of rank, is given eo ipso--not the necessity to retard the process.

As soon as it is established, this homogenizing species requires a justification: it lies in serving a higher sovereign species that stands upon the former and can raise itself to its task only by doing this. Not merely a master race whose sole task is to rule, but a race with its own sphere of life, with an excess of strength for beauty, bravery, culture, manners to the highest peak of the spirit; an affirming race that may grant itself every great luxury--strong enough to have no need of the tyranny of the virtue-imperative, rich enough to have no need of thrift and pedantry, beyond good and evil; a hothouse for strange and choice plants.

=========================================

No one can have looked forward to the national revolution of this year with greater longing than myself. The sordid Revolution of 1918 I detested from its first day, for it was the betrayal by the inferior part of our people of that strong, live part which had risen up in 1914 in the belief that it could and would have a future. Everything of a political nature that I have written since then has been directed against the forces which had entrenched themselves, with our enemies' help, on the mountain of our misery and misfortune in order to render this future impossible. Every line that I wrote was meant to contribute to their overthrow, and I hope that it has done so. Something had to come in one form or another to release the deepest instincts in our blood from that load, if we were, like others, to have a voice and to act in the coming world-crises and not merely be their victim. The great game of world politics is not over. Only now are the highest stakes being played for. Every living nation must rise to greatness or go under. But the events of this year allow us to hope that the decision in our case has not yet been made - that we, as in Bismarck's day, shall sooner or later again be subjects and not mere objects of history. The decades in which we live are stupendous - and accordingly terrifying and void of happiness. Greatness and happiness are incompatible and we are given no choice. No one living in any part of the world of today will be happy, but many will be able to control by the exercise of their own will the greatness or insignificance of their life-course. As for those who seek comfort merely, they do not deserve to exist.

The man of action is often limited in his vision. He is driven without knowing the real aim. He might possibly offer resistance if he did see it, for the logic of destiny has never taken human wishes into account. But much more often he goes astray because he has conjured up a false picture of things around and within him. It is the great task of the historical expert (in the true sense) to understand the facts of his time and through them to envisage, interpret, and delineate the future - which will come whether we will or no. An epoch so conscious of itself as the present is impossible of comprehension without creative, anticipating, warning, leading criticism.

I shall neither scold nor flatter. I refrain from forming any estimate of those things which are only just coming into being. True valuation of an event is only possible when it has become the remote past, and the definitive good or bad results have long been facts: which is to say, when some decades have passed. No ripe understanding of Napoleon was possible before the end of last century, and even we can as yet have no final opinion about Bismarck. Facts alone stand firm, judgments waver and change. In sum, a great event has no need of a contemporary estimate. History itself will judge it when its contemporaries are no longer living.

So much, however, can be said already: the national revolution of 1933 was a mighty phenomenon and will remain such in the eyes of the future by reason of the elemental, super-personal force with which it came and the spiritual discipline with which it was carried through. Here was something Prussian through and through, just as was the uprising of 1914, which transformed souls in one moment. The German "dreamers" stood up with a calm imposing naturalness to open a way into the future. But all the more must those who took part realize that this was no victory, for opponents were lacking. The force of the rising was such that everything that had been or was still active was swept away in it. It was a promise of future victories that have yet to be won by hard fighting, and merely cleared the ground for these. The leaders bear the full responsibility therefor, and it is for them to know, or to learn, the significance of it all. The task is fraught with immense dangers, and its sphere lies not within the boundaries of Germany but beyond, in the realm of wars and catastrophes where world politics alone speak. Germany is, more than any other country, bound up with the fate of all the others. Less than any can it be directed as though it were a thing unto itself. And, moreover, it is not the first national revolution that has taken place here - there have been Cromwell and Mirabeau - but it is the first to occur in a politically helpless and very dangerously situated land, and this fact enhances incalculably the difficulty of its tasks.

These tasks are, one and all, only just emerging, are barely grasped and not solved. It is no time or occasion for transports of triumph. Woe betide those who mistake mobilization for victory! A movement has just begun; it has not reached its goal, and the great problems of our time have been in no wise altered by it. They concern not Germany alone, but the whole world, and are problems not of a few years, but of a century.

The danger with enthusiasts is that they envisage the situation as too simple. Enthusiasm is out of keeping with goals that lie generations ahead. And yet it is with these that the actual decisions of history begin.

The seizure of power took place in a confused whirl of strength and weakness. I see with misgiving that it continues to be noisily celebrated from day to day. It were better to save our enthusiasm for a day of real and definitive results - that is to say, of successes in foreign politics, which alone matter. When these have been achieved the men of the moment, who took the first step, may all be dead - or even forgotten and scorned, until at some point posterity recalls their significance. History is not sentimental, and it will go ill with any man who takes himself sentimentally!

In any movement with such a beginning there are many possible developments of which the participants are not often fully aware. The movement may become rigid from excess of principles and theories; it may go under in political, social, or economic anarchy, or it may double back upon itself in futility. In Paris in 1793 it was definitely felt "que ça changerait." The intoxication of the moment, which often ruins coming possibilities at the outset, is usually followed by disillusionment and uncertainty as to the next step. Elements come into power which regard the enjoyment of that power as an event in itself and would fain perpetuate a state of things which is tenable for moments only. Sound ideas are exaggerated into self-glorification by fanatics, and that which held promise of greatness in the beginning ends in tragedy or comedy. Let us face these dangers in good time, and soberly, so that we may be wiser than many a generation in the past.

======================================

NN

NeoNietzsche

2004-10-28 20:06 | User Profile

More from the Peanut Gallery to be answered, in part, by the works of Jan Sejna:

[url]http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/external-search/002-3783929-2096856?tag=porfessionalp-20&keyword=Jan%20Sejna&mode=books[/url]

...and Stanislav Lunev:

[url]http://www.weyrich.com/book_reviews/eyes_enemy.html[/url]

NN

Petr

2004-10-28 20:16 | User Profile

NeoNietzsche, you quote both of those overrated characters - Hitler and Nietzsche - in an obviously pseudo-religious manner, as if their words by themselves would mean something.

Really, this is no different than if I would spam this thread with lengthy Scriptural quotations.

Are you consciously trying to act like the most stereotypical cartoonish neo-Nazi imaginable, NN?

[COLOR=Blue]"The Jewish doctrine of Marxism rejects the aristocratic principle of Nature and replaces the eternal privilege of power and strength by the mass of numbers and their dead weight." [/COLOR]

Only officially, my dear NN, only officially, for truly totalitarian socialism is NOT about "absolute equality," but about the total control of stupefied masses by the socially engineering elites.

Sparta was a great model for proto-socialists like Plato and Sir Thomas More: in their societies, all the dirty work was performed by a conquered pariah underclass or convicted "criminals" - like the Gulag prisoners did the worst jobs in the USSR.

Hitler's grand vision was not essentially different from this: in his scheme, Slavs would fulfill the role of Spartan Helots:

[COLOR=DarkRed]" As for the ridiculous hundred million Slavs, we will mould the best of them to the shape that suits us, and we will isolate the rest of them in their own pig-styes; and anyone who talks about cherishing the local inhabitant and civilising him, goes straight off into a concentration camp! "[/COLOR]

[url]http://www.thephora.org/forum/showthread.php?t=3918&page=4&pp=10&highlight=hundred+million[/url]

Let's put it in the manner that you'd appreciate: in the totalitarian socialism, "equality" or "justice" is the EXOTERIC doctrine for the canaglia, while the supremacy of the caste of social engineers (Plato's "philosophers") is its ESOTERIC essence.

Karl Marx had much more genuine "WILL TO POWER" than that effete snob Nietzsche, who in his personal life was a veritable mock-caricature of a superman.

Petr

Petr

2004-10-28 20:22 | User Profile

Do you have to keep on spouting that retro-1980s silliness, NN?

Jan Sejna - he sure made some successful predictions in 1986:

[url]http://www.worldandi.com/specialreport/1986/july/Sa10859.htm[/url]

[COLOR=Navy]"Soviet leader Mikhail Gorbachev will begin "cleaning house" very soon among the ruling elite of the Warsaw Pact countries. Based on recent remarks made by Gorbachev in Kiev and at the recent Communist party congress in Moscow, we should see the removal of the "over - 70" crowd of Eastern European party bosses like Gustav Husak of Czechoslovakia, Janos Kadar of Hungary, Erich Honecker of East Germany, and Todor Zhikov of Bulgaria by 1991, if not sooner. The "crown princes" to succeed three of these bosses will almost certainly be: Vasil Bilak in Czechoslovakia, currently number two man in the party there; Karoly Nemeth in Hungary, and Egon Krentz in East Germany.

...

"Gorbachev and the Soviet ruling hierarchy want the gradual but complete integration of Eastern European politics and economy into the Soviet politico-economic game plan. "[/COLOR]

That book by Sejna that you link to was published in 1982. Stop living in the past, loser.

Petr

NeoNietzsche

2004-10-28 20:39 | User Profile

[url]http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/printer-friendly.asp?ARTICLE_ID=19836[/url]

Russia's long-range vision

By J.R. Nyquist

© 2000 WorldNetDaily.com

Last summer Vladimir Putin was appointed as prime minister of Russia. Some people said that a KGB careerist like Putin couldn't last very long in a democratic country. In the long run, he'd prove to be a dud. At least, that was the instant analysis. Then Putin was designated as acting president upon Yeltsin's resignation last Dec. 31. In March Putin was officially elected and in May he was inaugurated. It seems that a KGB careerist could be popular after all.

But why him?

Before we can answer this question, it should be understood that there are hidden structures guiding Russia. There are strategists within the Kremlin who are working from a "plan." And these same strategists were the ones who chose Vladimir Putin.

In 1982 a former high ranking Communist official, named Jan Sejna, wrote a book entitled "We Will Bury You." A large section of the book is about the Kremlin's plan for defeating the West. Sejna noted that the plan was flexible, and "subject to constant revision to ensure that it takes into account new factors." Most readers would assume that such a plan would be dead by now. But this assumption is incorrect, and here is why:

While the Kremlin was busy giving up Eastern Europe and making all sorts of frank admissions about the "crimes of Stalin" and the "errors of Brezhnev," Soviet officials were mysteriously silent about their long-range strategic plan. No admissions were made, and no documents were published.

Mum was the word.

We know from at least three defector sources that a long range Kremlin strategy did exist. We know that this strategy employed deception on a massive scale, and we know from two of these defectors (i.e., Jan Sejna and Anatoliy Golitsyn) that the long range plan would involve the controlled collapse of Soviet Russia's military alliance in Eastern Europe -- the Warsaw Pact.

If this strategy is now defunct, and if the Kremlin no longer seeks victory over the West, then why haven't we seen this plan exposed at a Moscow press conference? Why haven't our good democratic friends in Moscow declassified the old strategy? Surely, it would clarify the whole history of the Cold War.

But Lenin remains unburied and the plan remains in effect.

Sadly, the West remains clueless. From the very start, America's leaders have refused to believe that a Kremlin plan existed. "One of the basic problems of the West," wrote Sejna, "is its frequent failure to recognize the existence of any Soviet 'grand design' at all."

Two leading U.S. policy analysts, Henry Kissinger and Edward Luttwak, for example, discounted the idea of a long-range Soviet deception strategy, and it was against this skepticism that Sejna wrote, "The Soviet Strategic Plan for the establishment of their 'Socialism' worldwide does, without doubt, exist. ..."

Another high ranking defector was Ladislav Bittman, former deputy chief of Department D of the Czech intelligence service. According to Bittman, KGB Gen. Agayants (chief of the KGB's disinformation department) frequently came to Prague in person to ensure that the plan was being followed.

The most sensational testimony about the Kremlin's long-range strategy came from KGB defector Anatoliy Golitsyn, who outlined what he knew of the plan -- and what he deduced about it -- in a 1984 book entitled "New Lies for Old."

According to Golitsyn the strategic plan originated in the 1950s from a rejection of Stalin's failed strategic ideas. A direct and obvious military threat from Russia, combined with obvious and idiotic propaganda was bound to fail. Therefore, the old Stalinist machine had to be replaced with a new machine. The blockheaded rant of neo-Stalinists had to be set aside in favor of apparent openness and frank admissions. According to Golitsyn, in its "final phase" the long-range strategy would introduce false liberalization and democracy into Eastern Europe. This would involve the "exhibition of spurious independence on the part of the regimes in Romania, Czechoslovakia, and Poland." He even predicted that the Berlin Wall might be taken down and Germany reunited.

In this context, Vladimir Putin was a KGB officer stationed in East Germany when the Berlin Wall came down. His KGB group in East Germany was a key component in organizing the controlled collapse of the Warsaw Pact -- which defectors Sejna and Golitsyn had mentioned in the early 1980s. We know about this from a former East German secret police official named Horst Jemlich, who was interviewed by the London Sunday Times. On Jan. 16 the Times quoted Jemlich as saying that Putin's KGB group was mounting an operation behind East Germany's back. "The plan was to prepare one day to let us fall," Jemlich told the Times.

So the fall of East Germany was intentional, according to yet another former East European secret police official. And Vladimir Putin was directly involved in implementing that plan.

What could be more significant?

Touching on this, there is an interesting excerpt in a recently published book on Putin, entitled "First Person." Sergei Roldugin, one of Putin's closest associates, used to argue with him about the wisdom of intentionally letting East Germany fall.

"I remember how confused and upset Volodya felt about the collapse," Says Roldugin in the book.

Putin would say to Roldugin: "You just can't do that! How can you do that? I know that I can be wrong, but how can the most highly qualified professionals be mistaken?"

Then Roldugin would reply to him: "You know, Volodya, don't get me started."

You can imagine how some KGB officers must have felt. How can Russia give up the Warsaw Pact? How can Russia let East Germany go? But today Putin is in a much better position to appreciate what has been gained. By now he agrees with his friend, Roldugin. The collapse of the Warsaw Pact led directly to Western disarmament, plus billions in Western investment to Russia and a massive infusion of technology.

In the last analysis, sacrificing East Germany was well worth it.

According to KGB defector Golitsyn, writing in the early 1980s, the coming East European liberalization "would be calculated and deceptive in that it would be introduced from above. It would be carried out by the party through its cells and individual members in government ... and by the KGB through its agents among the intellectuals and scientists."

In a June 22, 1994, piece from the Wall Street Journal Europe, J. Michael Waller tells us that it was the KGB and Communist youth organizers that set up the first stock exchange in Russia. He also noted that 80 percent of all joint ventures between Western and Russian companies involved KGB officers. As for the democratic reforms in Russia, Waller notes that when the Communist Party Soviet Union gave up power, the KGB set up a training system for turning KGB personnel into democratic leaders.

At the ground floor of Russian democracy, Waller tells us, were 2,758 admitted KGB officers running for public office -- local, regional and federal. This is to say nothing of the secret creatures of the KGB, or Russian politicians subject to KGB blackmail.

Waller's research, like the statements of Horst Jemlich and the writings of key Soviet bloc defectors, only goes to confirm that the Kremlin's long-range plan is entirely real -- that the collapse of Communism has been controlled and deceptive. And that is why, amid the frank admissions and document disclosures, not one peep has been heard about Russia's long-range strategy. The strategy is a secret because it is still in effect.

In this context, the significant thing about Putin, which we all have to remember, is that he speaks fluent German; and winning over Germany is the key to breaking up NATO. As it happens, Putin visited Germany last week. He met privately with the German Chancellor Gerhard Schroeder at least four times. Not even a translator was present. These one-on-one sessions were so intimate that they aroused the amazement of the German press.

"What do you want us to say," joked Putin, "that we're in love?"

In this context, Germany is the heart of Europe. To win the heart is to win the whole. That is what the Russians are trying to achieve. That is the next step in Russia's long-range plan.

"Germany is Russia's leading partner in Europe and the world," said Putin.

And this is no joking proposition. Putin told the Germans that Russia could defend Europe from the rogue nations (which Russia and China have armed with missiles). Therefore, who needs the stupid Americans? We Russians have what you need. And we have the world's best anti-missile technology.

Putin's diplomacy seeks to break up NATO and win over Europe to Russia. This is in strict accordance with the Kremlin's long-range strategy. If we ignore the existence of this strategy, as Clinton does, we do so at our own risk.

It is time to wake up.

===========================================

NN

Petr

2004-10-28 20:39 | User Profile

And as for Stanislav Lunev is concerned: he sounds just like some paid whiner for the neocon lobby, telling what a HORRIBLE threat Russia still is to the good ol' USA and the whole free world.

Article after article whining how "undemocratic" Putin is:

[url]http://www.newsmax.com/articles/?a=1999/6/15/125244[/url]

I certainly want Russia to be militarily strong enough to repel the American neocon intimidation!

(And what are you doing NN, sinking so low as to quote WorldNetDaily? Are you surely not a neocon agent, trying to agitate people against Russians?)

Petr

NeoNietzsche

2004-10-28 20:52 | User Profile

[url]http://www.afio.com/sections/book_reviews/reviews/through_the_eyes.html[/url]

Stanislav Lunev with Ira Winkler, THROUGH THE EYES OF THE ENEMY: THE AUTOBIOGRAPHY OF STANISLAV LUNEV, Regnery Publishing, June 1998. This new (June 1998) book is making quite a splash. Lunev is a GRU defector and Winkler is an AFIO member, former NSA employee and author of the 1997 book, "Corporate Espionage : What It Is, Why It Is Happening in Your Company." The charges in the Lunev book are sensational to say the least. In effect, Lunev says "the Russians are still coming."

CONGRESS will be holding hearings next week on the matter (see August 4th entry in Section IV, below). The paragraph below is from the publisher's description of the book's contents: "Stanislav Lunev, the highest-ranking GRU (Soviet military intelligence) officer ever to defect shares his amazing story with the American public. Lunev reveals:

How the Russian Mafia controls the Russian government, the KGB, and the military.

The existence of Russian suitcase-sized nuclear weapons on U.S. soil.

The existence and testing of seismic weapons.

The KGB's possible use of American POW's to test the effects of drugs on Americans.

The GRU's plan for poisoning U.S. water supplies.

Present Russian government spy tactics against the U.S.

How Boris Yeltsin ordered the KGB to double its corporate, government, and military espionage against the U.S.

The practice of recruiting spies in Congress, in the military, and from the editorial offices of leading American newspapers.

Soviet assassination squads against American leaders.

How U.S. corporations are unwittingly partnering with the Russian Mafia -- and much more!!"

Reviewed in AFIO Weekly Intelligence Notes #28-98, 27 July 1998

=======================================

NN

Petr

2004-10-28 21:00 | User Profile

Conclusive evidence that Stanislav Lunev is a paid neocon puppet:

[url]http://www.autentico.org/oa09612.php[/url]

[COLOR=DarkRed]...

President Bush and the Pentagon are only following the advice given to them by NewsMax columnist and Russian defector Col Stanislav Lunev.

On Sept. 24, Col. Lunev's column headlined: Bush Must Warn Rogue States of Nuclear Retaliation.

Lunev, the highest-ranking military spy ever to defect from Russia, warned the White House that the terrorist threat would not abate: "These groups clearly have received sufficient funds, supplies, support and hospitality from rogue nations – all of whom have close ties to Russia's military and intelligence agencies."

...

Col. Lunev also said, "The planning, network and resources involved in the operation of Sept. 11 suggests to me that one or more countries were behind this, and also that Russian intelligence agencies were likely aware of the possibility of these attacks."

...

Lunev then gave advice that has now been heeded by the Bush administration: "My suggestion is that the U.S. must warn rogue states, i.e., Iraq, Iran, Syria and Libya, that if these groups use a weapon of mass destruction on an American city, the U.S. military will not do any investigations, there will be no delay – the U.S. will use similar weapons on their population centers and military targets." [/COLOR]

Heck, he published his book in collaboration with a guy named Ira Winkler! What happened to your Jew-radar, NN?

Petr

NeoNietzsche

2004-10-28 21:21 | User Profile

[url]http://commdocs.house.gov/committees/security/has216010.000/has216010_1.HTM[/url]

UNITED STATES/RUSSIAN NATIONAL SECURITY ISSUES

House of Representatives,

Committee on National Security,

Military Research and Development Subcommittee,

Washington, DC, Tuesday, August 4, 1998.

The subcommittee met, pursuant to call, at 10:10 a.m., in room 2118, Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. Curt Weldon (chairman of the subcommittee) presiding.

OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. CURT WELDON, A REPRESENTATIVE FROM PENNSYLVANIA, CHAIRMAN, MILITARY RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT SUBCOMMITTEE

Mr. WELDON. The subcommittee will come to order. May I ask everyone to be seated so that we can begin the hearings and bring in our witness.

**This morning the Military Research and Development Subcommittee meets in open session to receive testimony from Col. Stanislav Lunev, formerly of the GRU. Colonel Lunev has written a book, Through the Eyes of the Enemy, which makes some startling allegations about ongoing Russian preparations for war with the United States.**

Page 6 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 2 Of 2
According to Colonel Lunev, Moscow continues to perfect war plans that would assassinate U.S. political and military leaders and sabotage key targets in the United States by using small man-portable nuclear weapons. I should note that Colonel Lunev is a protected witness, and so special arrangements have been made at the hearings today to conceal his identity and provide for his physical security. I would ask members of the audience and the press to please cooperate and refrain from photographing Colonel Lunev's face, should, through some mishap, an opportunity for such a photograph accidentally arise.

Also, audience and press, please respect the arrangements for Colonel Lunev's physical security by refraining from attempting to approach or interview Colonel Lunev in this forum.

Finally, because Colonel Lunev is recuperating from an illness, these proceedings may on occasion have to be interrupted to accommodate his needs.

I should also note that sitting in the witness box with Colonel Lunev today is his coauthor, Ira Winkler, who is not himself a witness today. Mr. Winkler has consented to be available to Colonel Lunev to clarify and help him better understand our questions should that be necessary, even though Colonel Lunev speaks English.

Before we proceed to hear from our witness, allow me to provide some background information and make some observations that I hope our members and audience may find useful. With that, I would ask staff—good, Colonel Lunev is coming in. Welcome Stan, it is a pleasure to have you here today.

Page 7 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 2 Of 2
Colonel LUNEV. Thank you.

Mr. WELDON. Why this hearing and why the R&D subcommittee?

Our subcommittee is charged with the responsibility of determining what systems this country should be developing to meet the emerging threats that we see arising around the world. And over the past 4 years, we have gone to extensive lengths to make sure that every one of our subcommittee members is totally versed not just on the systems but on the threats, using every available resource that we can find from the Central Intelligence Agency [CIA] and Defense Intelligence Agency [DIA], from the intelligence agencies of the National Security Agency [NSA] and Department of Energy [DOE]. We have reached out to our direct witnesses from time to time to give us this information. In fact, we have had well over 100 hearings, briefings, and classified sessions with members of this subcommittee on the threats that we see emerging.

It was this subcommittee that first criticized NIE 9519 and said that perhaps the threats—that the assessment by the CIA was overly optimistic. Just 2 weeks ago, we heard the Rumsfeld Commission come out and verify the findings that this subcommittee came to the conclusions of 3 years ago.

It was this subcommittee last year who talked of the need, in a bipartisan way as we always do, to deal with the emerging Iranian threats that they obtained in cooperation with Russia on a medium-range missile. As recently as February 5 of this year, Deputy Secretary of Defense John Hamre wrote to me as chairman of this subcommittee and said, and I quote, in writing, ''Don't worry, under the worst case scenario, the Iranian medium-range missile will not surface until mid-1999.''

Page 8 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 2 Of 2

It was this subcommittee, because of our extensive work and understanding of threats, that moved legislation that became law that plussed up funding by $170 million this year to deal with those emerging medium-range missile threats of Iran.

**It was this subcommittee who reached out to Gen. Aleksandr Lebed and had him testify on the issue of small atomic demolition munitions when the Russian Government was denying there was a problem, denying they even existed, and criticizing General Lebed during the summer and fall, saying he didn't know what he was talking about and was a traitor.

It was this subcommittee that had academician and scientist Aleksey Yablokov come before us last October and verify the comments of General Lebed about small atomic demolitions. And because of the testimony that Aleksey Yablokov brought before this subcommittee, he was called a traitor in Russia. He was called a violator of the motherland when he went back to Moscow.

But in the end, as has been the case with this subcommittee in every instance, Aleksey Yablokov sued one of the major news outlets in Moscow, Novaya Gazeta, and sued them for slander because they called him a traitor. The first week of July of this year, Aleksey Yablokov sent me a cable. He won his lawsuit, was awarded 30,000 rubles by the court system in Russia, and the newspaper that he charged with slander was told to issue a public apology to him by September 9.

But the problem there was this administration was going along with the Russian Government in denying the potential threat of the small atomic demolitions. It was this subcommittee who pursued those allegations and will pursue them again in more detail today.**

=====================================

NN

Kevin_O'Keeffe

2004-10-30 09:53 | User Profile

[QUOTE=NeoNietzsche]Fade-bot, when authoritatively confronted with the commonplace of knowledge regarding armored operations in WWII (about which his "serious scholar" professors/senior prostitutes had failed to inform him), that the Soviet Union had manufactured some 22,000-24,000 tanks (3X the rest of the world combined) and a proportionate air capability prior to the war, then asked how the arrival of this overwhelming Soviet force at the Channel would have threatened Britain.[/QUOTE]

One of the smashing, intital successes of Operation Barbarossa was the near total destruction of the something like 2,000 Soviet heavy bombers stationed along the Soviet border (and, I believe, within the Soviet-occupied zone of eastern Poland). A defensive posture, while allowing for some bombers along the borders as a deterrent, would tend to have the bulk of one's bomber fleet pulled back a good ways from the border, thus enabling them to remain secure in the event of attack, and thus permitting their use to attack enemy forces which had crossed the border. To place the world's largest fleet of bombers along one's borders, along with one's largest tank force in the world, can only mean one thing: [B]INVASION.**

Those Soviet heavy bombers never got used on the Operation Barbarossa forces precisely because they were vulnerable due to having been placed for the purposes of attacking Berlin, Budapest, Prague, Bucharest, Zagreb, Rome....and eventually Belfast and maybe Reykjavic. Its unfortunate the Nazis shot all the Danish Social Democrats, Flemmish homosexuals and Dutch Freemasons (I guess), and I'll say again and again that Hitler made some very serious mistakes that frankly smack of immorality, but his reign, however tyrannical during a time of life-or-death struggle, would have been a positive delight compared to the hideous wall of absolute darkness that Soviet forces were about to unleash, and which Operation Barbarossa put a stop to. And which the so-called "Allied" forces of liberal democratic capitalism would have [B]NEVER[/B] seriously opposed in any effective way.

Despite his many crimes, on balance, Western Civilization owes Hitler a great debt and many thanks. Had he been victorious, his crimes would have been forgotten, as the crimes of many truly and sincerely great men now seem trivial (to the extent they are even remembered at all). Oh, but Fade won't want me calling them "crimes" unless they were actually listed in statute books or referenced in case law. Bah!

Kevin_O'Keeffe

2004-10-30 10:06 | User Profile

[QUOTE=Petr]NeoNietzsche, you quote both of those overrated characters - Hitler and Nietzsche - in an obviously pseudo-religious manner, as if their words by themselves would mean something.

That's not entirely fair; that Hitler quote was pretty darn good, and it arguably addressed the point to which NN was attempting to repsond. Did you read the Hitler quote? I really doubt you'd find much in it with which to disagree....

Kevin_O'Keeffe

2004-10-30 10:12 | User Profile

[QUOTE=NeoNietzsche]Putin's diplomacy seeks to break up NATO and win over Europe to Russia. This is in strict accordance with the Kremlin's long-range strategy. If we ignore the existence of this strategy, as Clinton does, we do so at our own risk.[/QUOTE]

Actually, near as I can tell, Putin wants to join NATO, and I think we should let him. Hitler betrayed the Slavs, who were his natural allies then (the average Slavic man or woman hated the Judeo-Bolshevists about as much as any population group can be expected to hate "their" own national leaders) and who are the natural allies of patriotic and spiritually healthy Americans, Britons, French and Germans today (whether against the Jews, the Jihadists or the Chinese).

Okiereddust

2004-10-30 18:10 | User Profile

[QUOTE=Kevin_O'Keeffe]Hitler betrayed the Slavs, who were his natural allies then (the average Slavic man or woman hated the Judeo-Bolshevists about as much as any population group can be expected to hate "their" own national leaders) and who are the natural allies of patriotic and spiritually healthy Americans, Britons, French and Germans today (whether against the Jews, the Jihadists or the Chinese).[/QUOTE] Of course now history seems to suggest that Hitler was manipulated into this anti-Ukrainian position by his secretary Martin Bormann, quite possibly under the direction of Stalin himself.

It would make sense of course, in the standard manner of WWII resistance. That manner was to incite or provoke the occupiers into atrocities against the occupied population. That stirred up the resistance in the occupied terrotories to retaliate, thus provoking counter counter retaliation, thus creating an endless cycle of blissful bloodletting.

Those were the tactics used by the Communists not just in Russia but all over Europe.

"If we accepted in marshaling all political, psychological and cultural means to create a free Ukrainian state from Lvov to Saratov," Rosenberg informed Hitler, "then the century-old nightmare which the German people has been subjected to by the Russian Empire will be broken."

Hitler appointed Rosenberg Ostminister (Minister for the Occupied East) but vacillated between the Rosenberg position and the ideas of Martin Bormann, who favored a lebensraum policy based on the Nazi principle that all Eastern Europeans were inferior (untermenschen), unfit for self-rule. The sole purpose of the Slavs, he reminded Hitler, was to serve the genetically superior German Herrenvolk.

Bormann convinced Hitler that any German plan for a "Garden of Eden" in Ukraine demanded that: Ukraine be divided; Ukrainians receive little formal education; medical and sanitary services be limited severely; Ukrainian towns not be rebuilt; Germans be forbidden to live among Ukrainians.

Hitler adopted Bormann's proposals and, after invading the Soviet Union, awarded Bukovyna to Romania, formally incorporated Galicia into the General Government for Occupied Polish Territories, and placed eastern Ukraine within the newly created Reichskomissariat Ukraine. Appointed Reichskomissar was Erich Koch, a psychopath close to Martin Bormann.

[URL=http://www.originaldissent.com/forums/showpost.php?p=92948&postcount=2]Was Hitler's Secretary Martin Bormann A Soviet Spy?[/URL]