← Autodidact Archive · Original Dissent · Franco

Thread 6664

Thread ID: 6664 | Posts: 75 | Started: 2003-05-15

Franco [OP]

2003-05-15 01:46 | User Profile

** Walter Kurtz wrote, in a thread in Politics:

I especially enjoy Franco's posts...despite the fact that his sympathies to National Socialism are stronger than mine..**

This is an issue that I want to address publicly for newbies at OD.

I could embrace the Klan. In fact, I used to subscribe to a Klan newspaper. But I now, ahem, "reject" [more or less] Klan ideology in favor of Nazi ideology, and I will explain why.

I have studied both Klan and Nazi ideology and have concluded that Nazi ideology is THE ONLY ideology capable of completely stopping the Jews. Not just slowing them down, mind you, but stopping them for good.

First of all, the Klan is usually full of religious people/Christian Identity people, and I am not religious per se.

Secondly, Nazis eventually become the state. The Klan does not become the state. Very big difference.

Thirdly, Nazis seem to be much more activist than Klansmen.

Those reasons, and also a few others, lead me to conclude that Nazi ideology, despite any shortcomings it may have, has the best chance of preserving Whiteness in the war of Whites-against-the-Jews.

Yes, Tex, Frederick William and others may not see my reasoning as sound, but then they come to the table with a religious background. Nazism may indeed have faults [a big state, etc.], but nonetheless it has the best chance at success, over the long term, I think.

Franco

2003-05-15 03:06 | User Profile

Well, Nazism may not have been actively antagonistic to Christians per se, but I have read plenty of writings where top Nazis "bashed" Christianity, e.g. the copies of Nazi essays in the book "Nazi Culture" by Mosse, 1966 edition.

Okiereddust

2003-05-15 05:23 | User Profile

Originally posted by Octopod@May 15 2003, 03:17 > Funny that the NSDAP platform stood for positive Christianity. Without the support from Christians, the Nazis would have made little headway in Germany. Qualifiedly correct. This was a concession to electoral expediency. The Nazis hoped ultimately to ditch the Church.

You may not like NeoNietzsche'sattitude, but you are not correct when you say it didn't represent Nazi attitudes. In fact, not only did the Nazis "hope ultimately to ditch the Church" they had made concrete plans in 1943 to abolish it in territories under their control when hostilities.

"Positive Christianity" was 1. merely a concession to electoral sentiment, particularly in especially pro-Nazi conservative rural areas, and 2. nothing more than very thinly veiled paganism. It is proof of Nazism;s hostility towards Christianity, not friendliness.

triskelion

2003-05-15 05:27 | User Profile

Hello Franco, As you may have guessed, I have a pretty low of Klan groups.

Basically they were at their best during reconstruction when they made an attempt to carry out a guerrilla against the union which collimated with the Battle of Liberty Place in 1874. While they hade a real surge during the Ã¢â¬Ë20s and had real influence on state and local politics they ran into a series of terrible financial and sex scandals as well as various legal problems stemming from numerous acts of random thuggery.

These problems combined with the emphasis upon costume parades pretty well destroyed the public perception of the Klan and ever since they have designated into a collection of weird little cliques filled with ADL/SPLC/FBI agent provocateurs but totally lacking ideas or any leadership worth mentioning. As a result, they have gone nowhere for 80 years and they will continue in that rut forever.

It seems you are a bit confused about the NSDAP regime as far a religion goes but this understandable as numerous party figures like Hitler were ambivalent about Christianity while some like Himmler were clearly into the Norse pagan initiation orders like the Order of Thule. Yet the fact remains that the NSDAP did openly court Christian opinion and a great many party leaders were very much ardent Christians like the amazingly heroic Rexist and SS leader Degrelle who was quite a favorate of Hitler.

The undeniable reality is that all nationalist movements that have ever gone anywhere in the Occidental world were either Christian or attempted to appease Christian opinion. We see this in the example of such inspirational figures like Codreanu, Pareto, De Rivera and other to numerous to name. I am a deeply committed heathen and National Socialist (not of the NSDAP variety) I feel that pagandom is a integral portion of the Occidental legacy and has much to offer it now as DeBenoist has so eloquently stated.

Yet the simple truth is that we all must work with those that do not agree with us religiously and the cause of Occidental survival is far too important to risk over theological quibbles. For good or bad the reality is that all Occidental nations have become very secularized and that in order to progress in the struggle Eurocentrics that are pagan, Christian and secular of almost any stripe have to realize that accommodation with each other is vital. Our race is far to outnumbered and the challenges confronting us far to great to not vigorously peruse alliances that transcend theological absolutism. Anyone unable to do so is a fool and no real asset to the struggle.

As to your nostalgia for Hitler being a model in the present situation I ask that you read the following two articles and then get back to me on what you hope to accomplish with Hitlerian worship and how you plan on doing it.

[url=http://library.flawlesslogic.com/hitler.htm]http://library.flawlesslogic.com/hitler.htm[/url] www.vanguardnewsnetwork.com/vnn/showEssay.asp?essayID=1293

Walter E Kurtz

2003-05-15 08:02 | User Profile

Christianity is irreconcilable with National Socialism. They are mutually exclusive. The Nazis wished a return to the heroic ethos...and a revival of the "old Gods of the Earth". I'm sure NeoNietzsche could provide some insight into this.

Christianity is fundamentally Judaic...and is a universal faith system. The Nazis attempted (with a great deal of succes) to supplant Catholicism and Lutheranism with traditional volkisch beliefs.

The origins of Nazism are found in the Thule society...not in Christian congregations. One only has to look at old pictures of an SS tropper, in full regalia, replete with totenkopf, lighting bolts, and sacred runes to recognize that at base...Nazism is utterly and completely PAGAN.

I do not have a strong opinion on this...I just think that it is important to recognize that the foundations of National Socialism are dogmatically anti-Christian.

Walter E Kurtz

2003-05-15 08:05 | User Profile

Franco:

I think that both the KKK and National Socialism are obsolete...they represent organizational strategies for people in peculiar moments in history, and I feel that these strategies are not relevant to present circumstances. I find much that is admirable about NS, but there will never be another Nazi government in my opinion.

Any new White Nationalist party that may come about in the future will be something that people have not seen before.

Franco

2003-05-15 08:33 | User Profile

** Trisk wrote:

Confused? No. I own several books on Nazism. Top Nazis, in their essays, make it clear that Christianity was "not their bag."

NeoNietzsche

2003-05-15 11:57 | User Profile

Originally posted by triskelion@May 14 2003, 23:27 **As to your nostalgia for Hitler being a model in the present situation I ask that you read the following two articles and then get back to me on what you hope to accomplish with Hitlerian worship and how you plan on doing it.

[url=http://library.flawlesslogic.com/hitler.htm]http://library.flawlesslogic.com/hitler.htm[/url]**


"In other words, German National Socialism arose at a specific time in a specific place under the pressure of a unique set of historical circumstances, none of which could ever be precisely replicated elsewhere. In particular, the autocratic FÃÂ¼hrer state, central to NS Germany and still advocated by a few racial nationalists, would never be acceptable to Americans; our republican political culture and belief in individual rights is, thankfully, far too strong. Hitler was a dictator and his government authoritarian; Americans prefer their political and civil liberties, such as they currently are."

Then American [Greater Judean] individualism [goyische chunk-headedness] will obstruct any attempted diversion of the Herd from its progress toward the Judeo-Communist abattoir.

So, if one is going down, one dignifies oneself by doing so forthrightly, with Die Fahne Hoch.

il ragno

2003-05-15 15:06 | User Profile

**Not only did the Nazis "hope ultimately to ditch the Church" they had made concrete plans in 1943 to abolish it in territories under their control when hostilities (ceased)....."Positive Christianity" was 1. merely a concession to electoral sentiment, particularly in especially pro-Nazi conservative rural areas, and 2. nothing more than very thinly veiled paganism. It is proof of Nazism's hostility towards Christianity, not friendliness. **

The Nazis and the Church were never more than uneasy bedfellows in an alliance that had everything to do with the Jewish Bolsheviks threatening to seize Germany's cities via terror, block by block.

Sobran's most recent column states "even in the prosperous Fifties and later, most adults feared a return of the Depression. The power of this memory shaped the politics of the 1950s to a degree you wouldnÃ¢â¬â¢t suspect from reading about the events of the time. The Republicans bore the heavy burden of blame for the Depression; the Democrats were the party of Ã¢â¬Åthe little man.Ã¢â¬Â If you donÃ¢â¬â¢t understand that, you canÃ¢â¬â¢t understand the time as it felt to those who lived it."

We in America have never had the threat of Communism pose so clear and present a threat to us. A long march through our institutions is one thing; looking out your window at daily street battles designed to rend the social order is a whole other thing. The inconvenient fact is that a tacit Nazi-Church alliance was a matter of expediency and not the result of chin-stroking and philosophical contemplation.

Whatever the Nazis may or may not have 'planned' for the Church...long term...paled beside the short-term 'solution' the Bolsheviks were going to impose upon the German clergy had they seized the country. Like f'rinstance a bullet to the head and an unmarked mass grave five minutes after they were in.

And the Church knew it. We have been lucky in America that no such eleventh-hour choice has ever been forced upon us, but I'm not enough of a con-man to pretend our relative good fortune in ducking that scenario gives me the moral authority to condemn those who weren't as fortunate. Or to pretend that the script for victors' justice wasn't being assembled and proofread by the Soviets and their Jew apparatchiks in the US and Britain while the war was still raging, and adhered to like holy writ in postwar Germany, from the war-crimes trials, to the DP camps, right up to the "Holocaust laws" of today.

Alex Linder in today's spintros:

"The Holocough...eh hem, excuse me... is always framed as an unfathomable mystery. Oy! Why did Hitler hate so much? Oy! Why would people follow such an obvious lunatic? Oy! How does one man brainwash an entire nation? Oy! Oy! Oy! When it comes to Hitler's success jews drop questions like they were goyim from the gulag gallows. But the only acceptable answer is "evil" or some equally ill-defined jew-conjured "pathology" buried deep in the souls of antisemites. Jews know that if attention ever turns from Hitler's evil to the reality of the world to which he responded, the jig is up. The plain truth is that prior to Hitler taking power Germany was under seige by Communist Jews working to overthrow and destroy Germany like they had done to Russia. There were thousands of Marxist jews in Germany. They were heavily armed. They killed and wounded German law officers. They undermined German border security and facilitated the entry and escape of Communist criminals by running passport forgery operations. They worked constantly to subvert the military. They rioted in major German cities for days at a time. In short, Nazism was German ethnic/national/cultural self-defense. Alien jews were jewing Germany. Hitler saw through the symptons to the disease and pinned his Swastika straight through the blackhead to the oily k*** fomenting infection at the root. And it worked! Hitler returned Germany to Germans. Though short-lived, the verboten truth is it was wonderful while it lasted."

The phrasing may offend you. The speaker may offend you. (The bloody obvious is never genteel and subtle.) But if the message also offends you, you'd better avoid seeing a doctor about those chest pains you've been experiencing. He might *not * hand you a lollipop and tell you "relax, it's nothing"....he might piss you off royally with a boorish prognosis of heart disease.

Texas Dissident

2003-05-15 17:11 | User Profile

The Klan has Johnny Rebel.

Nazi Germany could never produce a Johnny R.

il ragno

2003-05-15 17:18 | User Profile

**The Klan has Johnny Rebel.

Nazi Germany could never produce a Johnny R. **

Remind me of that when CBS runs their sweeps-week miniseries JOHNNY REB: THE RISE OF EVIL next week, willya?

il ragno

2003-05-15 17:33 | User Profile

It's like a LIFE OF BRIAN outtake.

"I am a Holocaust survivor; and so is my wife, our three children and our Yorkie."

Texas Dissident

2003-05-15 17:42 | User Profile

Originally posted by il ragno@May 15 2003, 12:18 ** Remind me of that when CBS runs their sweeps-week miniseries JOHNNY REB: THE RISE OF EVIL next week, willya? **

The Coen brothers came pretty close with their "O Brother, Where Art Thou?"

Hollywood may not have done anything explicitly about Johnny Reb, but the segregated 'evil South' theme is just as overplayed as the WWII/Holocaust one. Johnny R, the Klan and Southern segregation is pure Americana.

triskelion

2003-05-15 19:51 | User Profile

It seems Franco is not up to reading and considering the links I posted so I'll simply let him pretend that the NSDAP is a model for America now inspite of 60 years proof to the contrary.
When seeing American racists pretend that an openly anti-Christian radicalism can serve as the basis of a mass movement it simply demonstrates yet again why no one in Europa takes the American scene seriously.

As to the Christianity issue, with the notable exception of Himmler and possibly Rosenberg no high level NSDAP members belonged to the Oder of Thule or any like minded groups. If anyone wishes they can plod about the sites dedicated to mysticism of Guido Von List and read plenty of tirades against the Third Reich for repressing Nordic heathen esoterica and understand that the adoption of the associated imagery pagandom is not the same as an actual pagan revival. If anyone has the inclination that can read what List, Faye and DeBenoist say on the matter and come to understand the difference.

Hitler was never very clear about his religious views which one realizes when it is noted that he used to read Ostara and similar publications while he was in Vienna so it is understandable to think he may have had heathen sympathies. Yet in truth he did favour the continuation of the church tax, openly courted Christian opinion and when he did speak of theology he mentioned God rather then Gods indicating that he was monotheistic. Also of note is that a great many party and SS leaders were very vocal Christians as were most of the movements and regimes allied with Germany at the time.

It simply does not matter to what extent the appeal to traditional Christendom was sincere. What does matter is that the regime which Franco idolizes realized that not only was antagonizing Christians unwise in the extreme but that obtaining Christian support was vital if the party was to go anywhere. It seems that most American racial types absolutely refuse to recognize this preferring to go out of their way to be abusive to everyone they don't agree with fully as they have done for over two generations. It seems to me that they are by enlarge not interested in the realities of politics and culture but merely self indulgent extremism and factional bickering.

Octopod it seems is the one making the most valid comments in this basically pointless thread and rban as usual is content to prove what an idiotic troll he is for those that missed it the first 1000 times.

TD's support for the guttural, simplistic yet occasionally perversely humorous "negro" songs of Johnny Reb is very strange given his penchant for neutered faux cons like Buchanan who would never admit to similar tastes is very curious indeed. Certainly only Americans could produce electrified country rock bands Otis and 3 Bigots, Johnny Reb and David Allen Coe. Just as obvious is that heart felt, talented nationalist balladeers like JÃÂ¶rg HÃÂ¤hnel, Frank RennÃÂcke & Wolfsrudel simply don't exist in the states so it seems that raising such comparisons is hardly favorable to TD's countrymen.

TD also mentions that he "goes with the Klan and Johnny Reb because it's pure American" yet fails to mention that the profound failure of that genre of non-thinking is purely a dead end which I am sure he knows yet for some reason does not act accordingly. Rather then compare the relative value of an absolute failure of a uniquely American non-movement and a dead regime that has never been relevant to the states perhaps it may be worth while looking into some other tendencies mentioned here earlier that are proven to be presently viable.

Franco

2003-05-15 20:09 | User Profile

Trisk --

I never said that we should alienate Christians in our activism. There is nothing wrong with courting non-Judaized Christians.

The trouble is with Sam BiblePounder and Kathy Churchgoer, who go around tossing out slogans such as "Jesus Was A Jew," and "racism is evil -- God made us all the same," and other gems I've heard way too many times. In fact, I know a Christian man who spouts "Israel must be saved at all costs, or the world will end!" :angry:

Today's "official" Christianity is largely Jewish, i.e. it's been overrun and co-opted by Jew-lovers.

Texas Dissident

2003-05-15 20:24 | User Profile

Originally posted by triskelion@May 15 2003, 14:51 **TD's support for the guttural, simplistic yet occasionally perversely humorous "negro" songs of Johnny Reb is very strange given his penchant for neutered faux cons like Buchanan who would never admit to similar tastes is very curious indeed. **

trisk,

Just to let you know, every once in a while I try to inject a little levity here and there just to lighten the mood on some of these threads.

Now whether or not it is humorous is another question entirely. Obviously, I may need to work on my contextualization and delivery a little bit. But having said that, I dare say there are plenty of 'curious' things you don't know about me. I certainly don't cotton to being put in a box.

**TD also mentions that he "goes with the Klan and Johnny Reb because it's pure American" yet fails to mention that the profound failure of that genre of non-thinking is purely a dead end which I am sure he knows yet for some reason does not act accordingly.ÃÂ **

Obviously trisk, I'm not about to go join the Klan or the neo-nazis any time soon. But I guess if somebody put a gun to my head and forced me to choose, I would prefer the Klan because at least it is a native movement to my soil.

Franco

2003-05-15 20:35 | User Profile

** Trisk wrote:

in this basically pointless thread**

This thread would not be pointless if it were not being bumped off the track by, uhh, nameless people.

The point of this thread was to show some differences between the Klan and Nazis, and show, more or less, that the Klan has, ahem, "gone nowhere" in 50 years. Nazis are much more activist and aggressive, for reasons that only they may know. I wanted to highlight that feature especially.

Frederick William I

2003-05-16 03:12 | User Profile

Originally posted by Franco@May 15 2003, 20:35 **> ** Trisk wrote:

in this basically pointless thread**

This thread would not be pointless if it were not being bumped off the track by, uhh, nameless people.

The point of this thread was to show some differences between the Klan and Nazis, ** And the stance on Christianity is certainly one of the major ones. W aren't being off tack at all. In fact you were the one that raised the Christian issue in the first place, at the very start of the thread> **and show, more or less,

that the Klan has, ahem, "gone nowhere" in 50 years. Nazis are much more activist and aggressive, for reasons that only they may know. I wanted to highlight that feature especially.**

If you wanted to highlight it, how come you didn't hardly even mention it until this post, talking about nothing else in this thread, then when you're losing, claiming you're being nudged off track?

You argue just like the neocons did over at FR or Leo and Hbender did at SFF.

Frederick William I

2003-05-16 03:19 | User Profile

Originally posted by Franco@May 15 2003, 20:09 **Trisk --

I never said that we should alienate Christians in our activism. There is nothing wrong with courting non-Judaized Christians.**

The only problem with this is Communists and Jews feel almost exactly the same way. (with the slight exception of the "non-judiazed part).

**The trouble is with Sam BiblePounder and Kathy Churchgoer, who go around tossing out slogans such as "Jesus Was A Jew," and "racism is evil -- God made us all the same," and other gems I've heard way too many times. In fact, I know a Christian man who spouts "Israel must be saved at all costs, or the world will end!"ÃÂ :angry:

Today's "official" Christianity is largely Jewish, i.e. it's been overrun and co-opted by Jew-lovers.**

You hardly seem like an expert on religion. I personally have never met grassroots Christians like that. And if "official" Christianity is largely Jewish in spirit and stance, so is everything else in this country.

I've never understand why Nazi's seem to so single out Christianity in this regards.

Texas Dissident

2003-05-16 03:38 | User Profile

Originally posted by Frederick William I@May 15 2003, 22:19 I've never understand why Nazi's seem to so single out Christianity in this regards.

Perhaps because Nazism and Christianity are just flat-out incompatible. Probably has everything to do with each's notion or view of the State.

Frederick William I

2003-05-16 03:51 | User Profile

Originally posted by triskelion@May 15 2003, 19:51 **Hitler was never very clear about his religious views which one realizes when it is noted that he used to read Ostara and similar publications while he was in Vienna so it is understandable to think he may have had heathen sympathies.ÃÂ Yet in truth he did favour the continuation of the church tax, openly courted Christian opinion and when he did speak of theology he mentioned God rather then Gods indicating that he was monotheistic. Also of note is that a great many party and SS leaders were very vocal Christians as were most of the movements and regimes allied with Germany at the time. ** Well I'd never heard that about the SS. I'd always heard that SS officers had to renounce Christianity. But basically I think you're right here to some extent about the vagueness of Hitler on not only religion but everything else ideologically, a basic facet of NS, especially the post "night of the long knives" variety.

I think one of the reasons this discussion on religion seems repetitive is that we haven't dealt with this basic issue. True Linderites/Nazi's with their fuehrerprinzep believe that the true stance of a good Nazi on religion or anything else is whatever der fuehrer wanted it to be, is it not so?

Which is in fact the key to the problems with NS, its vagueness combined with basic Fuehrer worship.

It simply does not matter to what extent the appeal to traditional Christendom was sincere. I disagree here, but let's go on> What does matter is that the regime which Franco idolizes realized that not only was antagonizing Christians unwise in the extreme but that obtaining Christian support was vital if the party was to go anywhere.ÃÂ It seems that most American racial types absolutely refuse to recognize this preferring to go out of their way to be abusive to everyone they don't agree with fully as they have done for over two generations.ÃÂ It seems to me that they are by enlarge not interested in the realities of politics and culture but merely self indulgent extremism and factional bickering.

I don't know. Although Franco does get under my skin at times, I think on this he, NN, others are just being honest in sayig what threy believe in this instance what NS is, and being loyal to their fuehrerprinzep.

In this regards for that matter, it not only the Linderites who can be oboxious in this regards. Wintermute, are you listening?> **TD's support for the guttural, simplistic yet occasionally perversely humorous "negro" songs of Johnny Reb is very strange given his penchant for neutered faux cons like Buchanan who would never admit to similar tastes is very curious indeed.ÃÂ Certainly only Americans could produce electrified country rock bands Otis and 3 Bigots, Johnny Reb and David Allen Coe. Just as obvious is that heart felt, talented nationalist balladeers like JÃÂ¶rg HÃÂ¤hnel, Frank RennÃÂcke & Wolfsrudel simply don't exist in the states so it seems that raising such comparisons is hardly favorable to TD's countrymen. **

See Franco, it's not just me that gets threads off track :D

Frederick William I

2003-05-16 03:59 | User Profile

Originally posted by Texas Dissident@May 16 2003, 03:38 ** Perhaps because Nazism and Christianity are just flat-out incompatible. Probably has everything to do with each's notion or view of the State. **

Of course to the Linderite/Nazi's, the people existed for the state, and the state is der fuehrer.

Its really the most primitive yet extreme form of heathenism and totalitarianism.

il ragno

2003-05-16 04:30 | User Profile

Heathen totalitarians! My goodness. They certainly sound awful, these "Linderite Nazis".

You certainly gave me a start. Good thing we won that war!

PS: I think you've got the podium allll to yourself this time, FW.

NeoNietzsche

2003-05-16 04:32 | User Profile

Originally posted by Frederick William I@May 15 2003, 21:59 Of course to the Linderite/Nazi's, the people existed for the state, and the state is der fuehrer.

Its really the most primitive yet extreme form of heathenism and totalitarianism.**

Hitler explicitly rejected this formulation of National Socialism, writing that the State is in the service of the Race, and not vice versa.

Faithful to this proclamation, Hitler was approached by a committee of SS intellectuals with a blueprint for the establishment of a totalitarian state, which plan Hitler rejected as un-Germanic. Hitler hated bureaucrats and refused to rationalize his administration, preferring ad hoc assignments of overlapping responsibilities to energetic individuals in order to obviate red-tape and to prevent the establishment of entrenched resistance to his projects.

The particulars of that regime's configuration aside, I am disappointed at the continued moralization of form-of-government implicit in this mis-directed reproach. The form-of-government stupidity continues to be THE greatest obstacle to a realistic grasp of reality by the goyim. Tyranny, like a handgun, is a time-honored tool for the solution of certain problems.

Frederick William I

2003-05-16 04:39 | User Profile

Originally posted by NeoNietzsche@May 16 2003, 04:32 ** > Originally posted by Frederick William I@May 15 2003, 21:59 Of course to the Linderite/Nazi's, the people existed for the state, and the state is der fuehrer.

Its really the most primitive yet extreme form of heathenism and totalitarianism.**

Hitler explicitly rejected this formulation of National Socialism, writing that the State is in the service of the Race, and not vice versa.

Faithful to this proclamation, Hitler was approached by a committee of SS intellectuals with a blueprint for the establishment of a totalitarian state, which plan Hitler rejected as un-Germanic. **

:lol:

NeoNietzsche

2003-05-16 05:10 | User Profile

Originally posted by Frederick William I@May 15 2003, 22:39 > Originally posted by NeoNietzsche@May 16 2003, 04:32 ** > Originally posted by Frederick William I@May 15 2003, 21:59 Of course to the Linderite/Nazi's, the people existed for the state, and the state is der fuehrer.

Its really the most primitive yet extreme form of heathenism and totalitarianism.**

Hitler explicitly rejected this formulation of National Socialism, writing that the State is in the service of the Race, and not vice versa.

Faithful to this proclamation, Hitler was approached by a committee of SS intellectuals with a blueprint for the establishment of a totalitarian state, which plan Hitler rejected as un-Germanic. **

:lol:**

Didn't anticipate that you would be hopelessly obstructed on this point, FW. Christianity seems to do that to people, come to think of it. Provides the chutzpah to boldly reject reality in favor of cartoonish preconceptions which then assume enduring sovereignty over the intellect.

Walter E Kurtz

2003-05-16 05:19 | User Profile

I think that you guys are overlooking how powerful the SS had become by 1942-43. The SS had literally become "a state within a state" and they certainly did not bow to Christ before they took the field of battle. The imagery that the SS invoked was not chosen just for the sake of pageantry and military aesthetics...these men were true believers. They ascribed to a heroic, volkisch, warrior ethos...and believed in the sacredness of blood and soil. They did not welcome death in battle so that they could ultimately enjoy eternal peace beside a Jewish martyr who had been dead for 2,000 years. They found value in the struggle itself...their worldview was ruled by volkisch mysticism and a romantic commitment to violence. There was absolutely nothing Christian about it...in any way shape or form. Donning a death's head, adorning yourself with protective runes, training to kill in a castle that is adorned with pagan symbolism is not exactly Christian behavior, now is it?

RE: Martel and El Cid.

I would say that these men exemplified the Aryan warrior ethos...in SPITE of the fact that they and their kinsmen had adopted Christianity. It took several hundred more years for the Church to fully consolidate its stranglehold on the spirit of Western man.

Frederick William I

2003-05-16 07:20 | User Profile

> Originally posted by NeoNietzsche@May 16 2003, 05:10 Hitler explicitly rejected this formulation of National Socialism, writing that the State is in the service of the Race, and not vice versa.

I know Christianity maybe does have a way of clouding obvious realities (to you at least) such as the "fact" you just discovered that the Third Reich was not a totalitarian state.

It also makes one skeptical I suppose of claims like "the State is in the service of the Race, and not vice versa". Basically this is just a Nazi tinged version of the old politicians saw "I am just a servent of the people" "I hold office to serve, not to be served" etc.

Maybe it does make one blind - at least in the eye's of those that can't distinguish between light and darkness themselves.

triskelion

2003-05-16 07:53 | User Profile

Franco,

You started this thread saying > "First of all, the Klan is usually full of religious people/Christian Identity people, and I am not religious per se." Which clearly indicates that you have a problem with racial Christians which you later re-emphasized and expanded to all Christians with you statements that the NSDAP was preferable because it was not Christian. You have expressed a factual error with respect to the fact that most high ranking NSDAP members were anti Christian when they were in fact overwhelmingly Christians and that very few were actual members of pagan while ignoring the reality that the party actively courted Christian support because they were political realists.

I think I put forward a very good case why the NSDAP model is not applicable to the U.S., or anywhere else at the present, but for what ever reason you have not addressed the issue. Basically, it seems that your simply pushing a hazy nostalgia for something that you have no idea how to make relevant. I am not trying to be antagonistic but I am feeling that my efforts to get you examine your ideological foundations have been very unsuccessful so I won't peruse the matter any longer.

Obviously, Christianity today is very hostile to Eurocentrism but the question that needs to be answered is how to negate that negativity or change it. Simply condemning Christianity is not an option.

Hello TD,

I am sorry for mistaking levity for something else. I should have known that you were not inclined to the Klan outlook which is good in my view. Hopefully, no offense was taken as none was intended.

Your comment > "Nazism and Christianity are just flat-out incompatible. Probably has everything to do with each's notion or view of the State." Demonstrates that your knowledge of any form of National Socialism (save the Hollywood inspired pretenders) is pretty poor. For starters, the NSDAP's view of the state is not dramatically different then that held by the theocratic National Socialists of Eastern Europa or the Integralists and National Syndicalists of France and Iberia and it was identical to that pushed by the ardent Catholics of the Rexist movement. Of course, that a single notion of the state has never been held by all major Christian denominations is something that no would claim so your statement above is clearly untenable to start with. And in the case of racial nationalist movements in Catholic and Orthodox nations is simply absurd as those movements have almost always been devoutly religious and religion is seen as an integral component of how those movements perceive a folkish state.

Hello FW,

I was puzzled by your comment > " The only problem with this is Communists and Jews feel almost exactly the same way. (with the slight exception of the "non-judiazed part)." made in response to "Trisk- I never said that we should alienate Christians in our activism. There is nothing wrong with courting non-Judiazed Christians." Anyone interested in political or cultural influence should be willing to realize that major religious groupings should be courted. Communist groups, and social democrats to a lesser extent, had/have no interest in appealing to Christians because the violent revolutionary means they have often relied upon make such efforts pointless. In electoral terms they have done quite well without them outside of North and South America. Nationalist movements of all types (including numerous types of National Socialists) have always attempted to obtain significant support from Christians with the notable exception of the costumed fetish set which seem to know nothing about any form racialism save that promoted by Hollywood.

While I strongly object to much of what Franco says and I think his notions on religion are very wrong headed and counter productive I regret to say that modern Christianity is overwhelmingly hostile to any form of Eurocentrism. I am sure that you know that not a single major denomination of any Christian Church in North America or Western Europa thinks that non white immigration should be ended or supports any form racial separatism and have absolutely zero problems with miscegenation . I am also certain that you realize that a great many Christian denominations are very active in promoting third world mass migration to Western countries and that some, especially in the states, are wildly pro Zionist as one can see by the very popular "left behind" books, Billy Graham, the Christian Coalition and other mainstays of the neo-con establishment. The last several time I visited the states (Mid West and South West) I visited plenty of Churches which had Israeli flags in the foyer, heard plenty of clerics whose theology was essentially radically leftist and absolutely none had anything but praise for multi-racialism. A visit to pretty much any Christian bookstore will confirm a hard core multi-racialism and pro-Zionist bias as will watching any preacher on the Talmud Vision.

Now I don't want to be seen as being critical of Christianity per say. Rather, I object to what it has become rather then what I see as it's true essence which is Occidental in character. I have zero interest in debating the merits/demerits of any religion as such exchanges are futile at best and often counter productive. Rather, I do feel it is worth while to point out the reality of modern Christian institutional hostility to any form Eurocentrism is a real problem that must be recognized and addressed. Obviously, the Christian bashing of the Hitlerian fetish types is meritless and negative but the problem of how to win over or circumvent the problem I mention is real.

You said > "Well I'd never heard that about the SS. I'd always heard that SS officers had to renounce Christianity." That notion is very far from practiced reality although it was in keeping with Himmler's notions. I say this because the leadership of the Flemish, French, Dutch, Spanish, Italian, Belgian and all of the Eastern European Legionnaire and SS divisions were run by open and often ardent Christians. If you are actually interested in that sort of thing (I'm not) I'll find some references to direct you towards.

The quote > "But basically I think you're right here to some extent about the vagueness of Hitler on not only religion but everything else ideologically, a basic facet of NS, especially the post "night of the long knives" variety." demonstrates that you have a very shallow knowledge of Hitler, the NSDAP and National Socialism in general just as I know little of Dr. Francis and Burnham's writings. If you even casually look into the ideology of the NSDAP you'll note that it had quite a number of theorists that developed very detailed public policies and philosophies dealing with pretty much every aspect of life. Hitler had dramatically successful fiscal, agricultural, industrial and social welfare policies which were one product of a very long anti liberal tradition in Western philosophy. If you want a quick introduction to these matter I suggest that you read a bit of the Organic schools of Austria and Germany and the very long history of "ethical socialism" and the revisionism that served as the basis of French National Socialism in the Ã¢â¬Ë20s and Ã¢â¬Ë30s and note that it dovetails quite well with pretty much all folkish thought from the 1890s onwards from Moscow to Lisbon.

You go onto say > "I think one of the reasons this discussion on religion seems repetitive is that we haven't dealt with this basic issue. True Linderites/Nazi's with their fuehrerprinzep believe that the true stance of a good Nazi on religion or anything else is whatever der fuehrer wanted it to be, is it not so?" which is so wrong on so many levels it's hard to know where to start.

I'm not really interested in what Mr. Linder says and as he has been banned from O.D. it seems that he will not be well represented by anyone here. From reading what Linder has to say it seems to me that he has no real interest in National Socialism and he doesn't really want to emulate any Third Reich policies. I can recall him expressing support for capitalism minus globalism and I have never heard him say that he backs any form of corporatism or a folkish economy. His interest in National Socialism is limited to Germany from Ã¢â¬Ë33 to Ã¢â¬Ë45 and solely because Hitler was openly anti Jewish and clearly racialist in his conception of society. It seems to me that outside of genocidal destruction of non whites Linder is perfectly content with a vaguely paleo-libertarian model of society and he has no interest in authoritarianism per say but simply rejects the current ruling powers because they are agents of our racial destruction.

You, like Linder, have a tendency to ignore all forms of National Socialism save the Hitlerian example which you grossly mischaracterize as simple Oriental Despotism. Of course, given the sorry state of the mis-self labeled National Socialists in the states this is understandable but not excusable for a thoughtful fellow such as yourself. If you wish to talk about what the basis of authority is within National Socialism in the German tradition I suggest that you read the great little booklet "National Socialism: The Biological World View" by Riis-Knudsen (which I have seen on the net for about 5 USD) or the works of Colin Jordan (his books typically run about 10 USD) or better still, the Organic literature I mentioned earlier. While you laugh at NN it is your assertion that National Socialism is totalitarian that is laughable. If you read anything by the Strasserite faction you will quickly realize that Hitler objected to an all encompassing state and was radically opposed to nationalization of the economy. Further more, if you invest a little effort looking into the relation of DeMann's doctrines and how the NSDAP regime responded to it one will note a dramatic difference in economic theory. As a decent starting point I would suggest an article that Bill White at overthrow put together on Hitler's fiscal policy as brief overview of the fallacy of the notion that Hitler wanted a nationalized economy.
In point of fact, most NS thought before and after Hitler is much more in favour of economic decentralization and corporatist means for interest articulation. In short FW, the fact is your pre-conceptions about National Socialism are very misinformed and restricted to such an extent that your comments simply are not recognizable by anyone that has actually followed what Third Reich sources have said. Of course, in the end the larger body of National Socialist thought from the Compte De La Tour Du Pin till now also refutes your notions stated in this thread.

Texas Dissident

2003-05-16 08:09 | User Profile

Originally posted by triskelion@May 16 2003, 02:53 ** I'm not really interested in what Mr. Linder says and as he has been banned from O.D. it seems that he will not be well represented by anyone here. **

triskelion,

Quickly, just one clarification here. Mr. Linder has not been banned from this forum. I just double-checked the database in fact, and his account appears to be normal 'New Member' status. If he has had some trouble posting or something, I don't know about it and have not been alerted to it.

The only members that have ever been forever purged here are a couple of folks who asked to be removed and one 'SomeAmishGuy' who signed up about three accounts one night and spammed the board with vile scatalogical posts. A couple of others have been temporarily suspended in order to cool off, but that is it. All in all, just about everyone here conducts themselves with remarkable class and considered restraint. We've been very fortunate in that regard.

NeoNietzsche

2003-05-16 12:11 | User Profile

FW,

I was going to respond in greater detail, but Trisk seems to have covered much of the point for me:

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

"You, like Linder, have a tendency to ignore all forms of National Socialism save the Hitlerian example which you grossly mischaracterize as simple Oriental Despotism...While you laugh at NN, it is your assertion that National Socialism is totalitarian that is laughable. If you read anything by the Strasserite faction you will quickly realize that Hitler objected to an all encompassing state and was radically opposed to nationalization of the economy. Furthermore, if you invest a little effort looking into the relation of DeMann's doctrines and how the NSDAP regime responded to it, you will note a dramatic difference in economic theory. As a decent starting point, I would suggest an article that Bill White at Overthrow put together on Hitler's fiscal policy as a brief overview of the fallacy of the notion that Hitler wanted a nationalized economy. In point of fact, most NS thought before and after Hitler is much more in favour of economic decentralization and corporatist means for interest articulation. In short, FW, the fact is your pre-conceptions about National Socialism are very misinformed and restricted to such an extent that your comments simply are not recognizable by anyone that has actually followed what Third Reich sources have said. Of course, in the end the larger body of National Socialist thought from the Compte De La Tour Du Pin till now also refutes your notions stated in this thread."

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Also, several works by disinterested, mainstream scholars would make the point. I suspect you prefer, however, the "inward" light on the subject, a'la the process mentioned above.

Contrastingly, I have no investment in whether the Third Reich was or wasn't "totalitarian". I do not defend it in such terms, having long ago identified as such the obstructive stupidity of the moralization of forms-of-government. It is the case that Hitler's regime was far less organized/rationalized than merits the term, and this is a fact that is consistent with all that is known of the episode otherwise.

Please examine carefully your commitment to a non-factual representation of this matter.

Sincerely,

Neo :rock:

Frederick William I

2003-05-16 18:34 | User Profile

Originally posted by triskelion@May 16 2003, 07:53 **Hello FW,

I have no doubt that the far-right has almost always courted the religious vote where it was successful, making use of its stance against communism. As to communists courting the religious sector though, I'm surprised you sound like you never heard of "revolution theology", an enormous movement within and/or directed at the Latin-American Catholic Church to subvert it to Marxist ends.

While I strongly object to much of what Franco says and I think his notions on religion are very wrong headed and counter productive I regret to say that modern Christianity is overwhelmingly hostile to any form of Eurocentrism. I am sure that you know that not a single major denomination of any Christian Church in North America or Western Europa thinks that non white immigration should be ended or supports any form racial separatism and have absolutely zero problems with miscegenation . I am also certain that you realize that a great many Christian denominations are very active in promoting third world mass migration to Western countries and that some, especially in the states, are wildly pro Zionist as one can see by the very popular "left behind" books, Billy Graham, the Christian Coalition and other mainstays of the neo-con establishment. The last several time I visited the states (Mid West and South West) I visited plenty of Churches which had Israeli flags in the foyer, heard plenty of clerics whose theology was essentially radically leftist and absolutely none had anything but praise for multi-racialism. A visit to pretty much any Christian bookstore will confirm a hard core multi-racialism and pro-Zionist bias as will watching any preacher on the Talmud Vision.

Of course you are basically right here, although you perhaps like many Europeans fail to fuly understand the enormous diversity of religious groups and viewpoints here. Pick a stance on something, political and otherwise, and you can find it. Specificaly regarding immigratin Chilton Williamson has called the U.S. Roman Catholic Church as "the largest pro-immigration group in the country" As to the stance of Protestants, the influence of dispensationalists is saomething of course we've discussed and debated at some length ( ;) ) on this forum.> **Now I don't want to be seen as being critical of Christianity per say. Rather, I object to what it has become rather then what I see as it's true essence which is Occidental in character. I have zero interest in debating the merits/demerits of any religion as such exchanges are futile at best and often counter productive. Rather, I do feel it is worth while to point out the reality of modern Christian institutional hostility to any form Eurocentrism is a real problem that must be recognized and addressed. Obviously, the Christian bashing of the Hitlerian fetish types is meritless and negative but the problem of how to win over or circumvent the problem I mention is real. ** Absolutely no disagreement there, although I would just inset the caveat that it is difficult over the long term to severe the sociopolitical merits/aspects of religion from its merits in general. That's just the nature of religion, and politics in general.
Political/philosophical questions on a deep level have a way of morphing into religious questions. But unlike the totalitarian mindset (where we are headed towards) the western mindset readily grants religion its autonomy.

You said > "Well I'd never heard that about the SS. I'd always heard that SS officers had to renounce Christianity." That notion is very far from practiced reality although it was in keeping with Himmler's notions. I say this because the leadership of the Flemish, French, Dutch, Spanish, Italian, Belgian and all of the Eastern European Legionnaire and SS divisions were run by open and often ardent Christians. If you are actually interested in that sort of thing (I'm not) I'll find some references to direct you towards. Well sure, these divisions were all volunteer organizations, and the Germans, whose organization wasn't tied directly, in a political manner into the German NSDAP like the the SS in the Third Reich. I'm sure you're right here.

The quote> ** > "But basically I think you're right here to some extent about the vagueness of Hitler on not only religion but everything else ideologically, a basic facet of NS, especially the post "night of the long knives" variety." demonstrates that you have a very shallow knowledge of Hitler, the NSDAP and National Socialism in general just as I know little of Dr. Francis and Burnham's writings. If you even casually look into the ideology of the NSDAP you'll note that it had quite a number of theorists that developed very detailed public policies and philosophies dealing with pretty much every aspect of life. Hitler had dramatically successful fiscal, agricultural, industrial and social welfare policies which were one product of a very long anti liberal tradition in Western philosophy. If you want a quick introduction to these matter I suggest that you read a bit of the Organic schools of Austria and Germany and the very long history of "ethical socialism" and the revisionism that served as the basis of French National Socialism in the Ã¢â¬Ë20s and Ã¢â¬Ë30s and note that it dovetails quite well with pretty much all folkish thought from the 1890s onwards from Moscow to Lisbon. ** Here I'm not sure exactly where you're going with this. You appear on one hand to be trying to differentiate Hitlerism (the post "night of the long knives" NS ideology) from the generically "National Socialist" movement, i.e. the broader rightist movement with what we might call "NS tendencies". On the other hand you do seem to be saying that these tendencies were carried into the Third Reich proper in many ways.

Overall though I have to question your assertion about > number of theorists that developed very detailed public policies and philosophies dealing with pretty much every aspect of life. Hitler had dramatically successful fiscal, agricultural, industrial and social welfare policies which were one product of a very long anti liberal tradition in Western philosophy. Implies an ideological coherence in the Third Reich. A writer (Klemens von Klemperer) summarizes NS as follows.> It has been pointed out that absence of a basic theory is one of the important differences between National Socialism and Bolshevism. (Franz Neumann, Behemoth)While Lenin long before 1917 had committed himself to a definite programme, Hitlre remained as sphinx even after 1933. His "program", the famous "25 points" going back to the year 1920, contained a hodgepodge of ferocious and pious "demands" which were designed to woo the most diverse elements in society.

You go onto say > "I think one of the reasons this discussion on religion seems repetitive is that we haven't dealt with this basic issue. True Linderites/Nazi's with their fuehrerprinzep believe that the true stance of a good Nazi on religion or anything else is whatever der fuehrer wanted it to be, is it not so?"** which is so wrong on so many levels it's hard to know where to start.

I'm not really interested in what Mr. Linder says and as he has been banned from O.D. it seems that he will not be well represented by anyone here. From reading what Linder has to say it seems to me that he has no real interest in National Socialism and he doesn't really want to emulate any Third Reich policies. I can recall him expressing support for capitalism minus globalism and I have never heard him say that he backs any form of corporatism or a folkish economy.... It seems to me that outside of genocidal destruction of non whites Linder is perfectly content with a vaguely paleo-libertarian model of society and he has no interest in authoritarianism per say but simply rejects the current ruling powers because they are agents of our racial destruction.

Possibly it might have developed in different ways. This is what I was talking about re: the pre "night of the long knives" when National Socialism actually contained discrete cohesive factions with coherent ideologies. I was referring to this generally, which you seem to have missed. But overall I am not impressed, as you and NN to some extent seem to be, by the sustantative differences between Hitlerism and oriental despotism or the ideological content of the Third Reich. Its greatest leading light , Alfred Rosenberg, who edited the closet thing the Reich had to an ideological journal, Nationalsozialistische Monatshefte, is hardly an impresive figure to anyone.

While you laugh at NN it is your assertion that National Socialism is totalitarian that is laughable. If you read anything by the Strasserite faction you will quickly realize that Hitler objected to an all encompassing state and was radically opposed to nationalization of the economy. Further more, if you invest a little effort looking into the relation of DeMann's doctrines and how the NSDAP regime responded to it one will note a dramatic difference in economic theory. As a decent starting point I would suggest an article that Bill White at overthrow put together on Hitler's fiscal policy as brief overview of the fallacy of the notion that Hitler wanted a nationalized economy....In point of fact, most NS thought before and after Hitler is much more in favour of economic decentralization and corporatist means for interest articulation.

I have no idea where you are trying to go with this. It appears you criticize the quasi-libertarian Linder, besides for his genocidal policies,also for the lack of a coherent economic alternative to capitalism, i.e. a folkish or corporatist economy. At the same time you seem to be citing Hitler's basic opposition to nationalization as proof of his opposition to "the all encompasing state" and totalitarianism.

In short FW, the fact is your pre-conceptions about National Socialism are very misinformed and restricted to such an extent that your comments simply are not recognizable by anyone that has actually followed what Third Reich sources have said. Of course, in the end the larger body of National Socialist thought from the Compte De La Tour Du Pin till now also refutes your notions stated in this thread.

Well you are dipping into a large number of sources that increasingly seem to me to be rather esoteric, but if I have some misconceptions about the Third Reich, such as its being totalitarian, it appears these conceptions are generally shared by most scholars, including those mainstream authorities with a general reputation for impartiality.

As to my ignoring relationship (and differences) between between National Socialism in general and Hitlerism I am still not sure what your position yourself is on this. This makes it difficult for me to comment myself on this and your positions with much clarity.

NeoNietzsche

2003-05-16 20:15 | User Profile

Originally posted by Frederick William I@May 16 2003, 12:34 **Well you [Trisk.] are dipping into a large number of sources that increasingly seem to me to be rather esoteric, but if I have some misconceptions about the Third Reich, such as its being totalitarian, it appears these conceptions are generally shared by most scholars, including those mainstream authorities with a general reputation for impartiality. **

"Most scholars," confronted with material outside their own specialty, rely upon popular propaganda for their perspectives. 999 out of a thousand college professors will insist that people were mass-gassed at Dachau, despite even the claims of Exterminationists to the contrary. "Mainstream authorities" in the area under discussion have it as I and Trisk have presented it. There is no specialized support for a contrary view, because the case is simply not there. Frankly, FW, I am somewhat shocked at the innocence and ignorance reflected in reliance upon "most scholars" for any but a Judeo-mendacious perspective on the Third Reich. Know you nothing of Revisionist scholarship and the thorough demolition of the Hollywood History of the Second World War?

Please consult Overy's Goering, The Iron Man and Speer's first-hand comments in Inside the Third Reich.

This should get you started toward rectification, courtesy of non-esoteric sources.

Frederick William I

2003-05-16 20:46 | User Profile

Originally posted by NeoNietzsche@May 16 2003, 20:15 **Know you nothing of Revisionist scholarship and the thorough demolition of the Hollywood History of the Second World War?

Please consult Overy's Goering, The Iron Man and Speer's first-hand comments in Inside the Third Reich.

This should get you started toward rectification, courtesy of non-esoteric sources. **

I figured that would get your dander up. If you want to insist that the Third Reich was an oasis of freedom and democratic equality, go right ahead, although I since Germany lost the war (another thing mainstream scholars agree on, do you also wish to dispute that?) I wonder how a good old Nietzschien autocrat could still support such a decadent liberal contaminated state.

I haven't read much of Speer, but I do wonder though, if Hitler was such a good friend and the 3rd Reich such an idylic place, why he would have wanted to knock him off. Speer is hardly an unbiased source though - he as industrial director ran the labor camps in which millions of foreign workers died.

I suppose there's an argument though to be made for the Third Reich as an idylic paradise of freedom. Some communists even make such a case for Stalin's Russia or Pol Pot's Cambodia. I'll look at references I have when I've got time, thouogh I've got a a limited number of windmills I can chase. I doubt you'll even get Franco to go along with you on that though, sheeze, he'll think you're making Nazi's sound like democratic sissified weakilings :lol:

Ruffin

2003-05-16 21:00 | User Profile

NN:

**Frankly, FW, I am somewhat shocked at the innocence and ignorance reflected in reliance upon "most scholars" for any but a Judeo-mendacious perspective on the Third Reich. **

Why? :jest:

Franco

2003-05-16 21:00 | User Profile

Frederick William I --

Well, Nazi Germany was not totalitarian. It was authoritarian. The USSR was totalitarian. Yes, there is a different, as one type of ideology is significantly more mild than the other.

Germany under Hitler was not a complete paradise -- I never claimed that. It had its faults. But the idea that life was crummy under Hitler is bullshit. Germany was under Jewish/Marxist attack for years until Hitler set her right.

If you don't have a big, powerful state to forcefully control your culture, you lose your culture. Hitler understood that. We don't. Instead, we let Mexicrap and Jews into our country for fun and beachball and soda pop...wheeee.

We must remake America into a strong, race-based country, that makes tough decisions based on race.

Frederick William I

2003-05-16 21:14 | User Profile

Originally posted by Franco@May 16 2003, 21:00 ** Frederick William I --

Well, Nazi Germany was not totalitarian. It was authoritarian. The USSR was totalitarian. Yes, there is a different, as one type of ideology is significantly more mild than the other.

Perceptions of totalitarianism vary greatly of course among the population. Even in Russia many people look back on Stalin's rule as a pleasant oasis. And the Third Reich, NR pointed out, was far freeer than the Stalin's USSR, especially for the common man. Terror was used sparingly and the Gestapo was a small fraction of the size of the NKVD.

However the Third Reich in a political/cultural sense was basically totalitarian, in that it tolerated no political dissent, and sought control over all aspects of peoples life, albeit via completely overt methods, such as "coordination". Since this is a political forum that's what concerns me,

**Instead, we let Mexicrap and Jews into our country for fun and beachball and soda pop...wheeee.

There you go again telling us where to bounce our beachballs ;) Bashing beachballs and sodapop - you're never going to win any elections that way. :D

triskelion

2003-05-16 23:04 | User Profile

FW quote: > **"As to communists courting the religious sector though, I'm surprised you sound like you never heard of "revolution theology", an enormous movement within and/or directed at the Latin-American Catholic Church to subvert it to Marxist ends" **

Yes I am fully aware of that tendency which is what my previously stated North and South American exception alluded to.

FW: > "Of course you are basically right here, although you perhaps like many Europeans fail to fully understand the enormous diversity of religious groups and viewpoints here."

I see zero diversity with respect to the dogma of Occidental destruction being a virtue according to all major dominations. It seems you agree with me on that point so hopefully you will consider ways to correct the situation and act upon them.

FW: > "Absolutely no disagreement there, although I would just inset the caveat that it is difficult over the long term to severe the sociopolitical merits/aspects of religion from its merits in general. That's just the nature of religion, and politics in general. Political/philosophical questions on a deep level have a way of morphing into religious questions. But unlike the totalitarian mindset (where we are headed towards) the western mindset readily grants religion its autonomy."

By negate the problem in question I simply mean forming arguments in a that one's theological inclinations that are contrary to Occidental restoration will not prevent one from serving a pro Occidental cause in some fashion. As an example, one could push a folkish economic plan and the societal benefits such ways of life provide along the lines of [url=http://www.devolve.org/]http://www.devolve.org/[/url] and build coalitions.

FW > "Here I'm not sure exactly where you're going with this. You appear on one hand to be trying to differentiate Hitlerism (the post "night of the long knives" NS ideology) from the generically "National Socialist" movement, i.e. the broader rightist movement with what we might call "NS tendencies". On the other hand you do seem to be saying that these tendencies were carried into the Third Reich proper in many ways."

What I was saying is that you are totally wrong about 1) The ideology of the NSDAP being vague as it never was 2) That National Socialism is not and should not be defined by a single regime because the outlook has a long and varied history across numerous nations 3) While National Socialism does have a broader context which transcends right and left the core elements of the weltanschauung have remained consistent across time and nations although the form of state craft and governance deduced from said gestalt varied dramatically.

FW quote: > "Overall though I have to question your assertion about... Implies an ideological coherence in the Third Reich. A writer (Klemens von Klemperer) summarizes NS as follows..."

I basically have no interest in what mainstream academics say about a movement that they are professionally required to demonize as a condition of employment. I provided you with some indications of a very coherent ideological frame work for the Third Reich which obviously has a high degree of internal coherence. The 25 points was a simple manifesto much like the party platforms that are generated in the states every four years. What gave the NSDAP regime coherence was not the 25 points but the fact that they had plenty of theorists whom represented a very long intellectual tradition that was favored and implemented with varying degrees of success in different public policy spheres by the party leadership. The success in those differing public and societal fields varied as one sees in all governments and was naturally hampered by the realities of total war.

FW: > "Well the meaning of words is significant as people use them. "National Socialism" as the ideology of the Third Reich seems to be a pretty well understood if ideologically vague term, and Linder is following accepted usage in his use of the term as you describe the way he uses it."

The term has zero understanding in the states because America does not have any form of an anti parliamentary tradition and the term when used by your socializing institutions is grossly distorted for the benefit of the anti-Occidental establishment. Those Americans that have the desire, opportunity and intellectual honesty to understand National Socialism outside of the contexts of the Third Reich will. My intention is to help encourage some to do so.

"Hitler and the Third Reich appear, even to some extent to you, to be the proper arbiters of the ideological context (or lack of it, as the case may be) of the term "National Socialism" as it developed."

This simply not true. Anyone involved in racial nationalist politics in Europa proper for any length of time (although often excluding the British Isles) that has actually researched the matter no more defines N.S. in terms of Hitler and the NSDAP then American paleocons define conservatism strictly in terms William Howard Taft or Berry Goldwater. I see no reason to think that Linder has any real interest or understanding of National Socialism so he does not merit my attention on the issue at hand at all.

FW quote: > "Possibly it might have developed in different ways. This is what I was talking about re: the pre "night of the long knives" when National Socialism actually contained discrete cohesive factions with coherent ideologies. I was referring to this generally, which you seem to have missed."

This a fundamental misunderstanding in that conflicts of an ideological manner continued as one can see with the disputes between Darre and the regime at large mid way into the war. In any case, as I reject the notion that the NSDAP was the only model of N.S. ideology the point is rather tangential. My concern is very much with the less state centric varieties of the N.S. weltanschauung which were dominate prior to the war in most parts of Europa and remain so today.

FW quote: > **" But overall I am not impressed, as you and NN to some extent seem to be, by the substantiative differences between Hitlerism and oriental despotism or the ideological content of the Third Reich." **

If you had a working knowledge of the theorists of the Third Reich rather then what establishment academics say about it you would not confuse it with oriental despotism.

FW quote: > Its greatest leading light , Alfred Rosenberg, who edited the closet thing the Reich had to an ideological journal, Nationalsozialistische Monatshefte, is hardly an impresive figure to anyone."

In reality, the Third Reich had numerous theoretical organs and a great many theorists of impressive ability. You mention the only one that has gotten any coverage by the establishment so you presume that he was all that existed. An example of far more respected an influential theorist within the regime was Othmar Spann was a if you go to polinco you will see the only article written by him translated into English.

FW quote : > "I have no idea where you are trying to go with this. It appears you criticize the quasi-libertarian Linder, besides for his genocidal policies, also for the lack of a coherent economic alternative to capitalism, i.e. a folkish or corporatist economy. At the same time you seem to be citing Hitler's basic opposition to nationalization as proof of his opposition to "the all encompassing state" and totalitarianism."

I can't see what your confused about. I pointed out that Linder does not seem to me to be interested N.S. doctrine of any kind. I pointed out that Hitler was opposed to nationalization of the economy which demonstrates that he was not a totalitarian and that your attempt to mock NN reflects you miseducation on the matter of what Hitler stood for, what the nature of his regime was and an absence of any wider understanding of what N.S. philosophy was outside the context of the Third Reich which has never been the chief source of inspiration to me (or most modern N.S. adherent) in the first place.

FW quote: > **"Well you are dipping into a large number of sources that increasingly seem to me to be rather esoteric.." **

Everyone I mentioned are very well known in racialist circles in Europa and have been from the 1890s onwards with the exception of the modern figures who are still very well known and respected.

FW quote: > "... but if I have some misconceptions about the Third Reich, such as its being totalitarian, it appears these conceptions are generally shared by most scholars, including those mainstream authorities with a general reputation for impartiality."

Your perceptions in this matter are the product of output from institutions which are violently opposed to not only the Third Reich but any form of racialism. No one in mainstream academics is sympathetic the NSDAP regime and very few attempt impartiality so I see such sources about as neutral as barbers on the matter of hair length. If you wish to understand an ideology you must go to primary sources or, far less desirable and very rare, secondary sources that have a firm grasp of the primary sources that are not restricted by institutional pressures. If you have managed to study such material you are in a position to determine it's internal consistency and external validation. Perhaps you will acquaint your self with such material and if so, the points I have made should be clear.

FW quote: > "As to my ignoring relationship (and differences) between National Socialism in general and Hitlerism I am still not sure what your position yourself is on this. This makes it difficult for me to comment myself on this and your positions with much clarity."

My position is very simple. I am not heavily influenced by the NSDAP ideology save the output of the Organic theorists that supported it. Rather, I find far more to commend with the less statist tendencies within N.S. thinking such as are found within the Iberian, French and Nordic Imperium schools. All of which were heavily influenced by Compte De La Tour Du Pin, Maurras and guildism in general. I refer you to: [url=http://www.vanguardnewsnetwork.com/vnn/showEssay.asp?essayID=1322]http://www.vanguardnewsnetwork.com/vnn/sho...sp?essayID=1322[/url] and www.vanguardnewsnetwork.com/vnn/showEssay.asp?essayID=1293 for an overview of my understanding my ideology in broad stroke.

NeoNietzsche

2003-05-17 01:29 | User Profile

Originally posted by Frederick William I@May 16 2003, 14:46 > Originally posted by NeoNietzsche@May 16 2003, 20:15 Know you nothing of Revisionist scholarship and the thorough demolition of the Hollywood History of the Second World War?

Please consult Overy's Goering, The Iron Man and Speer's first-hand comments in Inside the Third Reich.

This should get you started toward rectification, courtesy of non-esoteric sources. **

Now you are being petulant, FW. Of course I have written nothing of what you impute to me in terms of the Third Reich being an "oasis of freedom and democratic equality" - nor do I consider these elements to be desiderata to be touted on its behalf, even were such the case.

In regard to Speer, no question of "bias" arises, since there is nothing to dispute. You are simply void of the uncontroverted information on the subject. Please acquire an education, as suggested, your earliest.

NeoNietzsche

2003-05-17 01:48 | User Profile

Originally posted by Ruffin@May 16 2003, 15:00 NN: Frankly, FW, I am somewhat shocked at the innocence and ignorance reflected in reliance upon "most scholars" for any but a Judeo-mendacious perspective on the Third Reich. **

Why? :jest:**

Guess I gave FW too much credit. I take it that you are not surprised. Why? :blink:

triskelion

2003-05-18 03:00 | User Profile

Looking at the recent comments written by FW that were not directed towards me I confess that I very surprised and at a lose to explain them. Obviously, no one claimed that the NSDAP regime was an "oasis of freedom and democratic equality" or that Hitler won the war so I assume that he simply was using a bit of humor that passed me by.

Other comments by my good friend FW are a bit harder to explain such as the atrocity propaganda stuff and the idea that Hitler, and the regime at large, had no ideology to speak of. His deference to mainstream authority figures on this matter is pretty odd as well and at odds with his normal trains of thought.

It seems that his comments were simply the product of haste combined with a rough day. Knowing that he is a very bright chap not beholden to current conventions I don't think we should hold the cynicism expressed by NN and Ruffin. We all make such slips from time to time so I think it better to give FW credit beyond what he said.

Frederick William I

2003-05-19 19:25 | User Profile

In general it appears there is a substantial disagreement here between your position and mine. Briefly I think I would be accurate in characterizing your position as that of a "genetric" national socialist, one of those people who would prefer to think that they represent a broader based national socialist "movement" of which the Hitlerites and SS dogmatists participated in, but by no means control, not only in a historical sense but even within to some extent the Third Reich itself.

Typically I have found advocates of this position tend to make a major overestimation of both the abilities and political powers of these "Non-Hitlerite" ideologies ("national socialist" or whatever) and the esteem and position with which these fellows were held by the Third Reich (basically their position in the hierarchy was practically nil, as far as I can tell).

They were used by the Nazi's to some extent initially, (as were other groups such as pro-party Christians) but generally they seem to have been quickly discarded when no longer needed. I see no reason for history not to repeat itself in your case.> Originally posted by triskelion@May 16 2003, 23:04 FW quote: > "Possibly it might have developed in different ways. This is what I was talking about re: the pre "night of the long knives" when National Socialism actually contained discrete cohesive factions with coherent ideologies. I was referring to this generally, which you seem to have missed."**

If you had a working knowledge of the theorists of the Third Reich rather then what establishment academics say about it you would not confuse it with oriental despotism.

It's not just establishment academics that equated the Third Reich with oriental despostism. High ranking Nazi party dissident Alfred Krebs did at his last meeting with Hitler in 1932 (whereupon he was kicked out).

Othmar Spann, a respected theorist for the Third Reich? Here's an account (Klemperer's) of the austrian Spann's machinations and how the Third Reich "welcomed" their respected theorist.

A more pathetic victim of his own confusions was Othmar Spann, the theoritician of the corporate state. Scorning the corporate state which was being built in front of his own eye's in Schushnigg's Austria. he continued to court the Nazi's in both Vienna and Berlin trying to sell his ware, and furthermore established close relations with Otto Strasser in Prague. When the German troops entered Vienna in March 1938 he gathered his family around him and opened a bottle of champagne to honor "the most beautiful day" of his life. But the same day saw him also off to jail. :ph34r:

Valley Forge

2003-05-19 19:35 | User Profile

Tex, Frederick William and others may not see my reasoning as sound, but then they come to the table with a religious background.

I admire the writings of both TD and FWI. But whether or not they see your reasoning as "sound" isn't really relevant. Their brand of conservatism is dead and it is never coming back.

Texas Dissident

2003-05-19 19:52 | User Profile

Originally posted by Valley Forge@May 19 2003, 14:35 ** Their brand of conservatism is dead and it is never coming back. **

Hey, we can always use the same line as the white nationalists and communists: We don't know if it's dead or doesn't work because the true form has never been tried.

Frederick William I

2003-05-19 19:57 | User Profile

Originally posted by Valley Forge@May 19 2003, 19:35 > Tex, Frederick William and others may not see my reasoning as sound, but then they come to the table with a religious background.**

I admire the writings of both TD and FWI. But whether or not they see your reasoning as "sound" isn't really relevant. Their brand of conservatism is dead and it is never coming back.**

Clearly on the decline, yes. But kaput, not yet, in spite of the best efforts of the managerial class, including a few on this forum.

[url=http://www.suba.com/~rcarrier/revcon.html]Why Conservatism Is Now A Defeated Position[/url]

It also cannot be written off until a proper replacement comes along, the failed eforts of its foes, again including some on this forum, being evidence of the difficulty of such.

triskelion

2003-05-19 22:50 | User Profile

Hello FW,

With respect to Spann I will note that I happen to have his collected works translated into Dansk which includes numerous articles he wrote for official NSDAP theory organs between '40-'44 much which came from Lafnitz. It is true that he was arrested in '38 and held for 4 months but the charges against him were later dropped although his son embraced the communist resistance movement and died in Dachau as result . I have seen plenty of bogus biographical information concerning Spann so I will simply take his words about himself as authoritative in such matters and let his articles of the war era speak for himself. If you read some the party journals wrote during the war you will note that his ideas were commented upon favorably by numerous party theorists in official publications and that some of his speeches were given to official partymeetings . Your miseducation on this matter stems from the fact that you quote establishment material and a few obscure ex-party members while ignoring the possibility that they might not be completely forthright in detailing why they were kicked out. Which raises the matter of Christian party members and as I pointed out before were to be found in commanding positions within the SS and dominated most Axis governments that you continue to overlook/gloss over.

As to the nature of the regime itself I simply need to look at the vast numbers of regime sponsored journals and books to note the ideological diversity and depth to see that your view is without basis in historical reality. I also pointed to the fact that a great canon of folkish thinking was indeed a source of influence upon the party leadership as well as allied regimes and I could suggest plenty of fine material from primary and quasi objective sources if you wish.

My views are not generic but represent a school of thought that predates and outlived the DAP while contributing to it while existing largely separate from the regime which I never was very favourable inclined to. I do object to the gross caricature of the regime that you advance as it has no basis in historical realities inspite of it's very considerable flaws and lack of current relevancy. In fact, very little of my thought comes from German sources at all. As you have shown no familiarity with those that took after the examples of the Marquis De La Tour Du Pin, Maurrassian descendants, Laboriola, the Nordic Imperium school, Deat, Mounier, Benda, Jose Manuel Fifth and other exemplars of folkish Iberian syndicalism it seems we are at an impasse which can dealt with only by me presenting some aspects of the ideas I represent rather then debating figures from incompatible foundationalisms.

NeoNietzsche

2003-05-20 02:26 | User Profile

Originally posted by Frederick William I@May 19 2003, 13:57 > Originally posted by Valley Forge@May 19 2003, 19:35 > Tex, Frederick William and others may not see my reasoning as sound, but then they come to the table with a religious background.

I admire the writings of both TD and FWI. But whether or not they see your reasoning as "sound" isn't really relevant. Their brand of conservatism is dead and it is never coming back.**

Clearly on the decline, yes. But kaput, not yet, in spite of the best efforts of the managerial class, including a few on this forum.

[url=http://www.suba.com/~rcarrier/revcon.html]Why Conservatism Is Now A Defeated Position[/url]

It also cannot be written off until a proper replacement comes along, the failed eforts of its foes, again including some on this forum, being evidence of the difficulty of such.**

"(1) Belief in a transcendent order, or body of natural law, which rules society as well as conscience. Political problems, at bottom, are religious and moral problems.... "

Ruffin

2003-05-20 03:05 | User Profile

Originally posted by NeoNietzsche@May 16 2003, 19:48 ** > Originally posted by Ruffin@May 16 2003, 15:00 NN: Frankly, FW, I am somewhat shocked at the innocence and ignorance reflected in reliance upon "most scholars" for any but a Judeo-mendacious perspective on the Third Reich. **

Why? :jest:**

Guess I gave FW too much credit. I take it that you are not surprised. Why? :blink: **

Because he's so conservative. That's not entirely a negative, conservatism is a lot better than some things, but it never strays very far from 'respectability'.

NeoNietzsche

2003-05-20 03:18 | User Profile

Originally posted by Ruffin@May 19 2003, 21:05 > Originally posted by NeoNietzsche@May 16 2003, 19:48 ** > Originally posted by Ruffin@May 16 2003, 15:00 NN: **Frankly, FW, I am somewhat shocked at the innocence and ignorance reflected in reliance upon "most scholars" for any but a Judeo-mendacious perspective on the Third Reich. **

Why? :jest:**

Guess I gave FW too much credit. I take it that you are not surprised. Why? :blink: **

Because he's so conservative. That's not entirely a negative, conservatism is a lot better than some things, but it never strays very far from 'respectability'.**

Is this to say that FW's "respectability" has him turning up his nose at Revisionism? Do we detect a Kosher-Kon aroma?

Ruffin

2003-05-20 03:33 | User Profile

Originally posted by NeoNietzsche@May 19 2003, 21:18 ** > Originally posted by Ruffin@May 19 2003, 21:05 > Originally posted by NeoNietzsche@May 16 2003, 19:48 ** > Originally posted by Ruffin@May 16 2003, 15:00 NN: **Frankly, FW, I am somewhat shocked at the innocence and ignorance reflected in reliance upon "most scholars" for any but a Judeo-mendacious perspective on the Third Reich. **

Why? :jest:**

Guess I gave FW too much credit. I take it that you are not surprised. Why? :blink: **

Because he's so conservative. That's not entirely a negative, conservatism is a lot better than some things, but it never strays very far from 'respectability'.**

Is this to say that FW's "respectability" has him turning up his nose at Revisionism? Do we detect a Kosher-Kon aroma? **

Actually Pat Buchanan comes to mind. Some days he smell like roses, other days ....fish.

Frederick William I

2003-05-20 03:39 | User Profile

Originally posted by NeoNietzsche@May 20 2003, 02:26 > Originally posted by Frederick William I@May 19 2003, 13:57 Clearly on the decline, yes. But kaput, not yet, in spite of the best efforts of the managerial class, including a few on this forum.

[url=http://www.suba.com/~rcarrier/revcon.html]Why Conservatism Is Now A Defeated Position[/url]

It also cannot be written off until a proper replacement comes along, the failed eforts of its foes, again including some on this forum, being evidence of the difficulty of such.**

"(1) Belief in a transcendent order, or body of natural law, which rules society as well as conscience. Political problems, at bottom, are religious and moral problems.... "

Conservatism dies because "political problems" are, at bottom, neither religious nor moral problems - were they of such nature, they would have been resolved long ago. Political problems, unlike various delusional "Conservatisms," never die - because these problems are intrinsically intractable. ** Au contraire the fact that they are moral and religious problems mean, at least to this Christian as with Nietzschien fascists like yourself, that they cannot be resolved to perfection by fallen, sinful, imperfect men, since rightists, unlike leftists, do not believe in the perfectability of man.> **There is no religious, moral, ethical, or legal formula for reconciling the rightly-understood-interests of large populations - it is always to the advantage of an organized minority to exploit a disorganized majority. And the regimentation of a majority in avoidance of suicidal anarchy always requires a cohesive minority. "Justice," equality," "freedom," "liberty" are thus intrinsically transient aspects of political economy, and the attempt at their enduring preservation or restoration once passed is doomed to failure. ** You here are referring to the what I think Francis describes in Burnham as the conflict theory of society, an integral part of fascism. A conservative would agree that "Justice," equality," "freedom," and "liberty" will always be in their practical political existance ephemeral, as the political society reflects the imperfections of men. But he would reject the notion that their ideals can rightly be removed from the body politic. As they are part of the moral nature of man, which he strives for, even though being fallen and imperfectible he can never reach them, so they must always present themselves as ideals to the body politic.

There is no formula for the form of good government - good government is your government, of whatever form. Conservatives are herewith called to awaken to these eternal truths. Anarchist idiots can off themselves.

Hmm. I thought Nietzschiens denied that there was a "good" at all, let alone that there were "eternal truths". One thing they seem to share in common with communists.

Ruffin

2003-05-20 03:47 | User Profile

Pee yew! Scratch Buchanan, get a Horowitz.

Frederick William I

2003-05-20 03:59 | User Profile

Originally posted by Ruffin@May 20 2003, 03:33 Actually Pat Buchanan comes to mind. Some days he smell like roses, other days ....fish.

Well if I sometimes smell like a fish, at least its not one of those bottom feeders like some other fishy characters around here :P

il ragno

2003-05-20 04:03 | User Profile

C'mon, fess up, FW. That's no avatar; it's your drivers' license photo.

Frederick William I

2003-05-20 04:05 | User Profile

Originally posted by NeoNietzsche@May 20 2003, 03:18 Is this to say that FW's "respectability" has him turning up his nose at Revisionism? Do we detect a Kosher-Kon aroma?

Coming from someone who sounds exactly like Bill Kristol talking about George W. Bush's admiration for Jesus Christ.

Frederick William I

2003-05-20 04:07 | User Profile

Originally posted by il ragno@May 20 2003, 04:03 ** C'mon, fess up, FW. That's no avatar; it's your drivers' license photo. **

You know, we really do need to have an avatars thread like at Polinco don't we? :D

BTW, where's yours? :o

Ruffin

2003-05-20 04:16 | User Profile

Here's an example (brought to my attention by VNN, btw :heart: ):

**May 19, 2003 issue Copyright ÃÂ© 2003 The American Conservative

Colin Powell, Conservative?

by Pat Buchanan

The Cold War lasted from the fall of Berlin in 1945 to the fall of the Berlin Wall in 1989. And the two most successful presidents of that era were the only presidents to serve two full terms: Eisenhower and Reagan.

Truman was taken in by Stalin at Potsdam and left us the Ã¢â¬Åno-win warÃ¢â¬Â in Korea. JFKÃ¢â¬â¢s tenure was too brief. LBJ was broken by Vietnam, Nixon by Watergate. Ford embraced dÃÂ©tente and presided over the loss of Southeast Asia. Carter is remembered for kissing Brezhnev and failing to end the Iranian hostage crisis.

What was the secret of the success of Eisenhower and Reagan? Both were conservatives. Both were prudent and patient. Both knew time was on AmericaÃ¢â¬â¢s side. Both understood the truth of what A.J.P. Taylor wrote: Ã¢â¬ÅThis is an odd inescapable dilemma. Though the object of being a Great Power is to be able to fight a great war, the only way of remaining a Great Power is not to fight one, or to fight it on a limited scale.Ã¢â¬Â

Looking at the deaths of all the empires that entered the 20th centuryÃ¢â¬âthe German, Austro-Hungarian, Ottoman, French, British, Japanese, RussianÃ¢â¬âall perished because they fought one war too many. Imperial overstretch killed them all. The United States is the lone superpower left because we were the last to enter the world wars, and, so, suffered least.

Eisenhower saw his first duty as wrapping up Korea even if it meant a cease-fire at the DMZ. He refused to bomb Indochina to save the French at Dienbienphu. When Britain, France, and Israel invaded Suez, Ike ordered them out. When the Hungarians heroically rebelled, Ike did not intervene. Who ruled Budapest did not threaten American vital interests. It was hard-headed and cold-blooded, but who is to say now Ike was wrong? And after Castro showed his colors, Ike would have gone in, and there would have no loss of nerve at any Bay of Pigs.

During his tenure, defense rose to nine percent of GDP as Ike built up the bomber fleets and missile forces to deter any Soviet attack. He believed in Peace through Strength, not peace through permanent war.

Reagan began a military buildup Moscow could not match and supported anti-Soviet rebels in Angola, Nicaragua, and Afghanistan. But like Ike, Reagan never sent a U.S. army to fight a foreign war. Grenada was a walkover that swept a Soviet pawn off the board. His great mistake, putting Marines in Lebanon in the midst of a religious-ethnic civil war, proved costly. But Reagan had the courage to admit a mistake. He pulled out and never went back.

But for not invading Lebanon and smashing the Islamic militias who blew up the Marine barracks, Reagan is today condemned by the same neoconservatives who see Colin Powell as the principal impediment to their Pax Americana. They believe the way to win the War on Terror is to widen it into Ã¢â¬ÅWorld World IVÃ¢â¬Â and overthrow all the undemocratic regimes of the Middle East.

This issue is at the heart of the struggle over U.S. foreign policy. Is interventionism the way to defeat Islamic extremism? Or is intervention and its concomitant, empire, more likely to spread the infection? In Iraq, final returns are not in, but the outbreak of anti-Americanism suggests that we may have created our own Lebanon.

The presence of Powell, a realist in the War Cabinet, is today the best guarantee the president will not launch the kind of utopian crusade that brought down all the other Great Powers. For while the neocons were doing graduate work at Harvard and Yale, Powell was doing his in Vietnam. That is the difference. The Powell Doctrine that came out of VietnamÃ¢â¬âDonÃ¢â¬â¢t commit the army until you commit the nation!Ã¢â¬âis the quintessence of conservatism. PowellÃ¢â¬â¢s belief that war is a last resort, but that if we must fight, we go in with overwhelming force, win, and get out, is also faithful to U.S. traditions from Washington to Wilson.

Looking back, it was the conservatives who kept us out of the bloodletting in France until 1918, out of the League of Nations entanglements and commitments, out of World War II until Hitler turned on Stalin and the bloody partners tore each other to pieces long before the Americans arrived on the coast of France in 1944.

Looking ahead, there is no threat on the horizon to justify World War IV. Not China, which is contained by her neighbors. Not Islamic fundamentalism, which has failed everywhere it has been tried, from Afghanistan to Iran to Sudan. As in the Cold War, with patience and prudence, America can outlast them all. And in the struggle to prevent the rise of an empire that will surely collapse in blood, Colin Powell is true conservatismÃ¢â¬â¢s ally.

[url=http://amconmag.com/05_19_03/buchanan.html]http://amconmag.com/05_19_03/buchanan.html[/url] **

:clown:

NeoNietzsche

2003-05-20 04:18 | User Profile

> Conservatism dies because "political problems" are, at bottom, neither religious nor moral problems - were they of such nature, they would have been resolved long ago. Political problems, unlike various delusional "Conservatisms," never die - because these problems are intrinsically intractable. **

Au contraire the fact that they are moral and religious problems mean, at least to this Christian as with Nietzschien fascists like yourself, that they cannot be resolved to perfection by fallen, sinful, imperfect men, since rightists, unlike leftists, do not believe in the perfectability of man.**

You misunderstand. "Imperfection" has nothing to so with it - because one cannot formulate "perfection" such as to compare the extant situation with it. There is no consistent "Theory of Justice" - no indisputable rules for behavior above the simplicities imposed upon the ranks of the population against which to measure virtue. Realization of this insurmountable challenge to the proper conduct of one's life and of one's polity is the key to the understanding of human history and the basis of intellectual maturity.

> There is no religious, moral, ethical, or legal formula for reconciling the rightly-understood-interests of large populations - it is always to the advantage of an organized minority to exploit a disorganized majority. And the regimentation of a majority in avoidance of suicidal anarchy always requires a cohesive minority. "Justice," "equality," "freedom," "liberty" are thus intrinsically transient aspects of political economy, and the attempt at their enduring preservation or restoration once passed is doomed to failure. **

You here are referring to the what I think Francis describes in Burnham as the conflict theory of society, an integral part of fascism. A conservative would agree that "Justice," equality," "freedom," and "liberty" will always be in their practical political existance ephemeral, as the political society reflects the imperfections of men. But he would reject the notion that their ideals can rightly be removed from the body politic. As they are part of the moral nature of man, which he strives for, even though being fallen and imperfectible he can never reach them, so they must always present themselves as ideals to the body politic.**

Such virtue in the common man is fatuity in the elite. Again, "imperfection" is not the problem.

> There is no formula for the form of good government - good government is your government, of whatever form. Conservatives are herewith called to awaken to these eternal truths. Anarchist idiots can off themselves.**

Hmm. I thought Nietzschiens denied that there was a "good" at all, let alone that there were "eternal truths". One thing they seem to share in common with communists.**

More problems with our education here. Nietzscheans very much affirm a "good": master morality, the "supreme rights of the few," the cultured existence of aristocracy, the tyrannies to be led by "good Europeans," "conceiving reality as it is." Nietzscheanism is pre-modernism, not post-modernism.

Frederick William I

2003-05-20 04:59 | User Profile

Originally posted by triskelion@May 19 2003, 22:50 **Hello FW,

I'll try to look up your sources sometime. I admit deciphering the inner machinations of the Third Reich can be a daunting task for a American without access to much access to direct translations of regime and other direct German sources like you seem to have. You have to rely on secondary sources, and read between the lines somewhat, when they are ideologically biased to a degree. Generally it is my impression that they don't really lie, they just don't tell the whole truth to a greater or lessor extent. And almost all your secondary materials are going to be mainstreamers when it comes to people like Spann or the Nazi dissidents. I'd guess most VNN types think Spann is a mispelling for the meat mix that fed our troops during the war. :sm:

Frederick William I

2003-05-20 05:06 | User Profile

Originally posted by NeoNietzsche@May 20 2003, 04:18 ** More problems with our education here. Nietzscheans very much affirm a "good": master morality, the "supreme rights of the few," the cultured existence of aristocracy, the tyrannies to be led by "good Europeans," "conceiving reality as it is." Nietzscheanism is pre-modernism, not post-modernism. **

Nietzsche is by all accounts a very difficult exigesis. You're free to write your own book, or failing that suggest a good commentary for me to read. I bet my posts will then really impress the "FOD" VNN types. :rolleyes:

golfball

2003-05-22 02:38 | User Profile

Inspiring reading!

As for how National Socialism will help our nation and the direction it it currently going, yes, all help is needed. Even help from the Klan.

Our future is not looking good folks, that is a fact. The problem is Jews in our government. Yes, they need to be removed from all positions of authority, lawmaking and power.

This is also accomplished by reaching out to Sam bible thumper and Kathy churchgoer with Christian truth. I know that members of the Klan are doing this everyday with our Christian witness.

When I or other members witness the truth to a group of Christians, their "pastor" or preacher runs up and calls the KJV 1611 a book of lies, yet have the same bible in their church! The damned deceivers are TWO-FACED!!! :thd:

This is what we are up against concerning bringing facts to the attention of Kathy churchgoer and Sam bible thumper as to what is inside the Holy Bible that they carry with them into church.

Hey! Satan and his seed control the churches! That is why we live in the church age of the APOSTATE church. For some of those that read Revelation, we are able to share similar understanding concerning the reading located at : Revelation 3

He that hath an ear, let him hear what the Spirit saith unto the churches.

Now it is generally understood that these scriptures refer to 7 distinct church AGES. The church age of Philadelphia ended around the late 1950's to the early 1960's. That is when the Protestant Christian church turned away from a Holy God of Segregation and turned to a Strange god of integration.

And to the angel of the church in Philadelphia write; These things saith he that is holy, he that is true, he that hath the key of David, he that openeth, and no man shutteth; and shutteth, and no man openeth;
I know thy works: behold, I have set before thee an open door, and no man can shut it: for thou hast a little strength, and hast kept my word, and hast not denied my name.
** Behold, I will make them of the synagogue of Satan, which say they are [color=blue]Jews[/color], and are not, but do lie; behold, I will make them to come and worship before thy feet, and to know that I have loved thee.**

[color=red][This refers to the Judeo-Christians we know infest the Protestant and Catholic churches today. - gb][/color]

Because thou hast kept the word of my patience, I also will keep thee from the hour of temptation, which shall come upon all the world, to try them that dwell upon the earth.
Behold, I come quickly: hold that fast which thou hast, that no man take thy crown.
Him that overcometh will I make a pillar in the temple of my God, and he shall go no more out: and I will write upon him the name of my God, and the name of the city of my God, which is new Jerusalem, which cometh down out of heaven from my God: and I will write upon him my new name.

Rural churches in the South, up until the early 1970's, still embraced our Holy God of Segregation. I remember as a child how older pastor's were forced away from the congregations they led if they did not change their message from segregation and conviction-[color=red][ knowing when you are doing wrong ][/color] to LOVE and SALVATION. This happened in many country churches here in Arkansas. When the Christian masses were led away by smooth talking deceivers, they were led away from the Holy God of Segregation. BUT THE CHRISTIAN MASSES CHOSE TO FOLLOW THE DECEIVERS! We now live in the Laodicean church age.

He that hath an ear, let him hear what the Spirit saith unto the churches.
And unto the angel of the church of the Laodiceans write; these things saith the Amen, the faithful and true witness, the beginning of the creation of God;
I know thy works, that thou art neither cold nor hot: I would thou wert cold or hot.

[color=red][ God does not accept fence sitters, middle of the roaders. God wants us to be HOTTER than Hell, or Stone Cold! ][/color]

So then because thou art lukewarm, and neither cold nor hot, I will spue thee out of my mouth.
Because thou sayest, I am rich, and increased with goods, and have need of nothing; and knowest not that thou art wretched, and miserable, and poor, and blind, and naked:
I counsel thee to buy of me gold tried in the fire, that thou mayest be rich; and white raiment, that thou mayest be clothed, and that the shame of thy nakedness do not appear; and anoint thine eyes with eyesalve, that thou mayest see.
As many as I love, I rebuke and chasten: be zealous therefore, and repent.
Behold, I stand at the door, and knock: if any man hear my voice, and open the door, I will come in to him, and will sup with him, and he with me.
To him that overcometh will I grant to sit with me in my throne, even as I also overcame, and am set down with my Father in his throne.
He that hath an ear, let him hear what the Spirit saith unto the churches.

There are those of us that realize what is transpiring in the churches today, and we no longer frequent those places of racemixing or homosexuals. Those churches really are filthy places. There is no Holy God of Segregation there. If you troubled yourself to visit such a place you would feel the sickening presence of the Strange god of integration, the god of this world, the devil.

It is a spiritual fight right now and it is heating up. The only way we can have a chance to win those churches back to the proper path is by prayer and truth when we witness to other Christians. It is awesome to see a head of a local church slink back and wither under the conviction of God's Holy Word. You can see Satan come through the "preacher" as he calls God's Holy Word a book of lies while he is in retreat.

That helps break through the Satanic spell that has been cast upon the congregation of the church in question. When Kathy churchgoer and Sam bible thumper lose the Apostate preacher that they followed as their spiritual leader, they realize that they have been duped and that is when a Christian witness must be in season as well as out of season. That is when we can reach Kathy churchgoer and Sam bible thumper, because the fog has been lifted!

In order to get this country directed to the right course, our nation will need The Klan as well as other White Nationalist groups. We need racially aware and awakened Christians to identify the Jew for what it really is and harness their vote to get those parasites out of public political office.

We are making progress.... slowly. It is much better than none at all. B)

Julian

2005-02-16 03:24 | User Profile

Hello Gentlemen, I registed some time ago, and after a lengthy sojourn, have been reading some old posts. Can someone please explain to me what relevance Xianity (as opposed to Paganism, our true religion) has to the West? Especially given the rather blatant anti-semitism evidenced on these pages. I am genuinely confused as to how anyone can subscribe to such a clearly absurd religion.

Franco

2005-02-16 04:32 | User Profile

[QUOTE=Julian]Hello Gentlemen, I registed some time ago, and after a lengthy sojourn, have been reading some old posts. Can someone please explain to me what relevance Xianity (as opposed to Paganism, our true religion) has to the West? Especially given the rather blatant anti-semitism evidenced on these pages. I am genuinely confused as to how anyone can subscribe to such a clearly absurd religion.[/QUOTE]

Oooo - talk like [I]that [/I] will get a lot of people at OD pretty mad [not me, since I'm not religious].

Christianity's defenders will argue that the West was molded and shaped by it. Which is true, if one refers to the more-modern West.

But, as I have said before, today's "mainstream" Christianity [read: Judeo-Christianity/Zionism] is hopeless, and it is actually [I]weakening [/I] the West with its "everyone is the same regardless of race" baloney, which Karl Marx would be proud of.

Ponce

2005-02-16 04:43 | User Profile

Well Julian everyone has a right to a religion as long as they don't try to shove up my nose or insult anyone by using religion as an excuse as the Jews like to do,[U] "blatant anti-semitism"?[[/U]B] Are you Jewish by any chance? [/B]

By the way what you call "anti-semitism" is really anti-Zionism and when I use the word "Jew" I am really saying Zionists.

After all I do like Semites Jews and Semites Arabs for they are both the same people.

As you should know the Zionists are the Khazards who went from Central Asia to Northern Europe and like to hide behind the name of "Jew".

Angler

2005-02-16 06:10 | User Profile

I'll just give you my two cents. I think all religions are silly, including Paganism. Judaism, Christianity, Paganism, Hinduism -- all those religions and their gods were invented by men for the purpose of controlling others, for explaining what was once unexplainable, and for coping with the very natural human fear of death and sorrow over departed loved ones.

I still believe that a God might exist, but if He does, then I see no sign of Him interacting with humans in any way.

Is religion harmful? I'd say yes and no. Religion clearly causes many people to waste their lives, to needlessly stress over things they've been told they should or shouldn't do, and, worst of all, to be afraid to think for themselves. Most religions, especially Christianity and Islam, retain their followings more through fear than anything else. Only a certain kind of person is capable of breaking out of this trap: someone who is determined to face the world as it really is, not as he wants it to be or as others tell him to see it. It's necessary to actually love truth more than you fear hell.

On the other hand, it's a powerful "comfort blankey" for most people to believe that they'll remain alive after death and see departed loved ones, and this belief can lead to longer, happier lives. Ignorance truly is bliss for most people. Not only that, but belief in an afterlife can lead to selfless acts of bravery that benefit one's kin and country. I'm certain that part of the reason the Vikings were such brave and fierce fighters was their belief that they'd end up in Valhalla if they died in battle. The raw courage exhibited by Muslim suicide bombers also owes something to their radical (but silly) beliefs.

If you don't mind my asking, Julian: What Pagan gods do you believe in? And why do you think they exist?

vytis

2005-02-16 12:15 | User Profile

Angler with all due respect, and w/o boring you and this forum with my personal testimony...I will tell you with all the sincerity and good will that I can put into this post....God does exist and interacts with humans. :thumbsup:

Julian

2005-02-17 00:18 | User Profile

Thanks, gents. I should know better than to bring up religion, but to endorse something which has "shaped" the world with: the Enlightenment, the Revolutionary Age, Capitalism, Liberal Democracy, Humanism, Feminism, etc...every other asinine or dangerous idea, is mind-bogglilng. I believe it is at the root of every problem. It is important to work around such differences, ultimately. Hopefully, these maniac desert religions will die off on their own. I am not Jewish, but some of my best friends are. (ha ha) Point well taken about Zionism. I have not read Koestler's bk. Has his thesis on the Khazars been successfully disproved by anyone? I do not believe in gods the way Xtians do: some fellow up in the sky who will spank me if I am naughty. I believe in certain forces. This, I believe is also the position of De Benoist.

Texas Dissident

2005-02-17 00:45 | User Profile

[QUOTE=Julian]...but to endorse something which has "shaped" the world with: the Enlightenment, the Revolutionary Age, Capitalism, Liberal Democracy, Humanism, Feminism, etc...every other asinine or dangerous idea...

Post hoc ergo propter hoc?

I do not believe in gods the way Xtians do: some fellow up in the sky who will spank me if I am naughty. I believe in certain forces. [/QUOTE]

Then you'll believe in anything, Yoda. :starwars:

Julian

2005-02-17 00:56 | User Profile

Touche, sir. It is not my intention to mock or disparage anyone's religious convictions. As much as I disagree with them, it is good that they are around. I am not totally opposed to Xianity. I was raised Catholic myself, and have considered it seriously as a traditional path. I am very much in line with the thinking of Evola on this. I am very interested in fact in people like Bonald and De Maistre. I am curious as to the makeup of this forum: Catholic, Protestant, other?

Okiereddust

2005-02-17 05:41 | User Profile

[QUOTE=Julian]I am curious as to the makeup of this forum: Catholic, Protestant, other?[/QUOTE]A mixture of course, we aren't sectarian. Pretty much everyone is welcome here except dogmatically and militantly intolerant atheists/Nazi's. But you might check the origin of the emblem in the upper left hand corner for our official ideology, re:

[URL=http://www.originaldissent.com/forums/showpost.php?p=54897&postcount=1]This Is Christian Nationalism[/URL]

Texas Dissident

2005-02-17 07:30 | User Profile

[QUOTE=Julian]It is not my intention to mock or disparage anyone's religious convictions.

That's good to hear, Julian. At least you're still around replying to the replies to your posts. In my opinion it's the hit and run posters that are much more irksome.

I am curious as to the makeup of this forum: Catholic, Protestant, other?[/QUOTE]

Actually, we have a pretty good mix of a number of hard-headed representatives from each. One common thread I've noticed is a devotion to the traditionalist element within each of our respective confessions. It makes for some pretty good discussions from time to time, though I guess many are uncomfortable talking about such things. Pound for pound, I think we have as much theological conversation here as any political-oriented board I know of. I'm not sure why that is, but one thing that never ceases to amaze me is the number of different belief-systems that have come on to challenge and/or attack us throughout the years: Atheists, pagans, pantheists, Dualists, Judaizers, muslims, agnostics, gnostics, you name it and we've probably discussed it at some point or another. To my mind that just shows how much religious beliefs still influence so much of who we are, what we do and our opinions on everything under the sun. And since that is the case, we need to have a place to discuss all of it on civil terms. I like to think OD is that kind of place.

Walter Yannis

2005-02-21 16:51 | User Profile

[QUOTE=Texas Dissident][B]Pound for pound[/B], I think we have as much theological conversation here as any political-oriented board I know of. [/QUOTE]

Not to brag, but I think I surpass all here in terms of pure physical tonnage.

messianicdruid

2005-03-17 11:39 | User Profile

[QUOTE=Walter E Kurtz]Christianity is irreconcilable with National Socialism. They are mutually exclusive. Christianity is fundamentally Judaic...and is a universal faith system. I do not have a strong opinion on this...I just think that it is important to recognize that the foundations of National Socialism are dogmatically anti-Christian.[/QUOTE] You are confusing Christianity with Judeo-christianity. Judeo-christianity is that which is practiced by the neo-cons at the insistence of their zionist handlers. The religion of Moses and Jesus is practically unknown among professing christians.

Stuka

2005-03-17 14:03 | User Profile

[QUOTE=Julian]I am very interested in fact in people like Bonald and De Maistre. [/QUOTE]If so, you might want to check out Juan Donoso Cortes, a 19th C. Spanish Catholic counter-revolutionary thinker akin to Bonald and Maistre. I have a slim volume of his selected writings sitting in front of me now.

CornCod

2005-03-24 01:56 | User Profile

Some of the pagan types, though certainly not all, tend to see Christianity as as a religion that is, by it very nature, weak on the Jewish issue. This is an error. Although individual professing Christians have been allies of the Jews for pragmatic reasons for a long time (like Cromwell, for example), a specific Jewish-friendly "Christian" theology really only began to rear its ugly head in the middle of the 19th Century. Christian Zionism and other such absurdities are all pretty new as far as the long-term history of the faith goes. It is quite possible that these distortions in Christian theology are a temporary abberation.