← Autodidact Archive · Original Dissent · Conservative
Thread ID: 7543 | Posts: 111 | Started: 2003-06-22
2003-06-22 03:05 | User Profile
I think the term "White Nationalism" is more likely to appeal to the White masses than the term "National Socialism."
Regards,
Ares
2003-06-22 04:50 | User Profile
I do not intend to be offensive so please do not view my comments as an insult as such is not my desire. However, to be brutally honest you clearly don't have any understanding of what the NSDAP regime was all about and your comments about that regime are removed from historical fact and context. Of course I understand that as an American it is not easy to get worth while information on the subject but I will be happy to direct you towards material on that subject with a basis in reality if you like. Like almost all Americans you have no real understanding about European revolutionary nationalism and the numerous types of National Socialist currents that exist but such a situation is perfectly understandable.
What follows are two article I wrote that should introduce you to the topic of National Socialism outside of the NSDAP regime and some practical outlines of what constitutes a valid, positive and viable perspective of Eurocentrism as seen by a sizable segment of current racialists in Europa proper. I will of course be interested in any thoughtful comments you may have.
The Nature of N.S. and the Dangers of Compromise By Vibeke ÃËstergaard Within nationalist circles a fair amount of effort on lambasting the lunatic fringe and condemning national socialism in the hopes of widening the appeal of nationalism. Perhaps it would be fruitful to step back from the rote condemnations and ritualistic appeals to moderation and address the matter of what exactly National Socialism entails, what are the essential elements of Eurocentrism, realistically appraise what the NSDAP regime stood for as well as consider the threats and opportunities inherent compromise with a destructive Zeitgeist.
As a starting point it seems worth stating that to a significant extent all Eurocentrics are historically inclined and prone to nostalgia and that such tendencies can be, but often are not, positive in that they at least implicitly recognize that our identities are the product of our unique histories and the sacrifices and visions of our ancestors. In this respect we differ from the proponents of the anti - culture and Occidental destruction in that we do not subscribe to utopian constructs and societal formations that have never existed nor do we speak of remaking humanity to conform with an ahistorical ideal via social engineering as the Fabians, Anarchists, various flavors of Bolsheviks, Social Democrats and others that reject folkish conceptions of humanity do. As Eurocentrics we recognize, or at least we aught to, that our existence has as it's meaning the perpetuation and advancement of the genetic and cultural inheritance bequeathed to us by our ancestors whose communal environment was an expression of the majesty of providence.
As a result, we should realize the folly of taking inspiration from that which never was as is promoted by the likes of Saint-Simon, Fourier or Godwin as well as that which can not be (ex. the new Soviet Man) and that which requires the destruction of that which is of proven value for the transitory and nebulous as the proponents of the "tan everyman" would have us do. When looking to bygone eras we see individuals and societies that prevented our enslavement and destruction and even cultural renewal and provided the means for salubrious living. Any era, society or individual that one could reasonably described as providing such conditions deserves to be considered as a worth while source of inspiration as European man is currently facing extinction and our cultures are nothing more then faded remnants of our ancestor's glories strangled by the miasma of the anti culture and demographic decline. It is my contention that the NSDAP era can be accurately described in such terms and represents the most recent example of Eurocentric resurgence. As to the NSDAP era it is and will remain an issue for us to confront because every socializing institution of any significance in the Western world is controlled by interests that wish to destroy Europa and raise the specter Hitler a la Hollywood as a means of demonizing any manifestation of Eurocentrism. In order for one to successfully confront this perennial problem we must have a basic understanding of what the NSDAP regime actually did and address it's relevance to the struggle today without recourse to the hoary demonology of establishment propaganda nor the equally unfounded counter myth promoted by those nostalgic for an era they are ignorant of.
While a great many theorists have written magnus opuses detailing the short comings of multi-racialism, the virtues of folkish societies, the mechanisms of racial decline and prescriptions for national restoration very few have ever made a viable bid to have such notions put into action let alone had the opportunity to put theory into practice on a societal scale. This is not to say that ideas not enacted on a societal scale are some how lacking utility but it is to say that such notions should be judged within the context of that which has been implemented or at least tried on a large scale.
We should give credit where due and that means that accomplishments should be recognized even when the motive force has been both demonized and reasonably critiqued. In the case of the NSDAP regime it should be recognized that it was a regime rather then a mere think tank, website, publication, sect, party, person or unfulfilled revolutionary faction which simply can't be said of a great many NR/RC/NS manifestations that I and others of this list find more palatable. The Hitlerian regime succeeded in staving off the immediate destruction of Germany and successfully assisted numerous other forces of Eurocentric national insurgence in doing the same as well as making a great many other credible efforts else where.
Obviously, such efforts were done because they served the interest of the regime rather then some fully noble cause of pan European salvation as we all would like yet the consequences of not doing so would have had very grave indeed for a great many nations of Europa. While some here doubtlessly prefer other rightist regimes of similar vintage and rightly point out the substantial differences they held with the German model and that Axis alliances were often marriages of convenience the fact remains that they would have had more dubious prospects were it not for the efforts of NS Germany to create a pan European legion opposed to both Jewish Social Democracy/cultural Bolshevism in the West and Jewish Bolshevist totalitarianism in the East. If General Victor Suvorov's writings (see: Journal of the Royal Institute for Defense Studies June ââ¬Ë85 ) are accurate Western Europa would have fallen to the tender mercies of Stalin had not Hitler invaded the USSR in ââ¬Ë41 placing Hitler into a very small group of leaders that can legitimately claim to have staved off the military conquest of the West which in and of itself makes the regime worthy of recognition and qualified admiration in some respects.
It is also undeniable that while one hears much talk about forging an economic path that is neither "right nor left" NS Germany under the economic genius of Hjalmar Schacht underwent one of the greatest economic recoveries of history along with some note worthy progress towards social justice. One of course does here comments to the contrary from Strasserites whom reject racialism, praise Bolshevik economics, fawn over Mao and Che while quoting obvious forgeries as unadulterated historical truth as well as various theorists unencumbered by the realities of governance. All of which is to say that while the NSDAP model was obviously not intended for export nor in accordance with the vision of National Socialism I adhere to it does not deserve to be summarily discounted as mere capitalism as the Bolsheviks and idealists within our ranks often due with unqualified certitude.
While I often have commented upon my fondness for agrarianism and the examples, in theory, advanced by French, Iberian and Nordic proponents of guild/corporatist/sydicalist arrangements as a way of advancing an Organic society Walther Darre made it a reality until war time conditions combined with personal conflicts and bureaucratic struggles forced his vision to give way to the pragmatic methods of Herbert Backe . That I find my self more in tune with Maurras, Marquise De La Tour Du Pin, Antonio Sardindha, Pedro Teotonio Pereira and Roloa Preto and some of my own lansmen then the Third Reich simply means that I am forced to admit that Hitler, inspite of numerous and serious flaws with his regime, had gotten closer to making nationalist agrarianism a reality then did the rightist Iberian regimes inspite of their longer life and domestic tranquility.
While plenty of nationalist regimes forcibly beat back the forces of moral degeneration and should be commended for doing so the example of a folkish disposition being instilled by the new regime resulting in a cultural renewal of major proportion is something that very few in contemporary nationalist circles can lay claim to their preferred theorist or find replicated within the modern era let alone living memory. One can also point to the vast out pouring of high quality life, affirming art along with fantastic technological advancements in countless areas as yet another indication of an inherent value of the NSDAP regime. The upshot of all of this is that the whole sale denunciations the NSDAP regime and anyone that expresses an interest in what it offered are ill founded.
Also ill founded are the notions that the regime can serve as a basis for contemporary activism and ideology. I say this not because of the atrocity propaganda pushed by the establishment but rather because of inherent problems with the model itself. As Irmin so truthfully pointed out: "Hitler defined his own national socialism as a uniquely German movement: ââ¬ËThe National Socialist doctrine, as I have always proclaimed, is not for export. It was conceived for the German people.' (Hitler-Bormann Documents, Feb. 21, 1945) 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 Führer 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."
On a fundamental level one can point out the obvious fact that given the NSDAP model depended upon strong autocratic figures that simply don't have any modern equivalents nor the societal conditions in which they could thrive if they did exist meaning that slavish adherence to the Hitlerian model is simply not an option anywhere in the Occident. Further more, inspite of the abyssic hate displayed by the Hollywood Nazis the truth remains that the ideology of the NSDAP was a compressive world view used to address the problems of the day in all societal spheres. I have yet to hear any concrete recommendations on how one can make the legal, economic and societal prescriptions of the old regime valid today by even genuinely wise chaps like Colin Jordan.
In moral respects a sensible person can easily reject the inane propaganda that keeps making the rounds (ex. Hitler was Jewish, a pervert, a Satanist, junkie etc. or that NS is nothing more then racist communism) by those that wish to remove racialism from nationalism or pretend that theocratic pronouncements or Evolian notions that occult warfare are the basis for National Renewal as fifth columnists seeking to destroy what opportunities we do have for salvaging the West. Nonetheless, plenty of negative aspects exist that give reasonable people serious concerns about the NSDAP model. I refer to: the barbarous conduct of Einsatzgruppen, the wide spread use of slave labor (yes I realize it was needed to keep the war effort going), having a state be defined by a single leader causing succession problems, a severe authoritarianism that simply can't be held up as an inspiration in any but the most desperate of circumstances and an outlook that was Pan - European only because of war time demands rather then by design. I deem these flaws serious enough to warrant the avoidance of using the NSDAP era as a model
When genuine nationalists (not theocratic cranks, Strasserites and "Traditionalists") condemn the Hitlerian movement it most often has as it's basis a rejection of the costumed fetish types that one sees so much of in the American scene. While such people are in fact a great liability to the struggle they also are grossly ignorant of NSDAP ideology and public policy that they simply do not deserve to be lumped in with honorable men like Mr. Jordan and the members of the old WUNS activists. The worst aspect of all of this is that after 60 years or so omni - present vilification of NS Germany and the suppression of genuine history and texts a great many of those attracted to the Hitler regime will be sociopaths incapable of productive activism or a genuine understanding of what the regime actually aspired to. As a result, I view the promotion of Third Reich style National Socialism to be counter productive to such an extent that the minuscule number of sincere adherents that the school has are totally neutralized by the misfits that riddle such circles.
When what I have said is taken in total the question arises as to how the Hitler matter should be handled. We can not ignore it as the propasphere will continue to raise the specter of Hitler = satanic evil & stupidity = any fundamental rejection of multi - racialism. I for one can't trust anyone that feels the need to make ritualistic condemnations of the Third Reich while repeating widely accepted falsehoods as such notions it seems almost always lead to avoiding addressing the Jewish question or pretending that race is somehow less then critical to the future of Europa. In the end, the only way that I can advise the matter be handled in good conscious is to simply state we should state clearly that our efforts to prevent the destruction of our kinfolk and the restoration of our heritage and historic obligations to blood and soil do not entail mimicry of any past regime. That we instead stand for the eternal values of folkish restoration, self determination and separatism for all races and an adherence to public policies that preserve our uniqueness as a biologic and cultural entity and nothing more.
A matter that can not be separated from the issue at hand is the gross distortion of the term National Socialism. While one expects Americans to view the term as synonymous with the Third Reich as they lack an ingenious variant, the language skills and cultural back ground to know better I have become distressed by seeing Europeans do the same. It should be common knowledge to everyone in Eurocentric circles that National Socialism has had numerous manifestations from the 1880s onward and that it simply makes no sense what so ever to limit it a system of governance found in Germany from ââ¬Ë33 to ââ¬Ë45.
Defining in a broad sense what is meant by National Socialism is a simple matter by defining key terms. A nation is the political expression of racial interests in the context of the Traditionalism of a homogeneous and fully sovereign folk rather then merely the perpetuation of coalition of disparate interests seeking dominance over society as is currently the case. Such an expression can be either from the state or privately organized by societal interests but what makes such arrangements nationalistic is the extent to which they can be made to maintain and advance their own Traditionalism rather then simply impose a sectarian will upon the nation, state, or government at large. Race is a widely extended aggregate comprised of those that share a highly similar genetic legacy. A history that produced a collective sense of purpose in the form of folkways and aesthetics that encouraged societal cohesion over a great number of generations is what defines a national Tradition. The means by which the collective affairs of the nation is carried out via a set of institutions that out live their creators is what I refer to as the state. Government is nothing more then a temporary collection of individuals or organizations that control the state. Being a nationalist in part means recognizing the centrality of the fact that the nation is a product of the people that created the national Tradition we wish to protect.
Socialism is quite simply an economic arrangement whereby class based oppression and conflict is actively discouraged by the state and/or society via institutionalized representation designed to balance the various sectoral interests within society. As such, socialism does not entail any particular form of governance (or theoretically any form of governance at all) and most definitely does not require state control of the economy. Prior to Marx, socialist doctrine was decidedly anti - statist (or libertarian in the pre -Randian sense of the term) favouring economic decentralization. Within the "rightist" camps socialism had traditionally been seen as a means to counter the crass materialism, cosmopolitanism and urbanization that undermined the traditional societal arrangements of Europa. Socialism in such a context sought to stop class warfare which engendered bolshevism and societal decay while meeting traditional Catholic notions of social justice. These schemes entailed not state run industries nor the destruction of private property but popular control over the means of production by employee managed or owned enterprises organized into guilds and syndicates along the lines first described by the Marquise De La Tour Du Pin, latter guild socialists and distributalists. It should also be mentioned that a style of governance does not follow from such a form of socialism as one can readily note that La Tour Du Pin and Maurras both advocated an autocratic form of monarchy while their ideological descendants have promoted everything from plebacites to fascistic forms of governance. The form of the state and method of governance is legitimate to the extent it maintains a racially based nation state with maximum sovereignty, minimal societal discord and a culture that reflects the traditional folkways and mores of the race that created the nation. As such, while I prefer a decentralized state and one that is not autocratic I realize that under certain historical conditions authoritarianism may be the only means to prevent the destruction of the nation.
These ideas were integrated by numerous national revolutionary groups across Europa during the first few decades of the last century with the best known being a long series of French theorists beginning with Berres and continuing with Valois, DeMann and a great many others that radically "reconstructed Marxism" into a conception designed to foster national unity and cooperation between the classes rather then the destruction of private property and a "dictatorship of the proletarian".
A National Socialist then is one that fuses the biologic underpinning of nation with a state whose purpose is the advancement of the folkways and mores of a homogenous population sharing a common sense of purpose and an economy based upon the minimization of class conflict via sectoral representation. The form of socialism that I feel that best represents such a vision is detailed in strictly economic terms here: [url=http://william-king.www.drexel.edu/...f/gildpref.html]http://william-king.www.drexel.edu/...f/gildpref.html[/url] although the site [url=http://sunsite.utk.edu/FINS/Mary_Parker_Follett/]http://sunsite.utk.edu/FINS/Mary_Parker_Follett/[/url] has some very good material as well as the works of the theorists I have mentioned earlier.
The preceding matters were raised in order to introduce the matter of the dangers and opportunities of moderation in an attempt to broaden the appeal of nationalism. Within nationalist circles one sees a great deal of efforts to surrender our core principles in the hopes that by being more like the establishment that our views will be accepted and we will be propelled to power.
Typically, this begins out of a fear of being called a "racist" or "hateful" leading to supposed Eurocentrics mimicking the propasphere's propaganda about the Third Reich. Simply denouncing Hitler does not satisfy those that control our nations so supposed nationalists attempt to prove that they are socially acceptable by having the products of miscegenation, jews and other racial aliens as members or even candidates and leaders. Often times such parties will avoid raising any economic concept that is not already fully institutionalized so as to appear mainstream while simply addressing some aspect of economic distress (ex. the welfare state, aid to asylum seekers, high taxes, deindustrialization etc.) while pretending that minor reforms done fully within the current frame work of a globalized economy, social democracy and all other pillars of the current order are meaningful responses to the crisis of the West. Eventually, such compromises result in the faux nationalist of abandoning any fundamental rejection of muliracialism, racial separatism and adoption of the neo-conservative position that culture exists independently of race and that the demographic decline of Occidental man is not the problem but rather it is just happening to fast and that an Occidental society will survive our demise via the magic assimilation, conversion to some modernistic version of jew approved Christianity, the mystical workings of "market forces" or the restoration of some legal doctrine sans the societal conditions that gave rise to it.
At best it leaves the nationalist opposition simply pointing out the negative consequences of societal destruction while completely avoiding the crux of the problem (i.e. the inherent nature of multi-racialism) or the consideration of any systemic solution in favour of simply reducing the rate of decay via mucking about with the tax code or reducing the rate of our dispossession via scaling back the third world invasion a bit. Following such a notion to it's logical conclusion one gets supposedly traditional Catholics that denounce Maurras and the delusion that Western civilization exists where ever the faith is prominent. Such a causal chain leads to the implicit multi-racialism found in American neo-confederate groups and the anti Occidental insanity found in the Scottish National Party. It also results in supposed paleo-conservatives like the American Pat Buchanan embracing multi-racialism while rejecting the societal damage it has done all in the name of "respectability" as one can see here: [url=http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/a...RTICLE_ID=30233]http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/a...RTICLE_ID=30233[/url]
This is not to say that genuine nationalists must never support populist parties that promote policies that stand to reduce the rate of our dispossession as a great many parties in Europa seek to do. It is to say that we should not confuse the limited and short term gains brought about by such efforts as a victory for nationalism nor should we let such efforts consume our energies to such an extent that they hamper the public promotion of real nationalism as a genuine alternative to the current order. Instead, populist parties serve mainly as a stop gap measure to buy us time to form activist cadres and tailor our policy prescriptions to various segments of our kinfolk and form tactical alliances with those that do not share our grand vision of National Restoration.
The Vlaams Blok seems to be a perfect case study of what is wrong with nationalists favouring electoral expediency over principle. The VB leadership first choose to abandon revisionism in the interest of not being seen as extreme by the establishment and to avoid legal troubles. In addition, the VB makes the ritualistic denunciations of "racism, hate and Nazism" as defined by the system but discovers that doing so is not enough to appease the anti Occidental establishment. As a result, the party chooses to take a hard core pro-Zionist stance and prostrate itself before Jewish interests. Now the party has abandoned any pretense of being a racial nationalist party by claiming that third world immigrants can be assimilated and that if they do so they are Flemish.
There is much wrong with such stances being taken by a party that wishes to reduce the dispossession of one's lansmen via a reduction in the scope of the third world invasion. First and foremost is that the principle reason to vote for a supposed nationalist party (populist seems a more accurate label) is to prevent the demographic destruction of your nation. A party that fundamentally accepts multi-racialism will obviously not seek to drastically reduce third world migration let alone consider repatriation but instead simply attempt to modestly reduce the rate of the alien influx. Anyone who has spent a few minutes looking over European demographic projections realizes that the simple and undeniable reality is that given the extremely high birth rates of third worlders in Europa that they will have within the foreseeable future the demographic clout to remake nations like Flanders into their own image even if the migration rates are reduced somewhat.
The matter of assimilation is absurd in that Occidental cultures simply have never and will never exist in countries with majority non Occidental populations save the imposition of a racial caste system which is a proven long term dead end. The very few that actually do fully embrace the host culture almost without exception embrace the materialism, decadence and the squalor that is social democracy rather then the healthy, life affirming traditions that the country once was based upon and that genuine nationalism seeks to embrace. In so doing, the assimilated alien is held up by the anti Occidental establishment as a an example of the virtues of multi racialism which gives our own lansmen reason to doubt the uniqueness and value of their own heritage even further while ignoring the overwhelmingly negative aspects of immigration. In nations that still have Occidental majorities that reality is that assimilation is rare and when it does occur it is superficial (ex. A basic grasp of the native tongue or paying taxes rather then receiving them) for the simple reason that outside of European nations notions of cosmopolitanism and the fantasy that race doesn't exist are almost unheard of. When a large alien population is present in a decadent social democratic nation with zero sense of racial identity or national purpose (i.e. any where in Europa) the aliens will, for the most part, choose to belong to their own distinct communities and seek to enhance their power by supporting those parties that either help or at least fail to oppose their racial interests. Eventually, the destabilization that is brought about by multi racialism will result in the destruction of the host culture/race altogether or a form of civil strife that permits the rise of a genuine nationalism.
The upshot of the VB's a betrayal of the cause of Flemish survival is that the party has continually been portrayed as "extreme right" by the propasphere, having zero prospect of being brought into a coalition government and facing the prospect of legal banishment. Let us pretend for a moment that the VB is brought into a governing coalition. Within less then a generation the demographic balance will have changed to such an extent that the parties like the VB will have no chance of being a major electoral force (assuming that they remain legal at all) and will simply be another leftist party pushing the anti culture just like the GOP in the states. The efforts of appeasing the current order by the populists will fail because they have no systemic solution to the problems facing our nations but merely peripheral reform that serve as a pressure valve for the establishment. We are already seeing just how short lived such faux alternatives are in several recent elections such as in Austria or that zero progress in the struggle resulted from the electoral victory of the AN. Such result are bound to come from the fact that pointing out the symptoms of decline like crime, welfare expenditure or the decline of language while not addressing it's root causes prevents any meaning change from happening.
The solution is once again to focus on positive, real world activism centered upon one's community as I and other have described before. Such activism changes minds because it shows by example the positive and practical merits of genuine racial nationalism. The question we must ask our selves is are we willing to put forward the effort needed to make our views something other then an intellectual curiosity. If not we should simply support faux alternatives like the VB and surrender the future of our children and nations to the god of electoral expediency. As nationalists our job is prove by public activism and personal example that our cause is the only real and comprehensive alternative to societal decay. Fine tuning the presentation of what we stand for need not and should not entail the surrender of principles because gaining power is only useful and moral if used for the purpose of Occidental Restoration rather then simply the promotion of an election list that is some what less socially destructive then our supposed opponents. Rather then surrender principle to expediency we need demonstrate not just the short comings of the current order but what we can offer that meets the needs of our countrymen.
We do so by pointing out how a nationalist economy provides out kinfolk with greater control over their own lives. We do so by detailing how the empowerment of local communities provides for a fuller, safer more wholesome environment for our neighbors' children. We do so by addressing the value of our identity, the uniqueness and value of what our people have done. We do so by not demanding anything for our own folk that we would not grant to others. Neither nostalgia and rigid adherence to the forms of bygone regimes nor the sacrificing of our core values holds promise for our noble of cause of national restoration so we must supress both temptations.
What Does It Mean to be Neither Left nor Right?
By Vibeke ÃËstergaard
Before one can speak of ideology and policy the key terms must be defined in clear, simple terms. The first of which is race which is an aggregate comprised of those that share a highly similar genetic legacy. A past that produced a collective sense of purpose in the form of folkways and aesthetics that provided for internal cohesion over a great number of generations is what I maintain define Tradition. The political expression of racial interests and the Traditionalism of a homogeneous and fully sovereign folk should be what defines a nation rather then merely the perpetuation of coalition disparate interests seeking dominance over society as is currently the case. Such an expression can be either from the state or privately organized by societal interests but what makes such arrangements nationalistic is the extent to which they can be made to maintain and advance Traditionalism rather then simply impose a sectarian will upon the nation, state, or government at large. The means by which the collective affairs of the nation is carried out via a set of institutions that out live their creators is what I refer to as the state. Government is nothing more then a temporary collection of individuals or organizations that control the state. Being a nationalist in part means recognizing the centrality of the fact that the nation is a product of the people that created the Tradition we wish to protect.
Doing so requires a bit of prioritizing in that our efforts must ultimately be based upon the realization that: a) race is a biologic reality B) said reality has profound consequences in all fields of societal life c) that European man is facing extinction in large measure as a result of our socializing institutions being controlled by Jews d) that racial separatism is the only sane/humane means of securing our existence. Anyone that can't/won't recognized the previous statements as the over arching priority of political/cultural struggle is ultimately not on our side although varying temporary alliances can and must be made with those that don't share our ultimate vision.
The unpleasant fact however is that the simple truths above don't provide the sole basis for a viable movement of national restoration. The reason for this unhappy state of affairs of is that our kinsmen deserve and expect solutions to their problems rather then just a critique of the current establishment and predictions of an apocalyptic future contrasted with some ill defined yet idyllic golden age that we wish to resurrect with no clear image of how to go about such a dramatic transformation.
A commonly bandied about slogan in nationalist circles is "neither left nor right" and our noble cause has a fine history of making that a reality in the form of having an applicable, practical vision of society that holds neither statist collectivism or the "invisible hand of the market" as a panacea to societal problems. While it is all fine and well to talk of the virtues of homogeneity or to applaud the noble endeavors of our forefathers the fact remains that flaws within those bygone eras played as much a part in our current descent into oblivion as did the genius and ruthlessness of the aliens we complain so bitterly about.
Specifically, I refer to the fact that for the most part the history of Occidental nations have been defined by the state serving as a means for effecting control over the nation at the behest of a ruling elite that in modern times is often racially alien. The domestic discord such dominance fosters has often resulted in the disintegrations of our Traditions leading to terrible human suffering which on occasion as resulted in national renewal but more often terminal decline and destruction accompanied by the ascendancy of cosmopolitanism which in turn lead to demographic oblivion for our nations. This path to destruction is as much a certainty arising from the societal nillism implicit in the workings of unrestrained capitalism as it is with or the total destruction of Tradition that defines the various faces of bolshevism and social democracy. All place sectoral interests over nations culminating in totalitarianism and the death of the uniqueness of the families of man that have produced the nations of both the Occident and alien civilizations alike in favour of an anti culture that revels in the transitory, the crass and faddish while destroying all else. Our tasks as defenders of the Occident and inheritors of the obligation of existence bequeathed to us by the sacrifices of countless generations is to find a societal system rooted in our specific traditions that preservers our genetic legacy for our descendants via the creation of nationalist states and governments.
The reason why I as a racial nationalist object to both statist collectivism in it's various forms (bolshevism, communtarianism, social democracy etc.) and the atomistic nature of unrestrained capitalism is that both represent the primacy of crass materialism and econometrics over Tradition and the biologic base from which the values we treasure spring from. The various manifestations of Bolshevism and capitalism both have globalism as an inherent consequence as both have society ordered entirely around one's relationship to the means of production which are structured to serve centralized producers whose interests are, by nature, cosmopolitan rather then racially or nationally specific. Both give rise to imperialism be it in the form of mercantilism (often cloaked under the guise of "comparative advantage", Christianisation or "global strategic interests") or class war and the universality of the tan every man that exists only in the minds of the anti human advocates of diversity, the wish lists of marketing consultants and professional anti Europeans.
What racial nationalism entails from the standpoint of societal ordering, beyond the homogeneity that makes our survival as a people possible, is the creation of a framework in which individuals are not seen as atomistic entities driven by gut & groin as is the case with cosmopolitan capitalism or as mere tools of statist or communal production divorced from Tradition as is the case with the various forms of bolshevism. Instead, nationalism views individuals within a national/communal context as an expression of the will of providence that provides continuity from one generation to the next. This continuity comes in the form of an identity that is biologically, culturally, spiritually and economially defined so as to grant common meaning in the form of a shared set of folkways that provide balance between the nation as a whole, it's various constituent groups and the individual.
A consequence of the primacy of identity to nationalism is that the institutions established by a nationalist state and society recognize the constituent socio - economic classes with the goal of minimizing societal discord and fostering a sense of common purpose and dedication to one's ancestors and descendants. Such a goal requires the end of class based exploitation be it by a globalist, cosmopolitan capitalist class or by an equally globalist and cosmopolitan collectivist state that supercedes nations and traditions.
To me, one such practical expression of the conceptual framework detailed above is somewhat akin to Hirst's Associative Democracy which is a more recent expression Guild Socialism as portrayed by authors Harold Laski and GDH Cole. What they term Associative Democracy is a societal system in which the so called "negative rights"* perspective of liberty is meet by having as many activities of society as possible managed by voluntary, self-governing associations of citizens with considerable influence over and ownership of the enterprises they work for. A very good description of such arrangements in modern setting can be found here: [url=http://william-king.www.drexel.edu/top/personal/wkpaps/gildf/gildpref.html]http://william-king.www.drexel.edu/top/per...f/gildpref.html[/url]
Obviously, no reasonable person would suggest that a return to pre - industrial societal norms is possible but an advocation of modern guildism presumes an economy based upon complex and interconnected industries, large populations and the continuation of international trade at lower then current levels which is defined in part by cooperative production and consumption. As the economy and the work place is federated and democratic they could have what the corporatists** of old referred to as "horizontally integration" (different industries within a location) and "vertically integration" (different enterprises within an industry) at various levels. Vertically integrated democratic federations have been be commonly referred to as "guilds" in the past but I feel "Labor-Managed-Labor Owned Enterprises," (LM-LOE's for short) seems more appropriate .
What is most vital to remember is the exchange and distribution of products would be settled by some combination of markets and state planing, with the understanding that the plan would be created by agreement among the LM-LOE's, other federations, and their member enterprises, not handed down from some governmental decree or the transitory fancy of some sort lived electoral coalition. In essence, Guildism and traditional Corporatism advocate popular control of the economy to the largest extent practical rather then economic centralization under massive conglomerates or state direction for the purpose of granting the populace the maximal control over their own professional lives.
Purchases of goods a services between the various LM-LOE's and the consumers would be via market transactions. The transition to such a system should, to my mind, be gradual so as to minimize economic disruptions via a system of tax and investment credits with joint resolution of disputes handled via elected representatives of the state, consumer unions and LM-LOEs. International trade, as I see it, would have to walk a fine line between free trade which brings market efficiencies as well as globalization and low wages and the security offered by Listian*** inspired protectionism which has tendencies towards inefficiency and compliancy that a lack of competition can encourage. To a large extent, such negative incentives can be negated if foreign competition is used as a means to force the LM-LOEs to higher levels of productivity. Additional incentives for high productivity could come from genuine and sizable tax credits for capitol, R & D and retraining investments provided they are meet by objective increases in productivity.
The good news is that economic democracy need not equal the economic incompetence one sees in state directed enterprises or the primitivism that accompanied pre-industrial efforts at worker control. To the contrary, modern instances of worker-directed companies compare favourable with capitalist enterprises and far better then state controlled ones. For evidence to support this, see "Cooperation: The Proper Study of Economics,"International Journal of Social Economics, 1993, v. 20, no. 10, pp.55-78.
All of this stuff about economics was raised because the production and distribution of wealth is something that we as Eurocentrics must address. We are obligated to provide our kinsmen with a viable alternative to state based collectivism and the monstrosity that capitalism was bound to transform into. Nationalism must be based upon biologic reality and preservation but it must also address the reasons why statist economics and capitalism are by nature hostile to our vision of a salubrious, Traditionalistic and stable folkish way of life and how we intend to achieve it. The democratization of the economy does just that. What interests me is having input from the economically and culturally oriented readers advancing a practical form of an economic democratization that does not require a state controlled system of production and distribution, laissez-faire dogma or some pre-industrial utopianism.
Notes: * Negative rights theory is Von Hayek's concept that liberty is defined by what may not be done by citizens or governments. This notion of liberty requires governments to refrain from violating rights/freedom/liberty; when they do not initiate or threaten aggression towards others. Negative rights theory is distinguished from the leftist notion of rights as entitlements/privileges/transfers of wealth granted by the state to various favored segments of society. ** Corporatism at it's most basic refers to various economic interest groups (ex. labour unions, manufacturers, consumers etc.) being formally recognized and represented by or within the state. It's purpose is to provide a means of minimizing class conflict and national deline which are products of unrestrained capitalism without recourse to leftist variants of socialism. Corporatism has a very long history in almost all nationalist circles dating back to the Napoleonic era and has always been a major element of Fascism, National Socialism and other forms of revolutionary nationalism.
*** This refers to the famous economist Friedrich Von List who was major figure in the Prussian led unification of Germany via a Zollverein which brought about the unification of free trade customs unions in 1834. Von List is still a major source of inspiration for opponents of libertarian notions of free trade.
2003-06-22 13:49 | User Profile
Leland, honey?
Ares is a troll... (And not even a subtle one!) Don't waste your time! (Although it was certainly nice to read a recital of some of the achievements of the Nazi's.) Clearly his only exposure to "Nazi's" is in a jewish movie (or several hundred movies, which he believed were the entire truth...{sigh})! You'd spend your time better compiling a list of German/Nazi achievements for informational posting, instead of trying to get an uneducated troll to tell (or even recognize) the truth! (Sorry Ares, but MAN, are you ill-informed!! Still, you DO make a good troll -- you got Trisk AND Leland to respond to your silliness!)
Remember Leland, you'll win no court cases if you argue with the barking of dogs.
2003-06-22 16:58 | User Profile
Avalanche said, in regard to Ares: > [color=blue]"Clearly his only exposure to "Nazi's" is in a jewish movie..."[/color]
Mr./Ms. Avalanche: The statement above implies that you have had "exposure" to Nazis in some other way than in "Jewish movies". If so, please explain to Ares and myself what the nature of that exposure has been?
2003-06-22 18:14 | User Profile
Hello Ares,
It is good to hear from you. In answer to your question yes, I was very nearly killed while in Milan a while back and I used to be very active on E.K. prior to it being killed off by mangement disinterest and disruptors seeking to ruin a very productive project. I still have some very serious problems stemming from the attack and I still am in rehablitation programs of various kinds. The whole period was without a doubt the second worst time in my life.
With respect to your orginal post being targeted against falsely self proclaimed American "nazis" I share your view that they are primarily a gang of misfits going nowhere and happy about it. As to people being interested in any called N.S. you are basically right. I use the tern simply because from the 1890s till the 1940s it was a very common term in most European National Revolutionary circles and as I am very heavily influenced by many such theorists/movements I just use the same terms they did. In the end I could care less what it's called as long as the core values stay the same as those found in a braodly defined and economically decentralized form of National Scoialism. Many of my comrades with simelar views call it the International Third Position, National Sydicalism, National Guildism, Folkish Restoration etc. But again, what matters is ideological substance and one markets it.
When you get a chance, read the articles over and get back to me. Hopefully, we can come to some common ground as a means of getting serious about a genuine, positive Eurocentrism that deals with the problems of our people in the modern era.
2003-06-23 02:27 | User Profile
*Originally posted by triskelion@Jun 22 2003, 12:14 * ** yes, I was very nearly killed while in Milan a while back and I used to be very active on E.K. prior to it being killed off by mangement disinterest and disruptors seeking to ruin a very productive project. I still have some very serious problems stemming from the attack and I still am in rehablitation programs of various kinds. The whole period was without a doubt the second worst time in my life.
**
My sympathys go out to you regarding this brutal Jewish attack. You seem to have jumped right back onto the horse - quite courageous.
Regards,
Ares
2003-06-23 03:22 | User Profile
Avalanche/others:
Yes, I am suspicious of WNs who say that they are WNs, yet blast the Nazis. Very odd, if'n ya ask me.... :rolleyes:
2003-06-23 05:25 | User Profile
[color=red]"Yes, I am suspicious of WNs who say that they are WNs, yet blast the Nazis. Very odd, if'n ya ask me...."[/color]
Mr. Franco: In truth, what you are really saying is that you don't like your Nazi beliefs coming under scrutiny on this board. Now, were I a "Jew" or a "multiculturalist" or some "big-lipped negro" from One People's Project, you could easily blow me off with a sneer and a jeer. But instead, I'm not any of those kinds of people. I'm something you've seldom encountered before-a white nationalist who is working every bit as hard as the ADL and the SPLC to remove Neo-Nazis like you from the street. You are poison to our Movement, and for too long you and your kind have had a free ride on the backs of pandering fools like Kevin Strom and Don Black.
Well, I don't expect to change the warped minds of today's batch of Neo-Nazis. But I do expect to influence the attitudes of the next generation of young men and women who are fed up with multiculturalism, Third World immigration, and minority crime. I will offer them something more than a stupid swastika and a "sieg heil" to inspire them.
Tom
[img]http://www.beyondthishorizon.com/BeyondThisHorizonDigitalBannerPurpleText291x37.gif[/img] [url=http://pub217.ezboard.com/bbeyondthishorizon]REGISTER NOW AT THE NEW "BEYOND THIS HORIZON" FORUM[/url]
2003-06-23 06:14 | User Profile
*Originally posted by Tom Rennick@Jun 22 2003, 23:25 * ** I will offer them something more than a stupid swastika and a "sieg heil" to inspire them.
**
Here is a site that greatly inspired me, though it is rather secular and caters to secular Whites: [url=http://www.euvolution.com/]http://www.euvolution.com/[/url]
Regards,
Ares
2003-06-23 06:25 | User Profile
Ares --
Any site that links to the National Alliance is a good one. Will frequent that site.
[edited]
2003-06-23 13:10 | User Profile
**Tom Rennick: Mr./Ms. Avalanche: The statement above implies that you have had "exposure" to Nazis in some other way than in "Jewish movies". If so, please explain to Ares and myself what the nature of that exposure has been? **
Oh silly little things like READING Mein Kampf! (Have you?) Researching the lies and propaganda about Nazi Germany and coming to see that they absolutely had the RIGHT idea about jews -- which you seem to be a bit lukewarm about. Have you read Butz and Zundel and IHR stuff and CODOH and so on? Have you done ANY research except for watching Schindler's List and the Young Hitler (whatever that TV-thing was called?). Or did you go to Dachau and see the pile of shoes and "deduce" that these signify all the people killed just for their shoes?! (I have a friend who piously intones, "but I've BEEN to Dachau, I've SEEN what they did!" Of course, when I show him that EVEN THE JEWS are changing their stories, he squirms and changes the topic...)
Do I think we can have a Nazi movement here in the US? No, it was, as has been pointed out on OD, a German movement of a certain moment in history -- and the circumstances here/today are not nearly the same. Do I think the current Neo-nazi groups are silly and a little pathetic -- partly, sure, but at least (some of them) are honest about their desires. Some of it is just silly "little boys" rebelling against their lives (better that than becoming a whigger!), some of it is a considered and rational 'joining up' to make a statement about one's position.
Supporting or 'being' a Nazi is a sign that you have been awakened to the lies and destruction of the jews. Do I think it 'turns off' middle America? Of course, and I am conflicted about that -- but can you imagine ANYthing that will make the public THINK clearly and rationally about anything? (Sh|t! I just posted an article that says 1/3 of those polled believe "we" HAVE found WMD in Iraq!! People.. er, SHEEPle, are idiots!)
p.s. You don't have to call me Ms Avalanche; if you prefer, you can call me Mrs NeoNietzsche... :P
2003-06-23 13:10 | User Profile
Originally posted by Tom Rennick@Jun 22 2003, 23:25 * Well, I don't expect to change the warped minds of today's batch of Neo-Nazis.*
Please give us your definition of "Neo-Nazi" such that we might have a more firm idea regarding your objections to National Socialism.
Is a National Socialist sympathizer a "Neo-Nazi," for example?
Are outward manifestations of the orientation your basic problem?
2003-06-23 15:02 | User Profile
*Originally posted by Leland Gaunt@Jun 23 2003, 04:49 * ** I don't care who you are or what you name yourself. If you fight Nationalsocialism and side with the enemy, then I want to see you dumped into the same mass-grave together with Bolshewiks, Jews, Whiggers, Plutocrats, Christian-Zionists and whoever else stands in our way. I don't care if you are circumsized - you are a JEW in my eyes. **
Now there's a sales pitch that will have folks running for the recruiter's office!
Everyone witness the mindset of the totalitarian.
Then prepare yourself accordingly.
2003-06-23 15:16 | User Profile
But can a nationalist "totalitarian" be as big a threat to nations as an internationalist totalitarian?
2003-06-23 15:21 | User Profile
*Originally posted by Ruffin@Jun 23 2003, 10:16 * ** But can a nationalist "totalitarian" be as big a threat to nations as an internationalist totalitarian? **
Depends on what nation one is living in.
2003-06-23 16:31 | User Profile
*Originally posted by Ares@Jun 21 2003, 21:05 * ** Naziism is a completely different ideology than White Nationalism. Nazis are backwards barbaric primitive empirialists who rule with an iron fist. They want to exterminate all non-Whites world wide and take over their lands; Nazis even have no problem exterminating their own fellow Nazis by the millions if they feel it is for the "collective good." Nazis are very close minded and believe that any fellow Nazi who expresses creativity, original thought, or dares to challenge conformist views should be immediately exterminated. Nazis don't believe in free speech. Nazis are pathologically low in altruism and have no compassion for individuals or their welfare. Nazis don't believe in individual rights but rather radical conformity, enforced with an iron fist by the government. Nazis have low creativity, they are pathologically conformist, and they despise advancement, both ideological and technological. Nazis follow irrational moral codes and fear human sexuality. Nazis don't believe in religious freedom and desire to exterminate all non-atheist Whites. _ **
And your source, for all this nonsense is...? The ADL, the JDL? Nizkor? Or what?
2003-06-23 18:18 | User Profile
*Originally posted by Ruffin@Jun 23 2003, 15:16 * ** But can a nationalist "totalitarian" be as big a threat to nations as an internationalist totalitarian? **
Well, the internationalist totalitarians are so far ahead right now it ain't even funny.
Let's see: We have international socialism, international feminism, international queerism, international corporatism, and so on, endlessly. Then there's the pans: Pan-African, Pan-Mestizo, etc. Does the media propasphere count as an ism or a pan? Some of us think it supports all the others but counts as one of its own too.
All that against any form of nationalism. I wouldn't be especially concerned about a few nationalist ranters here and there. They are outnumbered by perhaps hundreds of millions to one at the very least. This means sane nationalists are outnumbered by the same ratio, alas.
2003-06-23 19:06 | User Profile
Hello Ares, thank you for your supportive sentiment. I should tell you how ever that I have not really jumped back into things as you say as I spent a few months in hospital and even after all the time that has passed I am not fully functional. Also, I don't know if I'm courageous or just stubborn. Besides, I made the decision quite some time ago that public activism for my ideals is much more important then my physical well being and the Antis act accordingly. Hopefully, you will look over the articles I posted and we can have a fruitful exchange on what this whole bother is about.
Hello LG,
This is a bit discomforting but I feel it should be said. It is obvious to me that several posters here know nothing about any form of National Socialism and evoke lurid atrocity tales promoted by the establishment in order to cause a Pavlovian response among the miseducated. Unfortunately, your understandably angry outburst about mass murder will provide the enemies of your ideals with plenty of grist for their mills which makes propagation of the truth here much harder.
We should keep in mind that Americans have a very weak tradition of Revolutionary Racial Nationalism, a very small theoretical canon dealing with such matters and no viable effort to promote such an agenda. As a result, it seems better to be slow to anger and actively avoid purposeful annoyances by agent provocateurs and yahoos by dispassionately conveying truth and being the opposite of what the propasphere condemns you as being in all things you do.
With respect to the notion that American racialists wish to simply to simply replace the current order with themselves leading an anti European hegemony I am not particularly sympathetic. Obviously that would not be objectionable to the yahoos but it seems to me that a traditional American isolationism and the need to straighten a disastrous domestic situation is nearly an all consuming desire in racial circles in America as it should be. We should not assume anyone our enemy till they have proven themselves as such.
2003-06-23 19:49 | User Profile
In general terms I have no problem with the crux of what I think you're saying. I have no interest in simple nostalgia, I don't advocate resurrecting a dead regime and the same can be said of all that I actively conspire with. Instead, I promote (to use your term) a form of white nationalism defined by a decentralized economy, New Right meta-politics and Occidental Traditionalism for the purpose of fostering a Folkish National state and society. I do so in part because such a vision is suited to the current climate but also because such an ideology provides the best means for rectifying the problems confronting Occidental peoples in a positive manner.
2003-06-23 19:55 | User Profile
*Originally posted by triskelion@Jun 23 2003, 13:49 * ** In general terms I have no problem with the crux of what I think you're saying. I have no interest in simple nostalgia, I don't advocate resurrecting a dead regime and the same can be said of all that I actively conspire with. Instead, I promote (to use your term) a form of white nationalism defined by a decentralized economy, New Right meta-politics and Occidental Traditionalism for the purpose of fostering a Folkish National state and society. I do so in part because such a vision is suited to the current climate but also because such an ideology provides the best means for rectifying the problems confronting Occidental peoples in a positive manner. **
I am also somewhat in support of decentralized economy. I on one hand am not a radical Marxist, but also I am not, let's say, a Libertarian economist. I am actually in the middle, a moderate. And I also support promoting European derrived cultures.
Regards,
Ares
2003-06-24 00:56 | User Profile
Ares said: > [color=blue]"I think we should keep this forum for only people who bathe." [/color]
:D
2003-06-24 01:37 | User Profile
Hello Ares,
WIth respect to the matter of skinheads and such I addressed the matter quite carefully in a thread I started called "Tom Rennick Refuted" which I encourage him and you to read over as it deals with the matter of "who to let in" in depth. In any case, feel free to post your replies on the matter so that I can see where your comming from. Oh, by the way, I am very much against hatecore, games like ethnic cleasnsing and I have rather serious disagreements with the NA on numerous other matters but I do my best to be measured and fair in criticism as well as support.
2003-06-24 04:29 | User Profile
Hello Ares,
Thank you for your kind words. However I should state that I know a great many comrades with insights and conviction far greater then mine that gave me much of what I know. In the end, knowledge is worthless without the conviction to give everything for your ancestors, descendants and folk no matter the cost.
Certainly, National Socialism is the most taboo ideology in the world yet when one looks at a broad, expansive form of that disposition we find a clear way out of our current, clearly foreseen demise. When I have run, and occasionally won, public elective office I state my core ideological tenants and what I plan to do to help my lansmen and encourage others to do like wise.
Our goal should not be to present ourselves as mainstream but to present a real alternative to the mainstream by addressing vital issues and making possible that which must be done. Genuine conservatism is in fact ardently racialist as without the protection and advancement of the biologic none of the things that conservatives care about can exist. A great deal of redefining conservatism into something worth while involves combining the folkish basis of National Socialism with the meta-politics of the German Revolutionary Conservative School (I'll give you details if you want) and empowerment and prosperity that economic decentralization in the form of Guildism/syndicalism/corporatism can provide. Paleo-conservatism has been an abject failure in the states and if it will be remade into something capable of saving our folk we must be brutally honest about the reasons why.
American style faux "nazism" has not and will not go anywhere but neither will the abandonment of principles seen in AmRen or the hazy nostalgia and longing for establishment acceptance one sees in what passes for paleo-conservatism.
2003-06-24 08:17 | User Profile
How to debate, by Matt Nuenke:
Just a note on talking to others about racial beliefs. Yes, we are extremists today, whereas 100 years ago our ideas were mainstream. The public has been indoctrinated into the dogma of diversity and racial equality. However, that does not mean that one should just blurt out how one feels. When discussing these issues you first need to open up a person's mind by making them doubt their current set of beliefs and dogmas. That is, go slowly, ask questions, see how far you can go in questioning the current beliefs. Don't just blurt out new facts to displace the current set of facts people have bought into. They will reject them out of hand (cognitive dissonance is the name of the condition where people hold conflicting views). Until people doubt the current set of facts they have about life, you will not get them to consider a new set of facts. Indoctrination when we are in the minority is a slow process - humans are naturally susceptible to believe whatever the majority beliefs, no matter what the facts are.
In her book "The New White Nationalism in America: Its Challenge to Integration," the Black-academic author Carol M. Swain makes the point that movements like AR are far more dangerous than the KKK, etc. The reason is primarily intelligence, caution, strategically savvy, and respectability. To win, you have to know when to keep your mouth shut, make your arguments cogent, and never go beyond what people will accept as a rational response. That is why some debates are pointless and destructive - like who is White and who isn't. There is always time to discuss that issue when we are no longer in peril - until then it is just divisive. The same with religion versus secular evolutionists, etc. There is room for atheists and theists in the movement.
2003-06-24 19:40 | User Profile
I agree fully with Ares first paragraph. In my experience, simple truth tends to upset and drive away people that know only what is fashionable and with is fashionable are lies.
As for what Swain says I could care less as she is uniformed about Eurocentrism and her book (like all establishment academic material put out in modern times) is actively opposed to Occidental preservation. Her intention is to point out that blatantly anti-white policies are helping build resentment to Occidental destruction and that her agenda can be furthered more effectively by decreasing the rate of our demise so as not to scare the lemmings too much.
The question is not if the Hollywood Nazis and Klans groups are viable (they clearly are not and never have been) but how to make folkish politics/culture a challenge to the current order. AR clearly is not a racialist group and is no threat to the establishment which one quickly learned from listening to Taylor speak on a recent tabloid TV show or looking over what kind of anti-Occidental insanity one sees on ARlist. Swain builds up AR in part because they don't fit into the common image crafted by the propasphere of those that object to Occidental destruction but also because AR is not promoting a valid alternative to the establishment and views jews as whites and encourages miscegenation which, of course results on our destruction as a people.
2003-06-25 20:43 | User Profile
I think that this debate is really here nor there.
Personally, I have some NS sympathies...I feel that the Pan-Europeanism of the Waffen SS had great potential that never fully came to fruition. I also will agree with Franco that the "bad guys" won WWII.
However, a National Socialist revolution is not going to happen in the West. I think our energies would better be spent by focusing on real world strategies to effect positive change and White self-determination...rather than engaging in abstract discourse.
2003-06-25 21:10 | User Profile
No one is engaged in abstract discourse here and no one is, I hope, seriously suggesting that we mimic the NSDAP. The discourse was Ares suggesting that what he refers to as white racialism can be made mainstream by dumping the Hollywood nazi set and pushing something like AR or CofCC. I was pointing out that National Socialism is and always has been something much more divergent and varied then what the NSDAP was from ââ¬Ë33 to ââ¬Ë45 but this is a very difficult notion to convey to Americans. What I was promoting is the notion that the folkish core of National Socialism is vital to our race and that compromising that core is not pragmatism but surrender marketed as modernity. I also was promoting the idea that a genuine social conservatism combined with a democratic/decentralized economic agenda provides an excellent means for promoting folkish ideas to our people no matter one chooses to call such a paradigm.
2003-06-25 22:34 | User Profile
I shall read as soon as I get some free time.
You might try reading the material you link to as well. You posted reviews of MacDonald that show some very interesting facts about National Socialism.
I think there is something to be said for a name change. It's probably a good idea to change the names, symbols, and colors involved, and to downplay the nazi ties.
I also think that NS was expressly designed to give Whites a fighting chance against Jewry and serves that purpose better than any ideology because it is inherently racialist and collectivist.
2003-06-27 00:20 | User Profile
*Originally posted by triskelion@Jun 25 2003, 15:10 * ** No one is engaged in abstract discourse here and no one is, I hope, seriously suggesting that we mimic the NSDAP. The discourse was Ares suggesting that what he refers to as white racialism can be made mainstream by dumping the Hollywood nazi set and pushing something like AR or CofCC. I was pointing out that National Socialism is and always has been something much more divergent and varied then what the NSDAP was from ââ¬Ë33 to ââ¬Ë45 but this is a very difficult notion to convey to Americans. What I was promoting is the notion that the folkish core of National Socialism is vital to our race and that compromising that core is not pragmatism but surrender marketed as modernity. I also was promoting the idea that a genuine social conservatism combined with a democratic/decentralized economic agenda provides an excellent means for promoting folkish ideas to our people no matter one chooses to call such a paradigm. **
I found your comments earlier in this thread to be highly pertinent, Triskelion...I was not attacking what you offered.
For better or for worse, I feel that National Socialism is a dead ideology...the catalyst for White self-determination will be something that has not been seen before.
2003-06-27 00:48 | User Profile
If Whites knew the realities that most WNs knew, especially as regards the Jewish question and the so-called holocaust, they would have exactly ZERO problems with naziism. They'd have no problems other than the vestigial, visceral, propaganda-induced knee-jerk reactions to Nazi symbology, that is. The outward forms must go, the old packaging is outdated, but the belief system and philosophies can be reiterated in modern parlance.
The bottom line is, we need something very similar to Judaism in many respects, or we will fail. In fact given the philo-semitic tendencies of this age, we should carefully consider the tactic of "this is what the Jews do, and they are successful, we should do it too!" This should be spoken in a positive way, too. We could take advantage of the image the Jews have given of themselves with their media.
2003-06-27 07:32 | User Profile
Having gone over the exchanges her with ADL approved racialists championing miscegenation I think I have finally figured out why some Americans involved in the racial scene are totally dedicated to self indulgent, ultra radical absolutism and Third Reich imagery fetishes. The reason that the fatal flaws with such notions are ignored is because so much of the opponents of the NSDAP regime that call themselves racialists or nationalists are so clearly dishonest, condescending and in no way supportive of a folkish ideal. Naturally, a great many on the ultra-radical side of racial politics don't understand just what a folkish society means but they do know that someone that says jews are white, miscegenation can be positive and endlessly condemns anyone that doesn't agree with them in the same terms as the ADL/OPP/SPLC is no alternative. The reality is that as no racialist group (save the very new and small American ITP) has a viable, principled form of racialism to promote the treason of AR style groups becomes contrasted against the costume fetish set with both doomed to go nowhere. The static and counterfactual nature of both poles with the non movement inspire no from mainstream society and dissolution that work with such groups against reason till hope fades away. One serves as a pressure valve for the current order to deflect energies of well meaning Occidentals driven away by the dysfunction of the other. Neither is interested in real struggles for influence and Occidental preservation because both are designed to self neutralize.
2003-06-27 12:03 | User Profile
*Originally posted by triskelion@Jun 23 2003, 19:06 * ** We should keep in mind that Americans have a very weak tradition of Revolutionary Racial Nationalism, a very small theoretical canon dealing with such matters and no viable effort to promote such an agenda. **
Aren't you leaving out the Confederacy, Jim Crow, and the KKK?
Walter
2003-06-27 12:10 | User Profile
*Originally posted by Leland Gaunt@Jun 23 2003, 09:49 * ** You "White nationalsists" basicly want to keep the "american empire" and just replace the jewish elite with your crew. **
Do you see that as a negative thing?
Walter
2003-06-27 12:50 | User Profile
*Originally posted by Leland Gaunt@Jun 23 2003, 20:25 * ** First they come to my country with Bombers and Tanks, carve it up between themselves and the Bolshewiks. Then they bann our party - a party that came to power through the will of the german people. Then they kill our leaders and dress it up as "justice". Then they reeducate our youth, tell them how good the Jews are and what sick monsters their Grandparents were. they occupy us, hold troops here, divide citys and towns through fences and minefields. **
Wah! :crybaby:
**Whether 10,000 Russian women fall down from exhaustion in building a tank ditch is of interest to me only insofar as the tank ditches are finished for Germany. **
Himmler
So, f*ck you, Kraut. My people bombed your sorry Nazi asses into oblivion, and we laughed our fool heads off while doing it. And rightly so. Your vicious, paganized ancestors attacked Catholic Poland, which was bad enough to get at least half of my neighbors itching to get their fingers around the nearest German neck, but then in a fit of hubris they attacked the Russians. Dumb, man. Very dumb. Never piss off millions of American voters. And never, ever attack Russia. Sheesh. Opening three-front wars and pissing off the entire civilized world isn't a sign of superior intellegence or culture, I think even you will agree.
One of my uncles personally bayonetted several of yours - he told me all about it in gory detail. I grew up on those stories, Fritzy. Yum, yum.
Yes, indeed. We Yankees are a lovely bunch, aren't we? American Christianity is so soft and gentle, so incapable of anything ugly - especially in its kinder, gentler Northern form.
Not! We rock, man. :punk:
From Cromwell to Sherman to Patton - never, ever get in the way of that particular steamroller. Because we will take you apart, bit by bit, with our superior technology and organization. If you had half a brain you would have figured that one out by now - after we kicked your pathetic butts twice in a century, and then saved you dickless, loser fat cats from those mean old Russkies!
Schtupped a few of your fraulines on the way, too.
So, here's the deal, Fritzy. Kindly keep in mind that if you Tuetonic Twats ever again get the idea that you can enslave white people (or anybody else for that matter) and plunge the world into a war resulting in the deaths of millions, you will surely get more of the same.
Now kindly crawl back under your rock, Nazi, and bloody well stay there.
As for me, I have a movement to build - one that can embrace with love all Europeans, and indeed the entire world.
Yours in Christ Jesus,
Walter
2003-06-27 13:43 | User Profile
Well, Brother Walter, that was prize-winningly nauseating.
Will be back with pooper-scooper, mop-and-bucket, later.
Neo
2003-06-27 14:56 | User Profile
[SIZE=3][font=Arial]Another Word That Destroys White Nationalist Progress: Socialism[/font][/SIZE]
Walter Kurtz said: > [color=red]"For better or for worse, I feel that National Socialism is a dead ideology."[/color]
It is dead, Mr. Kurtz - stone dead.
Like the idea of parading Nazi flags down Mainstreet USA, wearing white hoods, or shaving your head to look like an urban thug, using, displaying, or proselytizing "socialism" is a sure-fire way to get most mainstream white Americans to close their minds and hearts to the message of white racial preservation. Really, can't anyone in white nationalist organizations see this simple truth?
Well, so far - no.
Kevin Strom of the National Alliance doesn't see it. David Duke of EURO doesn't see it. Matt Hale (asta la vista, baby!) of the WCOTC doesn't see it. Tom Metzger of W.A.R. doesn't see it. (he doesn't see anything, actually) Don Black (Mr. Nazi himself) of Stormfront sure as hell doesn't see it.
We're losing the battle for public opinion because we've got a collection of money-grubbers too busy selling hate core music, Neo-Nazi buffoons, and just plain simpletons for leaders. I think it's time for a regime change because it's clear that all the organizations above have WMS's in their possession - Weapons of Mass Stupidity.
Triskelion said: > [color=red]"What I was promoting is the notion that the folkish core of National Socialism is vital to our race..." [/color]
Mr. Triskelion is a European, and really doesn't understand the white American psyche too well, despite his intellectual capabilities. What often works in Europe won't work here. Words like "socialism" are not promoting white nationalism here in the States - but impeding it. After you get that down, add another no-no word to your white nationalist lexicon: "folkish".
This word connotates in the American mind "Nazis" - or at best former members of the Soviet proletariat. Americans don't buy "folkish", it's too reminiscent of the farm, of villages and hamlets without running water or electricity, and of all things backward and primitive.
Like the word "socialism", dump the word "folkish", and all its variants.
Tom
[img]http://www.beyondthishorizon.com/BeyondThisHorizonDigitalBannerPurpleText291x37.gif[/img]
2003-06-27 16:57 | User Profile
Socialism is only wrong if it is leftist and restraining.
Try Argentina, 1970s -- right-wing socialism, aka Fascism. They cleaned up their sick, Marxist country real good. They removed various university professors, etc. from univerisities and replaced them with military officers. Worked great until the UN and Jewish groups started whining about it.
Socialism is seen as wrong because one part of the Jewish-shaped political spectrum in America -- the libertarian Randists -- has been pushing individualism for years [for Whites] while Jews/Blacks think as a group.
Ponder it for a sec.
2003-06-27 18:11 | User Profile
With respect to the use of the "socialism" I understand that Americans are too lacking in historical understanding to know anything about the NSDAP or that socialism means much more then the welfare state and communism. It is pretty obvious that Americans are, with very few exceptions, simply incapable or to disinterested to understand that a folkish community doesn't mean living a Quaker like existence. As a result, neither term should be used when dealing with them or use symbols which they have been trained to reject in a Pavlovian fashion. As I have mentioned several times before what matters is the substance of ideas and how they are marketed to a specific demographic. What that amounts to in practical terms having an ideology and policy prescriptions which not only restore a racially based community for Occidentals but provide our people with genuine control of their economic and culture existence. Doing so means bringing back so called "isolationism" and economic decentralization and employee ownership.
With respect to Mr. Kurtz I thank him for the clarification of his position and ask him to note that no offense is taken. I am also glad that he found my comments helpful. The ideology of the NSDAP was never intended for export and was an appropriate response to a very specific domestic situation which clearly does not exist presently. I am not now and I have never promoted mimicry of that regime or any contemporary movement or state in the contemporary era for a great many reasons I have detailed many times else where at O.D. and else where so I will not harp on those points again. What I do promote is the same thing that a large portion of the left in the states and else where advocate and that is sectoral or "corporate" representation, individuals having control over their own economic lives rather being at the mercy of transnational plutocrats and a return to a true federalism which is simply an American form "devolution" (www.devolve.org ) Of course, the American Agrarian Society promotes such policies for rural Americans just as modern syndicalists promote them for urban and suburban Americans.
The difference between such Distributist tenancies promoted by Social Catholics and what I call the "ethical left" and those promoted by National Revolutionaries is that we do so for the purpose of promoting Occidental Traditionalism. What racialists should be striving towards is an Organicism which I characterized in terms of:
" A past that produced a collective sense of purpose in the form of folkways and aesthetics that provided for internal cohesion over a great number of generations is what I maintain define Tradition. The political expression of racial interests and the Traditionalism of a homogeneous and fully sovereign folk should be what defines a nation rather then merely the perpetuation of coalition disparate interests seeking dominance over society as is currently the case. Such an expression can be either from the state or privately organized by societal interests but what makes such arrangements nationalistic is the extent to which they can be made to maintain and advance Traditionalism rather then simply impose a sectarian will upon the nation, state, or government at large."
Hopefully that resolves your confusion about where I stand Mr. Kurtz.
Walter Yannis it seems is intent on being a perfect example of post-American arrogance, stupidity and misplaced Jedeo-Christian zealotry, bloodlust and hypocrisy. Such buffoonery is does not deserve a response as it damns itself.
2003-06-28 00:03 | User Profile
Informative posts, as usual, Triskelion. It might be unfair to criticize Americans for not understanding socialism when you look at the Americans who call themselves socialists: they range from your standard sandal-wearing, granola-muching bliss-ninnies through to the expected Jacobins and Stalinists. Of course, let's not forget the racial nationalists - the black and hispanic racial nationalists, that is; being a socialist and being anti-white go hand-in-hand in this country.
2003-06-28 01:57 | User Profile
I'd known that Bismarckian Germany was the first modern "welfare state." If that system is fraying now, I'm sure much of it is due to one basic principle many on the left don't want to acknowledge: you can't maintain a generous welfare state and have mass immigration. You can have one or the other, but not both.
2003-06-28 02:09 | User Profile
*Originally posted by Walter Yannis@Jun 27 2003, 05:50 * ** Himmler
So, f*ck you, Kraut. My people bombed your sorry Nazi asses into oblivion, and we laughed our fool heads off while doing it. And rightly so. Your vicious, paganized ancestors attacked Catholic Poland, which was bad enough to get at least half of my neighbors itching to get their fingers around the nearest German neck, but then in a fit of hubris they attacked the Russians. Dumb, man. Very dumb. Never piss off millions of American voters. And never, ever attack Russia. Sheesh. Opening three-front wars and pissing off the entire civilized world isn't a sign of superior intellegence or culture, I think even you will agree.
One of my uncles personally bayonetted several of yours - he told me all about it in gory detail. I grew up on those stories, Fritzy. Yum, yum.
Yes, indeed. We Yankees are a lovely bunch, aren't we? American Christianity is so soft and gentle, so incapable of anything ugly - especially in its kinder, gentler Northern form.
Not! We rock, man. :punk:
From Cromwell to Sherman to Patton - never, ever get in the way of that particular steamroller. Because we will take you apart, bit by bit, with our superior technology and organization. If you had half a brain you would have figured that one out by now - after we kicked your pathetic butts twice in a century, and then saved you dickless, loser fat cats from those mean old Russkies!
Schtupped a few of your fraulines on the way, too.
So, here's the deal, Fritzy. Kindly keep in mind that if you Tuetonic Twats ever again get the idea that you can enslave white people (or anybody else for that matter) and plunge the world into a war resulting in the deaths of millions, you will surely get more of the same.
Now kindly crawl back under your rock, Nazi, and bloody well stay there.
As for me, I have a movement to build - one that can embrace with love all Europeans, and indeed the entire world.
Yours in Christ Jesus,
Walter**
[SIZE=2]Uhm, lets role? :huh: [/SIZE]
2003-06-28 02:19 | User Profile
Walter, you're in need of help. Stop your political efforts, NOW, and seek it. Oh, and if you're a Christian...well, I can't think of a quip vicious enough to apply.
Does anyone know where I can find this:
Journal of the Royal Institute for Defense Studies June ââ¬Ë85
I'd be grateful for this and any other 'proof' that the Germans invaded Russia out of necessity rather than bloodlust. I think they knew exactly how badly invading Russia could go for them, and I've always felt that seeing Barbarossa as a pre-emptive attack was the only way to make sense of it.
2003-06-28 02:32 | User Profile
Walter:
Just read your reply to Leland courtesy of MR. Really. As one who identifies as a Kraut, your view of history is tre ZOG.
But I don't want to fight those battles. This is the type of mentality that leaves Whites so susceptible to manipulation by the Media Yidn. Fighting the Wank v. Kraut; Polack v. Kraut; American v. Russian; Mick v. Wank; and most conspicuously on this board, the Croat v. Serb BS.
This crap is over. While we bicker along age old ethnic quibbles, we are divided and cooked, and served by the Multikulti-s. We're one family (though I'm sometimes loath to consider a Pole or Cromwellian my brother). :lol:
Hang together or Hang separately. We are 10% of the global population and fading fast. If these squabbles among siblings continue, we have no hope save Divine intervention. And as any good Catholic will tell you, to rely only on Divine intervention to save us is to sin-to abdicate the cup placed before us to God.
2003-06-28 02:41 | User Profile
I agree with CMB. Too many idealists insisting on it's either their way or highway. The simple truth is, whites are too diverse in their opinions on religion, music, history, etc. to try to demand some kind of strict conformance to what someone believes is the only way to promote our interests.
2003-06-28 12:18 | User Profile
*Originally posted by Campion Moore Boru@Jun 28 2003, 02:32 * ** Hang together or Hang separately. We are 10% of the global population and fading fast. If these squabbles among siblings continue, we have no hope save Divine intervention. And as any good Catholic will tell you, to rely only on Divine intervention to save us is to sin-to abdicate the cup placed before us to God. **
My sentiments exactly, CMB.
But it's a two-way street, man. What's good for the goose is good for the goose-stepper, so to speak.
The popular opinion seems to be that we're all supposed to give a pass to the pan-German jingoism that was Nazism and the vitriol heaped upon Christianity, but never actually engage in such ourselves.
"Hey, Walter! You're not playing by the rules! Christians are supposed to be nice, Nazis are the only ones who get to be mean. Turn the other cheek, man!"
Nuh-uh, laddies. It just don't work that way.
If Herr Gaunt feels the need to whimper about his country's fate and how bloody unfair it all was and how the rest of the world was just picking on the poor little Jerries :crybaby: , then I have the right to call him on it from the point of view of my glorious American ancestors and their God-fearing Polish Catholic neighbors. If the Nazis feel froggy enough to heap abuse on my Faith, then I have the right to point out the inanity of Nazism, or at least what falsely passes for it here. If the neo-Pagans get to yammer on about how Christianity destroyed Europe, then a natural right arises with me to respond in kind.
It's called reciprocity, folks. You want to all get along? You want a big tent where we can actually get something done? You don't want the Pollacks fighting the Krauts, the Micks fighting the Limeys, the Yanks fighting the Rebs, and the Proddies fighting the Mackerel Snappers?
Well then, that's just peachy-keen with me. But I'm not the one pressing on the nerve of the defunct non-entities of the Confederacy or Hitler's Germany here, glorifying them and their causes and vilifying their enemies; namely, my people. Many here feel free to hit all of those buttons, and then are shocked - I mean shocked - that a Yankee (many of my ancestors fought in the Civil War) with Catholic and Slavic sympathies might take offense.
And there are many, many more like me than there are Nazis or Pagans.
So, if my brothers are serious about building a broad movement, I say great. I can work with you, and can assure you that you'll find a reliable ally in me. But just keep in mind that it's a two-way street, and which side won all the previous wars.
Warmest regards,
Walter
2003-06-28 15:32 | User Profile
Firstly, I'll offer a compliment to the posters involved in this debate: very interesting debate, lots of ideas offered here that I did not find in school. Lots of things for an agnostic to mull over.
I'll offer some criticism and you all can see, if as we say, you are "impressed, depressed or unimpressed."
Firstly, for Walter Yannis: it does seem to me that Christianty is doing what it does best: dividing White folk. I have often wondered if your religion is some sort of cosmic plot, working through the Jews, to divide White people.
Secondly, to Leland Gaunt and others: it might be good to bear in mind that ZOG/America turned your ideology everywhere but loose: America and her allies really did beat the living sh-- out of you: not a good selling point for your views! I have liking for your views, but Walter Yannis has something your side does not: the power of religion, a religion that does offer something to people and that is organized and is in place. It is not alway clear to me what you have to offer.
Thirdly, it seems to me that while you intellectual bucks are butting heads, those of the beady eyes and hooked noses are preparing a place in the Gulag for all of you. Your placement in Gulag will not be determined by your religion or lack of it!
My own position is that I support a brotherhood of whites. Brothers of course will debate and sometimes get angry at each other, but brothers should also bear in mind that they are united by blood and that there are some questions that it is better to agree to disagree about.
It might also be a good idea to start a department of supernatural studies to see if questions about God and immortality, etc., can be settled in an objective manner. I have a hope that some wise white guy will be able to give a clear answer to the various questions. This might help us country folk who stare up at the heavens and wonder about God.
2003-06-28 15:59 | User Profile
This crap is over. While we bicker along age old ethnic quibbles, we are divided and cooked, and served by the Multikulti-s. We're one family (though I'm sometimes loath to consider a Pole or Cromwellian my brother).
I agree that we need to be unified in action. However, there are certain types I'd just as soon tell to hit the road. The type who tells his fellow white "we bayonetted you and then had our way with your women" strikes me as a prime example. A barbarian posing as a Christian is no kinsman of mine. It has nothing to do with German or Pole or Croat or Serb, it has to do with enlightened vs benighted. This man sounds like a turk or a mongol, not a White man. I'm not Christian and I have more Christian charity than he does.
**But it's a two-way street, man. **
Yes, and we all know which side of the street you're on, and which way you're travelling. Be careful opening that Bible of yours for the first time, after this many years it might be a tad petrified and crumble.
It's called reciprocity, folks
Yes it is, and it's anathema to your nominal religion.
**and which side won all the previous wars. **
You're awfully smug for all the victories we've won fighting the wrong side, and coming in only at the end at that. We managed to keep our hair unmussed in two world wars, letting others do the dying while telling ourselves we did everything, and you're gloating over that?
You have the sound of a bandit bragging over successfully ambushing a lone man with your gang preceding you.
My ancestors have been here since before the union, and I for one take no pride in joining the bolsheviks against the Germans.
2003-06-28 16:52 | User Profile
I agree that we need to be unified in action. However, there are certain types I'd just as soon tell to hit the road. The type who tells his fellow white "we bayonetted you and then had our way with your women" strikes me as a prime example. A barbarian posing as a Christian is no kinsman of mine. It has nothing to do with German or Pole or Croat or Serb, it has to do with enlightened vs benighted. This man sounds like a turk or a mongol, not a White man. I'm not Christian and I have more Christian charity than he does.
You claim you're not a Christian, yet you presume yourself qualified to define the parameters of "Christian charity." How's that? Perhaps you could enlighten us with your position on Buddhism, I'm sure it will be just as ill founded as your take on "Christian charity."
Now then, the merest glance at history proves that Christianity isn't the sweetums little relgion practiced in today's suburbia. Catholic theology has always, for example, understood that wars can be justly fought; and indeed that they must be fought under limited circumstances. In fact, St. Thomas Aquinas taught us that a just war is an extension of Christian charity, and that fighting as a soldier in a just war is among the highest of services to our fellow man, and indeed to Christ. Perhaps reasonable minds could differ as to whether any of these wars were just, but I believe that they qualify and certainly the great majority of Christian thinkers would agree. Thus, fighting with America in wars mentioned are, in accordance with Catholic teaching, the very stuff of Christian charity - or at least they would appear to be.
Of course, you're not a Christian so you don't really have a right to an opinion on that particular question, do you? On the other hand, that doesn't seem to stop you anyway, so have at it, man. Tell me all about Aquinas and his just war theory, and why you think it's one way or the other. No really, I can't wait to hear this.
Yes, and we all know which side of the street you're on, and which way you're travelling. Be careful opening that Bible of yours for the first time, after this many years it might be a tad petrified and crumble.
You again betray your ignorance of my religion. The Bible that I have is chocked full of wars of all sorts and allusions to violence. See above for the specifically Catholic take on this question.
> It's called reciprocity, folks**
Yes it is, and it's anathema to your nominal religion.**
Again I ask you, as a non-Christian, how in the hell would you know? You remind me of the Kevin Klein character in the comedy classic "A Fish Called Wanda," who insisted that the "essence of Buddhism is EVERY MAN FOR HIMSELF!" He also thought that Aristotle was a Belgian. Your opinions are equally unfounded, however interesting they might be.
You actually prove my point about double standards and expectations. You would hold me to an ersatz "Christian" standard to turn the other cheek to attacks on my faith and people, while holding our Nazi and Pagan (and to a lesser degree Confederate) friends to the more pugilistic standard that you expect for them.
I don't play by somebody else's rules.
You're awfully smug for all the victories we've won fighting the wrong side, and coming in only at the end at that. We managed to keep our hair unmussed in two world wars, letting others do the dying while telling ourselves we did everything, and you're gloating over that?
You have the sound of a bandit bragging over successfully ambushing a lone man with your gang preceding you.
My ancestors have been here since before the union, and I for one take no pride in joining the bolsheviks against the Germans.**
And that's not a completely unreasonable position to hold, although clearly I disagree with it. Hey, I'm not getting down on anybody for their beliefs. I'm all for talking these things out. What I can't abide is this double standard - one for Christians, another for the Nazis and Pagans and the various and sundry what-have-you's frequenting this board.
One for Yankees (aggessors and oppressors), another for Confederates (noble land owners, freedom-loving heroes).
One for Germans (heroes, everybody ganged up on them but they were still superior even though they lost), another for Slavs (see Himmler's Posen Speech, that seems to be the general opinion here of Russians and Poles, who so cruelly victimized the poor little Jerry Germans).
I believe in reciprocity. You respect my religion (and you can start by ceasing your presumptuous and ill-founded pronouncements about it), and I'll respect yours. You treat my people and history with respect, and you can expect the same from me.
Deal?
Walter
2003-06-28 17:17 | User Profile
aaaaawwwwwwwwww... that infamous yankee pride rears its mercenary head again, unable to accept the possibility that its conquests weren't in the best interests of mankind. Never fear, the "victors" are fast at work on legislation assuring that you're not confronted with discomforting criticisms of your (and some of my own)ancestors' accomplishments.
"I am not one of those who, clinging to the old superstitions that the will of Heaven is revealed in the immediate results of trial by combat, fancy that right must be on the side of might, and speak of Appomattox as a judgement of God. I do not forget that a Suwaroff triumphed and Kosciusko fell; that Nero wielded the scepter of an empire and a Paul was beheaded; that a Herod was crowned and Christ crucified; instead of accepting the defeat of the South as a divine verdict against her, I regard it as but another instance of 'truth on the scaffold and wrong on the throne'." ~ Rev. Dr. Robert C. Cave, Confederate Memorial Day, 1894
2003-06-28 17:20 | User Profile
*Originally posted by Ruffin@Jun 28 2003, 17:17 * ** aaaaawwwwwwwwww... that infamous yankee pride rears its mercenary head again, unable to accept the possibility that its conquests weren't in the best interests of mankind. **
Not so, Ruffin.
I'm more than willing to lend a sympathetic ear to your reasoned arguments.
Walter
2003-06-28 17:35 | User Profile
*Originally posted by Lane@Jun 28 2003, 15:32 * ** Firstly, for Walter Yannis: it does seem to me that Christianty is doing what it does best: dividing White folk. I have often wondered if your religion is some sort of cosmic plot, working through the Jews, to divide White people. **
I disagree.
Christianity was the only thing that ever united white folks.
It was called Christendom. It achieved astonishing heights.
Now, I'm certainly hip to the fact that whites are not united and that the Church does not enjoy the status it did centuries ago, and I'm more than willing to listen to alternative proposals as to a better way to unite white folks.
But before we get to that let me ask you if you ever said a similar thing about some of the other failed ideologies that are contending for pride of place on this board?
Could it be said that the Nazi's divided white folks? Well, jeepers man, I'd have to say yes indeed it could. It surely succeeded in alienating the Anglo-Saxon and Slavic worlds, which are of course no mean part of the white world, right? But did you ever say that about the Nazis? Did it even occur to you?
How about paganism in its various forms? Did that unite white folks? Were the Germans united in paganism with the rest of the ancient world? Did Christianity somehow destroy this pagan unity? Well, again I gotta say jeepers creepers buddy, but my history book says that pagan Europe was riddled with tribal wars that worshipped a multitude of warring gods.
Perhaps we could try Marxism, or Boasian Psychology, or whatever? Darwinism? Liberalism? Antidisestablishmentarianism? You name it, and please tell me whether it succeeded in uniting white folks, and if not then whether it could be said that it divided white folks. This will be, I'm sure, a most instructive exercise for us all.
I'm betting you can't think of any other faith or ideology that has ever, or indeed could ever reasonably hope, to unite whites. But again, the Medieval Church did acheive this unity substantively, however imperfectly. Soooo . . . what are we saying here? You're saying that Christianity is the best at dividing whites, while the merest glance at the facts shows that it is the only thing that ever united whites.
Please explain this to me, I'm sure I must be missing something.
Regards,
Walter
2003-06-28 18:03 | User Profile
Walter, you're the one who has stopped short of explaining what there is to be proud of in destroying self-government and subjugating the white west to Jewish domination. Unless you believe those were less important by-products of healthy exhibitions of manliness, and that those military campaigns were carried out as an end in themselves.
2003-06-28 18:10 | User Profile
*Originally posted by Ruffin@Jun 28 2003, 18:03 * ** Walter, you're the one who has stopped short of explaining what there is to be proud of in destroying self-government and subjugating the white west to Jewish domination. Unless you believe those were less important by-products of healthy exhibitions of manliness, and that those military campaigns were carried out as an end in themselves. **
You lost me on that one, buddy.
When did I come out in favour of abolishing self-government and Inner Party rule?
I recall making no such statements.
Walter
2003-06-28 18:28 | User Profile
*Originally posted by madrussian@Jun 28 2003, 02:41 * ** I agree with CMB. Too many idealists insisting on it's either their way or highway. The simple truth is, whites are too diverse in their opinions on religion, music, history, etc. to try to demand some kind of strict conformance to what someone believes is the only way to promote our interests. **
I agree with that, MR.
But as I said, it's a two-way street.
I'll have none of this investing Nazi Germany with all goodness and truth and wrapping it up in cotton batting, while holding open season on the Church and other groups (white and otherwise) who sufferred under their misrule.
I mean, what is this, affirmative action for Nazis? Multiculturalism for the Pagans?
Check out just some of the inane comments on this page. "Christianity is divisive," as if Nazism or Paganism weren't. "Real Christianity wouldn't countenance bayonetting an enemy and rejoicing in the fact as an act of Christian charity" despite the clear history and doctrine to the contrary. Such nonsense must not be left unchallenged, and I assure you that these same comments would never have been directed at the Nazis or Pagans, because those making them know damned well that the Nazis and Pagans wouldn't put up with it.
I don't say "my way or the highway." Heck, I'm all for freedome of religion, and I think I've shown myself to be a reasonable interlocutor.
But measure for measure, man. If a man wants respect for his views, he may not deny the same to others.
Walter
2003-06-28 19:52 | User Profile
Just because someone is critical of Christianity, or have a different outlook on NS, they have to be bayonetted and their women raped? When no proper respect is shown, forget all the "working together" crap and start a war on your kin? Can this demand of "respect" be toned down, or better demanded of your enemies?
You don't extend that sentiment, at least not aloud, to the Jews. Just try replacing Krauts with Jews in that rant of yours.
2003-06-28 20:02 | User Profile
You claim you're not a Christian, yet you presume yourself qualified to define the parameters of "Christian charity." How's that? Perhaps you could enlighten us with your position on Buddhism, I'm sure it will be just as ill founded as your take on "Christian charity."
No one is capable of enlightening the unwilling. That said, I find it difficult to understand why one has to believe in Christianity to interpret scripture. I was raised a Christian, but the scribblings of the long-dead eventually gave way to living reason.
Now then, the merest glance at history proves that Christianity isn't the sweetums little relgion practiced in today's suburbia.
This is true, however one has to ask oneself where God was as his religion went soft. Unless of course one comes from my general camp, and recognizes Christianity as an ideology, not a reality. Then it makes sense that a religion is only as strong as its adherents.
Catholic theology has always, for example, understood that wars can be justly fought; and indeed that they must be fought under limited circumstances.
I don't see anything commendable in allowing people to follow their reason. I don't congratulate people for breathing either.
In fact, St. Thomas Aquinas taught us that a just war is an extension of Christian charity, and that fighting as a soldier in a just war is among the highest of services to our fellow man, and indeed to Christ.
Aquinas isn't canon.
Perhaps reasonable minds could differ as to whether any of these wars were just, but I believe that they qualify and certainly the great majority of Christian thinkers would agree.
Majorities are composed of fools, for the most part. The great majority of Christian thinkers are multi-cultists, egalitarians, and Jew-apologists.
Thus, fighting with America in wars mentioned are, in accordance with Catholic teaching, the very stuff of Christian charity - or at least they would appear to be.
Well, if you can follow the blind alley that far, I suppose this isn't an unreasonable conclusion.
Of course, you're not a Christian so you don't really have a right to an opinion on that particular question, do you?
I'm not a Black man, but I have certain opinions about Black men. I'm not a woman, but I have opinions about them. I'm not a redhead, but I have opinions about them. I'm not a criminal, but I have opinions about them. I'm not a gun owner, but I have opinions about guns. I've never been to Japan, but I have opinions about the Japanese. Do you read? Or is all your knowledge first hand? If you do indeed read, you should try more on the subject of logic.
On the other hand, that doesn't seem to stop you anyway, so have at it, man. Tell me all about Aquinas and his just war theory, and why you think it's one way or the other. No really, I can't wait to hear this.
I haven'r read any Aquinas, and I don't fight straw men. In any event, Aquinas is not canon, the Bible is canon. Aquinas was a philosopher, his work is not canon.
You again betray your ignorance of my religion. The Bible that I have is chocked full of wars of all sorts and allusions to violence. See above for the specifically Catholic take on this question.
Most of that is in the Old Testament, and there isn't much of it worth a real Christian's time. I'm sure Esther is one of your favorites though. The word Christian is derived from Christ, you know that right? Christ wasn't much on war.
Again I ask you, as a non-Christian, how in the hell would you know? You remind me of the Kevin Klein character in the comedy classic "A Fish Called Wanda," who insisted that the "essence of Buddhism is EVERY MAN FOR HIMSELF!" He also thought that Aristotle was a Belgian. Your opinions are equally unfounded, however interesting they might be.
Again I tell you that faith is not a requirement for interpreting scripture. Jesus would take a dim view of the sort of man who bragged of bayonetting his enemies and taking their women. He'd probably try to cast something out of you.
**You actually prove my point about double standards and expectations. You would hold me to an ersatz "Christian" standard to turn the other cheek to attacks on my faith and people, while holding our Nazi and Pagan (and to a lesser degree Confederate) friends to the more pugilistic standard that you expect for them.
I don't play by somebody else's rules. **
It's becoming obvious to me that you don't play by any rules. Please show me how I promoted a double-standard amongst Whites? I don't hold anyone to turn the other cheek, I think it's a quote of Christ's almost universally held out of context. And I myself am not a pagan nor do I particulary approve of paganism. I have more sympathy for Christianity than any other religion, due to my upbringing.
And that's not a completely unreasonable position to hold, although clearly I disagree with it. Hey, I'm not getting down on anybody for their beliefs. I'm all for talking these things out. What I can't abide is this double standard - one for Christians, another for the Nazis and Pagans and the various and sundry what-have-you's frequenting this board.
I'm all for double standards, properly applied. One for my enemies, another for my kinsmen. I think such a double standard is implied or stated outright throughout most of the Old and New Testaments. I agree that ingroups should share the same standard, however. I only mean to point out that double-standards are not inherently unhealthy, quite the opposite in fact.
**One for Germans (heroes, everybody ganged up on them but they were still superior even though they lost), another for Slavs (see Himmler's Posen Speech, that seems to be the general opinion here of Russians and Poles, who so cruelly victimized the poor little Jerry Germans).
I believe in reciprocity. You respect my religion (and you can start by ceasing your presumptuous and ill-founded pronouncements about it), and I'll respect yours. You treat my people and history with respect, and you can expect the same from me.**
No, Mr. strawman, it's not a deal. I don't want anyone who brags about pillaging fellow Whites in my tent. Statements like that just send up a red flag. I don't care if it was Germans or Poles or Russians or Brits. I wouldn't brag about my tribesmen bayonetting Jews or taking their women, and I don't care one iota for Jews.
I don't think the Germans were wholly right, and I don't think the allies were wholly wrong. I do know that the allies were fighting to destroy the best chance White tribalism had at the time. I also know that the Soviet Union was a Jew-run anti-Christian land of villainy. I know it was shameful of the west to join with the Bolsheviks, any way you spin it. We should have crushed the USSR then settled with Germany, not the other way around.
2003-06-28 20:14 | User Profile
Originally posted by madrussian@Jun 28 2003, 19:52 * *Just because someone is critical of Christianity, or have a different outlook on NS, they have to be bayonetted and their women raped? **
They must have learned that from the Russians. BTW, I never realized the Russians who bayoneted and raped half of east Germany were ferocious Christian warriors, fighting the pagan Nazi enemy. :lol:
Seriously, you're one to talk about the need for respect on this forum. Remember its not the Christians who brought this issue up, deciding to launch a KGB type inquiry into the religious beliefs of their opponents, demanding all those not adhering to Nieszchien atheistic orthodoxy recant.
It was our Linderite agent provaceteurs, who started it. One can't blame Walter for wanting to get in a few digs back at the German Nazi's and their Stalinist allies who so conspired to rape his country. If it isn't exactly the Christian "turning the other check" I'd think you guys would be inclined to give him a few attaboys, instead of engaging in multiculturalist whining as putative members of our nations of our nations newest minority that no we're being "insensitive". :rolleyes:
2003-06-28 20:33 | User Profile
*Originally posted by Raider of Arks@Jun 28 2003, 20:02 * ** I haven'r read any Aquinas, and I don't fight straw men. In any event, Aquinas is not canon, the Bible is canon. Aquinas was a philosopher, his work is not canon. **
That isn't correct. Aquinas is a Doctor of the Church. His writings were (perhaps all but) canonized. His writings are the Church's official line on doctrine, just as the Bible is the Church's set of founding documents.
I take back the gratuitous verbiage on bayonetting Germans and schtupping fraulines - this was ill-advised and certainly impolitic. I apologize most sincerely to all, and especially to Leland Guant for my ill-considered words. I lost my temper, and hope that he can let it go. Madrussian is right, as are you. I was out of bounds with that.
However, in my own defense I must agree with the right honorable Okiereddust that I was provoked, and that you and others here apply a more rigorous standard to me and the other Christians here than you apply to the various Linderites. Ask yourselves in all honesty whether you apply the same standards to us.
Regards,
Walter
2003-06-28 20:43 | User Profile
Originally posted by Walter Yannis+Jun 28 2003, 12:10 -->
QUOTE* (Walter Yannis @ Jun 28 2003, 12:10 ) <!--QuoteBegin-Ruffin@Jun 28 2003, 18:03 * ** Walter, you're the one who has stopped short of explaining what there is to be proud of in destroying self-government and subjugating the white west to Jewish domination. Unless you believe those were less important by-products of healthy exhibitions of manliness, and that those military campaigns were carried out as an end in themselves. ** You lost me on that one, buddy.
When did I come out in favour of abolishing self-government and Inner Party rule?
I recall making no such statements.
Walter**
O.K., so tell me what your victorious though mercenary ancestors accomplished with their little picnics into the South in the 19th century and into Europe in the 20th that makes you so proud. I really want to know whether it's the causes they believed they were fighting for, or the results that we live with today, or if it's just their serving when called to do so, that inspires you.
Walter Yannis
2003-06-28 20:45 | User Profile
Originally posted by Ruffin+Jun 28 2003, 20:43 -->
QUOTE (Ruffin @ Jun 28 2003, 20:43 )
QUOTE* (Walter Yannis @ Jun 28 2003, 12:10 ) <!--QuoteBegin-Ruffin@Jun 28 2003, 18:03 * ** Walter, you're the one who has stopped short of explaining what there is to be proud of in destroying self-government and subjugating the white west to Jewish domination. Unless you believe those were less important by-products of healthy exhibitions of manliness, and that those military campaigns were carried out as an end in themselves. ** You lost me on that one, buddy.
When did I come out in favour of abolishing self-government and Inner Party rule?
I recall making no such statements.
Walter**
O.K., so tell me what your victorious though mercenary ancestors accomplished with their little picnics into the South in the 19th century and into Europe in the 20th that makes you so proud. I really want to know whether it's the causes they believed they were fighting for, or the results that we live with today, or if it's just their serving when called to do so, that inspires you. **
Meaning no disrespect, I must say that I'm surprised that a Southerner would ask such a question.
The short answer is "I'm proud of them because they were my people."
Isn't that obvious?
Regards,
Walter
Ruffin
2003-06-28 20:47 | User Profile
*okie:*.....the German Nazi's and their Stalinist allies who so conspired to rape his country.
Say what?
madrussian
2003-06-28 20:58 | User Profile
Okie,
Your bitterness and vindictivness affects your judgment. WY said nothing about Russians or Stalinists, and he already took his words back. Why don't you be gracious enough and let it go? Get with the program and stop being divisive, already :D
madrussian
2003-06-28 21:02 | User Profile
WY,
I don't hold a grudge against anyone who realizes the error of their ways ;)
For me, it's just another example what's wrong with the goyim -- they'd rather fight one another than be above it, and it takes little provocation for a fight to start. I didn't expect a whiff of freakerdom from you, but sometimes it's gratifying to catch someone with their pants down and realize we are all fallible.
Okiereddust
2003-06-28 21:05 | User Profile
Originally posted by Ruffin@Jun 28 2003, 20:47 * > okie:*.....the German Nazi's and their Stalinist allies who so conspired to rape his country.
Say what?**
Everybody knows that. From the start of the war where the Ribbontrop-Molotov treaty split Poland up, to near the end, where the Nazi's systematically leveled Warsaw to the ground, including all its most historic buildings, and sent its population to the concentration camps, while the Red Army watched just a few miles to the east, as if by agreement.
It was just for propoganda that East Germans troops didn't join the Russians troops in implementing the 1982 military coup that outlawed Solidarity and Polish civilian rule once again.
Ruffin
2003-06-28 21:19 | User Profile
Originally posted by Okiereddust+Jun 28 2003, 15:05 -->
QUOTE (Okiereddust @ Jun 28 2003, 15:05 ) <!--QuoteBegin-Ruffin@Jun 28 2003, 20:47 * > okie:*.....the German Nazi's and their Stalinist allies who so conspired to rape his country. Say what?**
Everybody knows that. From the start of the war where the Ribbontrop-Molotov treaty split Poland up, to near the end, where the Nazi's systematically leveled Warsaw to the ground, including all its most historic buildings, and sent its population to the concentration camps, while the Red Army watched just a few miles to the east, as if by agreement.
It was just for propoganda that East Germans troops didn't join the Russians troops in implementing the 1982 military coup that outlawed Solidarity and Polish civilian rule once again.**
Unless proud-of-my-yankee-ancestors-because-they're-my-people is a dual citizen, I don't grasp the devotion to "his country" you assign to him.
Walter Yannis
2003-06-28 21:50 | User Profile
Originally posted by Ruffin+Jun 28 2003, 21:19 -->
QUOTE (Ruffin @ Jun 28 2003, 21:19 )
QUOTE (Okiereddust @ Jun 28 2003, 15:05 ) <!--QuoteBegin-Ruffin@Jun 28 2003, 20:47 * > okie:*.....the German Nazi's and their Stalinist allies who so conspired to rape his country. Say what?**
Everybody knows that. From the start of the war where the Ribbontrop-Molotov treaty split Poland up, to near the end, where the Nazi's systematically leveled Warsaw to the ground, including all its most historic buildings, and sent its population to the concentration camps, while the Red Army watched just a few miles to the east, as if by agreement.
It was just for propoganda that East Germans troops didn't join the Russians troops in implementing the 1982 military coup that outlawed Solidarity and Polish civilian rule once again.**
Unless proud-of-my-yankee-ancestors-because-they're-my-people is a dual citizen, I don't grasp the devotion to "his country" you assign to him. **
Just to clarify, I claim a certain affinity for Eastern Europeans. I speak Russian pretty well, I've visited those countries many times, I spent years of my life obsessing over the great Russian novels, and I married into it in a way. Also, many (if not most) of the neighbors in my little Wisconsin home town were first or second generation Polish immigrants, and so I can't help but feel an empathy for Catholic Poland.
But I am of neither Polish or Russian ancestry. I'm your basic European American. My family homesteaded that area of Wisconsin. I have various European bloodlines flowing in my veins, and my sole political loyalty is to the goodle US of A.
Let me ask you, Ruffin. Why are you proud of your Southern ancestors. Is it because they fought for the right things, or simply that they are yours? Or a combination of the two, perhaps?
Walter
Okiereddust
2003-06-28 21:52 | User Profile
Originally posted by madrussian@Jun 28 2003, 20:58 * *Okie,
Your bitterness and vindictivness affects your judgment. WY said nothing about Russians or Stalinists,** Oh I forgot. Poles just LOVE Russians, and bear no ill feelings toward those who invaded their country from the east, or took as big a piece out of their country after the war as the did out of Germany. (as of course they love the Jews who welcomed them in 1939, as our dear departed friend pointed out at FR)
These little ties of slavic brotherhood. How could I possibly try to stir things up? :naughty:
and he already took his words back. Why don't you be gracious enough and let it go? Get with the program and stop being divisive, already :D
YOU STARTED IT! :taz:
:naughty:
Walter Yannis
2003-06-28 22:02 | User Profile
*Originally posted by Leland Gaunt@Jun 28 2003, 21:53 * ** I already had a fitting reply for that catholic troll posted, but then I was warned that this might lead to a bann. **
I repeat my sincere apology for my more extreme statements above.
They were uncalled for, and no matter what the provocation nothing could justify that.
Walter
Raider of Arks
2003-06-28 22:28 | User Profile
I for one accept your apology. I don't doubt that you were provoked, as I only scanned parts of this thread, and read others closely. I just have a problem imagining any justification for what you said. I can imagine a turn of events that would lead me to bayonet the enemy and perhaps even rape his women. I can't see bragging about it, however.
Like I said though, apology accepted. I offer mine as well for any offense given.
Btw I too have some pride in my ancestors, but that doesn't apply to everything they did.
You should also consider calling yourself Catholic instead of Christian, some Christians consider the Bible the beginning and the end of Christian doctrine. I'm not suggesting that Catholics aren't Christian, but rather the opposite.
NeoNietzsche
2003-06-28 23:19 | User Profile
Originally posted by Walter Yannis+Jun 27 2003, 06:50 -->
QUOTE* (Walter Yannis @ Jun 27 2003, 06:50 ) <!--QuoteBegin-Leland Gaunt@Jun 23 2003, 20:25 * ** First they come to my country with Bombers and Tanks, carve it up between themselves and the Bolshewiks. Then they bann our party - a party that came to power through the will of the german people. Then they kill our leaders and dress it up as "justice". Then they reeducate our youth, tell them how good the Jews are and what sick monsters their Grandparents were. they occupy us, hold troops here, divide citys and towns through fences and minefields. ** Wah! :crybaby:
**Whether 10,000 Russian women fall down from exhaustion in building a tank ditch is of interest to me only insofar as the tank ditches are finished for Germany. **
Himmler
So, fck you, Kraut. [nauseating rhetorical excesses follow at length.]*
However, in my own defense I must agree with the right honorable Okiereddust that I was provoked, and that you and others here apply a more rigorous standard to me and the other Christians here than you apply to the various Linderites. Ask yourselves in all honesty whether you apply the same standards to us.
Brother Walter,
Good to see that some composure has been recovered and some decorum restored. I noted your complaint, above, and was curious as to the specific bases of your complaint, rendered here only in terms of generalities.
On this point I was a little more thorough that RoA, and scanned the posts prior to your outburst in detail. It is evident that nothing other than your own unprovoked introduction of Himmler accounts for this otherwise bizarre incident. It would seem that you initially and sarcastically ["Wah!"] resented the suggestion that the Germans were more victims of the episode than your beloved Slavs, but then perversely took lustful credit for the thorough, subsequent victimization of the Germans. [!?]
You now creditably apologize, but complain vaguely of "provocation" not in evidence. Please specify the "others" mentioned above and examples of their offending duplicity, and name the "Linderites" along with their misdemeanors, such as you now rely upon for exculpation of yourself.
Neo
Ruffin
2003-06-28 23:40 | User Profile
Walter, I'm proud to be related to those Southerners who did the best they could to defend themselves against their invading former countrymen, however naively they were surprised by the northern renunciation of the principles their fathers had agreed to. There are other things the South has done that I'm not proud of, like their failure to take up arms during "the civil rights" era. And I'm not too proud of their Stepfording for the Jews now. While I wish they hadn't bought into yankee-uniformity, I understand how they were misled into fighting the Germans in a way similar to how yankees were inflated with false pride (and the god of uniformity) into turning their guns on the South. But I'm not proud of it. I consider these things serious flaws in their being, on par with burning the homes and towns of their own relatives. I hope that someday soon all Americans will acknowledge how they've been used, often against their own. Until we do, we'll be as despised as the Jews rightly are.
I know that the Jews have been beating us all over the head for a long time about our alleged past "injustices", and that that leaves little room for comparing our REAL mistakes and acheivements to the condition we've arrived at because of them (rather than because of those Jew-invented "injustices"). But I don't think we'll ever come together by dwelling only on our positive acheivements, let alone our military conquests that have turned out to be societal defeats. We have to not only be willing to acknowledge where we've made wrong turns but to hand that acknowledgement to those we have destroyed that we shouldn't have. They have a right to it and can only question the value of union with people who withhold it in light of all that we now know.
If I have any German ancestry, it's so many centuries back that I'm unaware of it, but I do have an affinity for the great and valiant effort they made in defense of Europe against Jewish-led destruction and subjugation to the anti-white powers that have called the shots in America since 1865, although more noticeably since 1945.
By the way, lest you think I consider you yankees other than my people, I'm married to a girl from New Jersey (sorry, New England would've been beyond the pale :lol: ).
NeoNietzsche
2003-06-28 23:46 | User Profile
Originally posted by Okiereddust+Jun 28 2003, 14:14 -->
QUOTE (Okiereddust @ Jun 28 2003, 14:14 ) <!--QuoteBegin-madrussian@Jun 28 2003, 19:52 * *Just because someone is critical of Christianity, or have a different outlook on NS, they have to be bayonetted and their women raped? ** They must have learned that from the Russians. BTW, I never realized the Russians who bayoneted and raped half of east Germany were ferocious Christian warriors, fighting the pagan Nazi enemy. :lol:
Seriously, you're one to talk about the need for respect on this forum. Remember its not the Christians who brought this issue up, deciding to launch a KGB type inquiry into the religious beliefs of their opponents, demanding all those not adhering to Nieszchien atheistic orthodoxy recant.
It was our Linderite agent provaceteurs, who started it. One can't blame Walter for wanting to get in a few digs back at the German Nazi's and their Stalinist allies who so conspired to rape his country. If it isn't exactly the Christian "turning the other check" I'd think you guys would be inclined to give him a few attaboys, instead of engaging in multiculturalist whining as putative members of our nations of our nations newest minority that no we're being "insensitive". :rolleyes:**
BTW, I never realized the Russians who bayoneted and raped half of east Germany were ferocious Christian warriors, fighting the pagan Nazi enemy. :lol:
My Walterian analysis is that Walter has betrayed his unconscious recognition that Christianity and Communism are kissin' cousins.
**Remember its not the Christians who brought this issue up, deciding to launch a KGB type inquiry into the religious beliefs of their opponents, demanding all those not adhering to Nieszchien atheistic orthodoxy recant. **
Classic persecution complex in evidence here for our amusement.
It was our Linderite agent provaceteurs[sic], who started it.
Then we'll have to tell their mommies on them.
Okiereddust
2003-06-28 23:47 | User Profile
Originally posted by NeoNietzsche@Jun 28 2003, 23:19 * > However, in my own defense I must agree with the right honorable Okiereddust that I was provoked, and that you and others here apply a more rigorous standard to me and the other Christians here than you apply to the various Linderites. Ask yourselves in all honesty whether you apply the same standards to us.*
Brother Walter,
Good to see that some composure has been recovered and some decorum restored. I noted your complaint, above, and was curious as to the specific bases of your complaint, rendered here only in terms of generalities......
You now creditably apologize, but complain vaguely of "provocation" not in evidence. Please specify the "others" mentioned above and examples of their offending duplicity, and name the "Linderites" along with their misdemeanors, such as you now rely upon for exculpation of yourself.
Neo**
I thought he addressed the question rather well
**I'll have none of this investing Nazi Germany with all goodness and truth and wrapping it up in cotton batting, while holding open season on the Church and other groups (white and otherwise) who sufferred under their misrule.
I mean, what is this, affirmative action for Nazis? Multiculturalism for the Pagans?
Check out just some of the inane comments on this page. "Christianity is divisive," as if Nazism or Paganism weren't. "Real Christianity wouldn't countenance bayonetting an enemy and rejoicing in the fact as an act of Christian charity" despite the clear history and doctrine to the contrary. Such nonsense must not be left unchallenged, and I assure you that these same comments would never have been directed at the Nazis or Pagans, because those making them know damned well that the Nazis and Pagans wouldn't put up with it.**
Such statements do not just speak by themselves, but in the context of the overall hostile environment created by all the NA style Christian hating jingoism, and slurs.
Its so bad, I've almost considered complaining to Alan Dershowitz and the ADL. ;) Fortunately for you in this matter they're on your side :thd:
NeoNietzsche
2003-06-29 00:17 | User Profile
Originally posted by Okiereddust+Jun 28 2003, 17:47 -->
QUOTE (Okiereddust @ Jun 28 2003, 17:47 ) <!--QuoteBegin-NeoNietzsche@Jun 28 2003, 23:19 * > However, in my own defense I must agree with the right honorable Okiereddust that I was provoked, and that you and others here apply a more rigorous standard to me and the other Christians here than you apply to the various Linderites. Ask yourselves in all honesty whether you apply the same standards to us.* Brother Walter,
Good to see that some composure has been recovered and some decorum restored. I noted your complaint, above, and was curious as to the specific bases of your complaint, rendered here only in terms of generalities......
You now creditably apologize, but complain vaguely of "provocation" not in evidence. Please specify the "others" mentioned above and examples of their offending duplicity, and name the "Linderites" along with their misdemeanors, such as you now rely upon for exculpation of yourself.
Neo**
I thought he addressed the question rather well
**I'll have none of this investing Nazi Germany with all goodness and truth and wrapping it up in cotton batting, while holding open season on the Church and other groups (white and otherwise) who sufferred under their misrule.
I mean, what is this, affirmative action for Nazis? Multiculturalism for the Pagans?
Check out just some of the inane comments on this page. "Christianity is divisive," as if Nazism or Paganism weren't. "Real Christianity wouldn't countenance bayonetting an enemy and rejoicing in the fact as an act of Christian charity" despite the clear history and doctrine to the contrary. Such nonsense must not be left unchallenged, and I assure you that these same comments would never have been directed at the Nazis or Pagans, because those making them know damned well that the Nazis and Pagans wouldn't put up with it.**
Such statements do not just speak by themselves, but in the context of the overall hostile environment created by all the NA style Christian hating jingoism, and slurs.
Its so bad, I've almost considered complaining to Alan Dershowitz and the ADL. ;) Fortunately for you in this matter they're on your side :thd:**
So, Walter is to claim extenuating circumstances on the basis of:
1) LG's failure to properly balance and qualify his otherwise correct remarks.
2) A similar failure, unattributed, to note that Nazism and Paganism are divisive, amidst the correct attribution of divisiveness to Christianity.
3) His own effrontery in rejecting a correct characterization of "real Christianity," on the basis of Papist, neo-pagan, elaborately-rationalized perversion of the clear sense of scriptural intent in regard to the violence which Walter so relishes in his sinful heart.
4) An alleged double standard in regard to that up with which Nazis and Pagans supposedly will not put.
As we see, nothing here constitutes "provocation" to other than temperately-delivered qualifications and counter-arguments.
NeoNietzsche
2003-06-29 00:29 | User Profile
Originally posted by Okiereddust@Jun 28 2003, 17:47 * Such statements do not just speak by themselves, but in the context of the overall hostile environment created by all the NA style Christian hating jingoism, and slurs.*
Please relax - and tell us, in your own words, just when you first felt that you were in a "hostile" environment.
Campion Moore Boru
2003-06-29 01:32 | User Profile
Originally posted by Walter Yannis+Jun 28 2003, 06:18 -->
QUOTE* (Walter Yannis @ Jun 28 2003, 06:18 ) <!--QuoteBegin-Campion Moore Boru@Jun 28 2003, 02:32 * ** Hang together or Hang separately. We are 10% of the global population and fading fast. If these squabbles among siblings continue, we have no hope save Divine intervention. And as any good Catholic will tell you, to rely only on Divine intervention to save us is to sin-to abdicate the cup placed before us to God. ** My sentiments exactly, CMB.
But it's a two-way street, man. What's good for the goose is good for the goose-stepper, so to speak.
The popular opinion seems to be that we're all supposed to give a pass to the pan-German jingoism that was Nazism and the vitriol heaped upon Christianity, but never actually engage in such ourselves.
"Hey, Walter! You're not playing by the rules! Christians are supposed to be nice, Nazis are the only ones who get to be mean. Turn the other cheek, man!"
Nuh-uh, laddies. It just don't work that way.
If Herr Gaunt feels the need to whimper about his country's fate and how bloody unfair it all was and how the rest of the world was just picking on the poor little Jerries :crybaby: , then I have the right to call him on it from the point of view of my glorious American ancestors and their God-fearing Polish Catholic neighbors. If the Nazis feel froggy enough to heap abuse on my Faith, then I have the right to point out the inanity of Nazism, or at least what falsely passes for it here. If the neo-Pagans get to yammer on about how Christianity destroyed Europe, then a natural right arises with me to respond in kind.
It's called reciprocity, folks. You want to all get along? You want a big tent where we can actually get something done? You don't want the Pollacks fighting the Krauts, the Micks fighting the Limeys, the Yanks fighting the Rebs, and the Proddies fighting the Mackerel Snappers?
Well then, that's just peachy-keen with me. But I'm not the one pressing on the nerve of the defunct non-entities of the Confederacy or Hitler's Germany here, glorifying them and their causes and vilifying their enemies; namely, my people. Many here feel free to hit all of those buttons, and then are shocked - I mean shocked - that a Yankee (many of my ancestors fought in the Civil War) with Catholic and Slavic sympathies might take offense.
And there are many, many more like me than there are Nazis or Pagans.
So, if my brothers are serious about building a broad movement, I say great. I can work with you, and can assure you that you'll find a reliable ally in me. But just keep in mind that it's a two-way street, and which side won all the previous wars.
Warmest regards,
Walter **
Let's just say I expect more of you. :wub:
I'm more than familiar with the Opa devotees who posit that if you're not willing to committ seppuku for his memory, you're a "Jewtool." Trust me, this piss me off as much as you. Remember to give the lads a little leeway, I have a feeling theu're not much beyond adolescence and buy into the Nazism of Hollywood.
My political opinions are that Germany did not start the war with Britain or America, rather, also sprach Lindbergh, they were targeted. Moreover the Brits did not want a competitor to their Glorious Empire. I see nothing the Germans did that the Brits didn't do in spades. Though I think NS's pan-germanism- which Walter was just an expression of thoroughly approvable Nationalism- was taken too far in many regards.
ANyway that's in the past. Danzig can wait for now. I won't even say that the current milieu of England is Hitler's revenge B)
The point is to recognize the real enemy, and direct our energies against them. Not to rehash old grievances. Continuin to quibble over the ownership of the deck chairs while our ship slowly sinks seals all of our fates. Understand that this is not directed solely against you.
NeoNietzsche
2003-06-29 02:10 | User Profile
[For the enraged and persecuted among the boys and girls of OD:]
"The faith such as primitive Christianity demanded and not infrequently obtained in the midst of a skeptical and southerly free‑spirited world with a centuries‑long struggle between philosophical schools behind it and in it, plus the education in tolerance provided by the Imperium Romanum ‑ this faith is not that gruff, true‑hearted liegeman's faith with which a Luther, say, or a Cromwell, or some other northern barbarian of the spirit cleaved to his God and his Christianity; it is rather that faith of Pascal which resembles in a terrible fashion a protracted suicide of reason ‑ of a tough, long‑lived, wormlike reason which is not to be killed instantaneously with a single blow. The Christian faith is from the beginning sacrifice: sacrifice of all freedom, all pride, all self‑confidence of the spirit, at the same time enslavement and self‑mockery, self-mutilation. There is cruelty and religious Phoenicianism in this faith exacted of an over‑ripe, manifold and much‑indulged conscience: its presupposition is that the subjection of the spirit is indescribably painful, that the entire past and habitude of such a spirit resists the absurdissimum which
faith' appears to it to be. Modern men, with their obtuseness to all Christian nomenclature, no longer sense the gruesome superlative which lay for an antique taste in the paradoxical formulagod on the cross'. Never and nowhere has there hitherto been a comparable boldness in inversion, anything so fearsome, questioning and questionable, as this formula: it promised a revaluation of all antique values. ‑ It is the orient, the innermost orient, it is the oriental slave who in this fashion took vengeance on Rome and its noble and frivolous tolerance, on Romancatholicism' of faith ‑ and it has never been faith but always freedom from faith, that half‑stoical and smiling unconcern with the seriousness of faith, that has enraged slaves in their masters and against their masters.Enlightenment' enrages: for the slave wants the unconditional, he understands in the domain of morality too only the tyrannical, he loves as he hates, without nuance, into the depths of him, to the point of pain, to the point of sickness ‑ the great hidden suffering he feels is enraged at the noble taste which seems to deny suffering. Skepticism towards suffering, at bottom no more than a pose of aristocratic morality, was likewise not the least contributory cause of the last great slave revolt which began with the French Revolution."
Okiereddust
2003-06-29 03:12 | User Profile
Originally posted by NeoNietzsche+Jun 29 2003, 00:29 -->
QUOTE (NeoNietzsche @ Jun 29 2003, 00:29 ) <!--QuoteBegin-Okiereddust@Jun 28 2003, 17:47 * Such statements do not just speak by themselves, but in the context of the overall hostile environment created by all the NA style Christian hating jingoism, and slurs.* Please relax - and tell us, in your own words, just when you first felt that you were in a "hostile" environment.**
:huh: You would know already, if you wren't blinded by your overarching, arrogant, to the point of habitual, reflexive, and barely conscious [url=http://forum.originaldissent.com/index.php?showtopic=235&hl=christophobia]Neocon Christophobia[/url].:P
If Alan and Co. didn't have the same traits, I'm sure they would have designed a great sensitivity training course for Christophobics. You would just be sitting in your seat mumbling "personally I think its a myth, but if its your myth, and makes your motor hum, more power to you - whatever rocks your boat". :rolleyes:
Just think about it, a kinder and gentler NN :mellow:
:D
Okiereddust
2003-06-29 03:23 | User Profile
Originally posted by Leland Gaunt@Jun 29 2003, 03:14 * *The problems the christian fanatics are facing are very simple. They just can not accept dissent and that anyone dares not to believe.
It just shows how intolerant they realy are, which is not surprising at all. All semitic religions are. They then resort to insulting ones nationalety and culture.**
So you don't like our insulting your "nationalety and culture"? You think we "realy" are intolerant?
What an Aryan superman you are. :P You sound (and spell) like a whiny "negro" (darn this sensitivity software, even at OD :rolleyes:) trying to write an EEO complaint :afro:
:lol:
Texas Dissident
2003-06-29 03:54 | User Profile
Originally posted by Leland Gaunt@Jun 28 2003, 16:53 * *I already had a fitting reply for that catholic troll posted, but then I was warned that this might lead to a bann. So I take note that on this forum obviously a double standard rules, where not everyone is allowed to say the same thing and others can get away with it. **
For those keeping score at home, for the record I haven't said anything to anyone about anything on this thread.
But having said that, I've never claimed impartiality on any subject discussed on this board. I readily admit to being just as hard-headed as everyone else here. :)
Now back to the sparring....
Phillip Augustus
2003-06-29 04:12 | User Profile
Leland Gaunt- how is a Catholic, on a pro-Western board, considered a troll?
Eendracht Maakt Mag
2003-06-29 04:33 | User Profile
Originally posted by Okiereddust+Jun 28 2003, 14:14 -->
QUOTE (Okiereddust @ Jun 28 2003, 14:14 ) <!--QuoteBegin-madrussian@Jun 28 2003, 19:52 * *Just because someone is critical of Christianity, or have a different outlook on NS, they have to be bayonetted and their women raped? ** They must have learned that from the Russians. BTW, I never realized the Russians who bayoneted and raped half of east Germany were ferocious Christian warriors, fighting the pagan Nazi enemy. :lol: **
I would appreciate it if you would not use Russian as a term equivalent to Soviet. Less than half of the invasion force of Berlin were ethnic Russians; personally I do not think that I or my people should be held responsible for the actions of Georgians, Armenians, Turkics, etc... In any case, war is war. Atrocities, though regrettable, are inevitable. In my opinion its both asinine and hyppocritical for certain National Socialists and NS sympathizers to dwell on the regrettable events in Berlin. And if you have an interest in civilian attrocities I will gladly fill you in on Himmler's plan for the Occupied Eastern Territories and how it was carried out in Poland, Belarus, Russia and the Ukraine.
Okiereddust
2003-06-29 05:27 | User Profile
Originally posted by Prodigal Son+Jun 29 2003, 04:33 -->
QUOTE (Prodigal Son @ Jun 29 2003, 04:33 )
QUOTE (Okiereddust @ Jun 28 2003, 14:14 ) <!--QuoteBegin-madrussian@Jun 28 2003, 19:52 * *Just because someone is critical of Christianity, or have a different outlook on NS, they have to be bayonetted and their women raped? ** They must have learned that from the Russians. BTW, I never realized the Russians who bayoneted and raped half of east Germany were ferocious Christian warriors, fighting the pagan Nazi enemy. :lol: **
I would appreciate it if you would not use Russian as a term equivalent to Soviet. Less than half of the invasion force of Berlin were ethnic Russians; personally I do not think that I or my people should be held responsible for the actions of Georgians, Armenians, Turkics, etc... In any case, war is war. Atrocities, though regrettable, are inevitable. In my opinion its both asinine and hyppocritical for certain National Socialists and NS sympathizers to dwell on the regrettable events in Berlin. And if you have an interest in civilian attrocities I will gladly fill you in on Himmler's plan for the Occupied Eastern Territories and how it was carried out in Poland, Belarus, Russia and the Ukraine. **
No argument here, and there certainly was a parallel between Himmler's SS pagan actocities in the occupied territories and the Red Army's similar retribution in Germany. I just thought it odd that MR brought up that old bayoneting and raping metaphor. Whatever the faults of Christian holy warriors, the old code of chivalry usually held sway in this regard.:hyp:
Of course if you want us to, for us Christians there's always room for learning. :rolleyes:
Okiereddust
2003-06-29 05:29 | User Profile
Originally posted by Leland Gaunt+Jun 29 2003, 04:09 -->
QUOTE (Leland Gaunt @ Jun 29 2003, 04:09 ) <!--QuoteBegin-Okiereddust@Jun 29 2003, 03:23 * What an Aryan superman you are. :P You sound (and spell) like a whiny "negro" (darn this sensitivity software, even at OD :rolleyes:) trying to write an EEO complaint :lol:* [img]http://smilies.jeeptalk.org/contrib/geno/asshole2.gif[/img] ** :crybaby:
madrussian
2003-06-29 05:43 | User Profile
Originally posted by Okiereddust@Jun 28 2003, 22:27 * *I just thought it odd that MR brought up that old bayoneting and raping metaphor. **
Do you even read anything above what you respond to? I didn't bring up that, I was responding to someone who did.
Okiereddust
2003-06-29 05:50 | User Profile
Originally posted by madrussian+Jun 29 2003, 05:43 -->
QUOTE (madrussian @ Jun 29 2003, 05:43 ) <!--QuoteBegin-Okiereddust@Jun 28 2003, 22:27 * *I just thought it odd that MR brought up that old bayoneting and raping metaphor. ** Do you even read anything above what you respond to? I didn't bring up that, I was responding to someone who did.**
Not necessarily, especialy on a post without quote marks on a 5 page thread with 93 posts, including some very long ones from Walter. I don't assume everyone writes like Martin Lucifer King :afro:(or worse, as noted above :P) - unattributed quotes may not be detected.
madrussian
2003-06-29 05:57 | User Profile
Quote was included in my previous reply to WY.
Now I understand why you don't always make sense -- you just assume something convenient to you instead of reading who said what :lol:
Okiereddust
2003-06-29 06:03 | User Profile
Originally posted by madrussian@Jun 29 2003, 05:57 * *Quote was included in my previous reply to WY.
**
Hey, I'm not a text researcher/deconstructionist. I don't think even your KGB shadow keeps track of everything you ever say.:rolleyes: Probably not even your wife, even when she's saving grudges. :D
Walter Yannis
2003-06-29 06:17 | User Profile
*Originally posted by Raider of Arks@Jun 28 2003, 22:28 * ** I for one accept your apology. I don't doubt that you were provoked, as I only scanned parts of this thread, and read others closely. I just have a problem imagining any justification for what you said. I can imagine a turn of events that would lead me to bayonet the enemy and perhaps even rape his women. I can't see bragging about it, however.
Like I said though, apology accepted. I offer mine as well for any offense given.
Btw I too have some pride in my ancestors, but that doesn't apply to everything they did.
You should also consider calling yourself Catholic instead of Christian, some Christians consider the Bible the beginning and the end of Christian doctrine. I'm not suggesting that Catholics aren't Christian, but rather the opposite. **
Same here, Raider.
Your indulgence is most appreciate.
Walter
Walter Yannis
2003-06-29 06:21 | User Profile
Originally posted by Prodigal Son+Jun 29 2003, 04:33 -->
QUOTE (Prodigal Son @ Jun 29 2003, 04:33 )
QUOTE (Okiereddust @ Jun 28 2003, 14:14 ) <!--QuoteBegin-madrussian@Jun 28 2003, 19:52 * *Just because someone is critical of Christianity, or have a different outlook on NS, they have to be bayonetted and their women raped? ** They must have learned that from the Russians. BTW, I never realized the Russians who bayoneted and raped half of east Germany were ferocious Christian warriors, fighting the pagan Nazi enemy. :lol: **
I would appreciate it if you would not use Russian as a term equivalent to Soviet. Less than half of the invasion force of Berlin were ethnic Russians; personally I do not think that I or my people should be held responsible for the actions of Georgians, Armenians, Turkics, etc... In any case, war is war. Atrocities, though regrettable, are inevitable. In my opinion its both asinine and hyppocritical for certain National Socialists and NS sympathizers to dwell on the regrettable events in Berlin. And if you have an interest in civilian attrocities I will gladly fill you in on Himmler's plan for the Occupied Eastern Territories and how it was carried out in Poland, Belarus, Russia and the Ukraine. **
Do you speak Russian?
If so, that would make three of us here - with me and Madrussian.
Walter
madrussian
2003-06-29 06:24 | User Profile
*Originally posted by Okiereddust@Jun 28 2003, 23:03 * ** **
You are embarassing yourself. Take my advice and drop your grudges. KGB and atheists aren't after you :D
Texas Dissident
2003-06-29 06:42 | User Profile
*Originally posted by Leland Gaunt@Jun 28 2003, 22:14 * ** The problems the christian fanatics are facing are very simple. They just can not accept dissent and that anyone dares not to believe. If we would live 200 years agao, they would be running out in the forrest collecting wood for our imolation and be on the search for witches and heretics...It just shows how intolerant they realy are, which is not surprising at all. **
So we can't win for losing. We get lambasted daily for being too soft and having the fall of Western civilization blamed on us, but when we zealously assert our beliefs are accused of 'intolerance' and quelching dissent.
Sounds just like the arguments proffered by the ACLU, ADL and People for the American Way. Looks like Christ wasn't lying when he said he came to set brother against brother.
Okiereddust
2003-06-29 06:50 | User Profile
Originally posted by madrussian@Jun 29 2003, 06:24 * Take my advice and drop your grudges. KGB and atheists aren't after you :D*
Hmm. You sound pretty sure of that.<_< Do you have some inside information I'm not aware of? :ph34r: :lol:
It doesn't matter though. Even if you russkies aren't doing your job anymore, our homebodies are taking up the slack, as Ares just noted.
[url=http://forum.originaldissent.com/index.php?act=ST&f=31&t=8895&st=0#entry47631] FBI is Watching You, Can Detect + Record Every Keyboard Entry[/url]
Eendracht Maakt Mag
2003-07-02 22:21 | User Profile
Originally posted by Walter Yannis@Jun 29 2003, 00:21 * ** Do you speak Russian?*
konechno. :)
I though I'd made the fact that I am Russian pretty obvious.
Walter Yannis
2003-07-03 06:25 | User Profile
Originally posted by Prodigal Son+Jul 2 2003, 22:21 -->
QUOTE (Prodigal Son @ Jul 2 2003, 22:21 ) <!--QuoteBegin-Walter Yannis@Jun 29 2003, 00:21 * ** Do you speak Russian?* konechno. :)
I though I'd made the fact that I am Russian pretty obvious. **
Did you see that Eduard Limonov was released from prison?
What do you think of his party?
Walter
Walter Yannis
2003-07-03 07:08 | User Profile
*Originally posted by Leland Gaunt@Jun 29 2003, 11:09 * ** Same with the speech about the tank ditch and slaves. Did anywhere in the east at one time "tenthausands" of women die of exhaustion and malnutrition digging a tankditch? Probably yes.....on the Soviet side though (Read how the NKVD forced entire villages to build the fortifications at Kursk).
**
The Russians that I know who lived through the period speak mostly of slavery and horrific abuse, although in fairness I've heard some good things, too.
The quote from Himmler's Posen Speech is authentic, I think most agree. Please correct me if I'm wrong about that - I understand that documents were "adjusted" post factum. But I've never heard anybody credibly contest its authenticity.
In addition, I've never heard anybody on the far right claim that it was "just propaganda." Rather, it is celebrated as a sort of milestone in Nazi thought. The "propaganda theory" is inconsistent with the facts surrounding the speech, which is essentially a semi-private talk Himmler had with his SS command. If the truth was going to be told without regard to propaganda effect, it would be the Posen Speech when the doors were closed to the press, the microphones off, and everybody could just relax and talk straight to each other. That's also totally consistent with the other things Himmler says in that speech - about how the Germans listen to Allied propaganda broadcasts, how they steal from each other, and so forth. None of that would make good copy in the German press at the time.
I mean, c'mon Leland, the Nazis believed in total war. They preached that the rules of war were lies and that only victory mattered at whatever costs. Himmler's comment was of a piece with that whole approach. I see no reason to classify it as "propaganda."
The Nazis waged a vicious and inhuman war against the Slavic East. And despite all the protestations about the Nazis having "little room to maneuvre" and an "impending Soviet attack", none of that squares with the very close ties the Nazis had with the Communists. There was of course the Molotov pact that the Soviets were surprised the Nazis broke. There was also a great deal of trade between the two countries - Germany got oil and commodities, the USSR got industrial machines that they couldn't build themselves.
But most damning of all is a recently-declassified Russian document that is a protocol between the Nazi and Soviet secret services. It is aimed at removing the "Zionist threat" from their countries, and pledged cooperation among their respective police and intelligence services. I haven't seen this in English, but it is available in Russian, and I don't blame people for not being aware of it. While I'm skeptical by nature, this document would appear to be genuine, and I think that it proves the point that the Nazis really had no good argument in favour of the attack on the UUSR in 1941.
Based on this protocol, Beria issued a directive about new recruits to the NKVD, requiring background checks back several generations to determine whether there were any Jews in the family tree.
You see, the fact is that the CPSU wasn't the same party in 1939 that it was in 1918. The Russians had been murdered and starved and were out to get the Jewish Bolsheviks, and Stalin understood that he could play on that hatred and maneuvre against his Jewish competitors, especially Zinoviev, Trotsky, Kamenev. In 1932 CPSU foreign policy did a 180-degree turn, and went from being a Jewish-inspired "international party" to being a Russian nationalist party. Under the slogan " the cadres determine everything", Stalin began a concerted program to remove Jews from Party posts. This culminated in the show trials of 1937, and the compact with the Nazis is just a piece of that plan. The Doctor's Plot of 1953, which very nearly resulted in the mass deportation of Jews to Birobidzhan in the Russian Far East, was the last act in that process and proves that the process was already well underway before it was interrupted by Hitler's attack.
It would be like saying that the Democratic Party of 1973 after Chicago, Nixon, the anti-War movement, the Civil Rights movement, was the same as the Party of George Wallace and Lester Maddox of 1960. As I've said, Stalin's slogan was "the cadres determine everything," and this meant that the name or written program of any organization isn't nearly as important as who makes up the rank and file. In 1960 the Democratic Party was the party of Southern Whites and Northern factory workers, in 1973 it was the party of blacks, Jews, and assorted feminists and others with claims on the white majority. So, too, the CPSU of 1939 was NOT a Jewish party (although some remained in key posts). It was, rather, a Great Russian Nationalist party as engineered by Stalin and Beria in their quest to keep power by playing ethnic factions against each other.
It makes so much sense. Slavs attacked Jews in the pogroms before WWI, who responded with the Bolshevik Revolution and genocide of the Slavs 1917-1932, who then responded by taking over the Bolshevik Party from within via the Show Trials of 1937 that killed off the Jewish Bolshevik leadership. Darwinian theory would predict something very much like that.
We really need to get over this idea that the CPSU was a nearly exclusive Jewish organization after 1937, or indeed that it remained so until 1991. While Jews did a good job of hanging on, the Doctor's Plot and the fact that many (most?) of them emigrated when given a chance shows that it simply wasn't their country anymore. The Great Russian nationalism preached in the schools since the early 1930's proves this point, as does the blatant antisemitism of so many leading Russian generals and party members.
It's a complicated story filled with exceptions, but the general outlines are clear. The history of Russia in the past 100 years is the story of ethnic conflict - specifically of the Great Russians fighting for their survival in a multi-ethnic empire against shifting coalitions of ethnic minorities. The Jews, of course, were the central enemy. The last round started in 1989, when the Jews managed to take over vast state assets via openly corrupt privatization auctions, and President Putin is now leading a behind-the-scenes countermarch by the Great Russians. It's an old story. Very old story. Solzhenitsyn wrote a book about it recently.
So, I think that there is little to justify Hitler's attack on Poland and then on the Soviet Union other than cynical German jingoism and the lust for land and power. I see little threat that could not have been dealt with peacefully. Nobody in their right minds would attack the German juggernaught of 1939. And even if the USSR had attacked, Nazi Germany would have ripped them to shreds. And things were already moving in a direction within the Soviet Union and the CPSU - facts that the Nazi leadership were clearly aware of - that ultimately could have lead to peaceful coexistence.
I can only conclude that the Nazis represent the very worst of our natures, the desire to kill, rape, pillage and steal from neighbors, however difficult those neighbors might be. Given their horrible crimes against humanity and whites in particular, the Nazi ideology could never serve as a unifying vision for all whites.
While I truly regret some of the things I said above, I see now way around this central conclusion.
Regards,
Walter
Okiereddust
2003-07-03 07:17 | User Profile
Originally posted by Leland Gaunt@Jun 29 2003, 11:09 * As for the Ukraine I must admit, that a lot of things went wrong. But that was due to the idiotic policy of Koch, who was an ignorant jerk.*
He may have been an ignorant jerk. but he was the guy who Hitler chose to heed, over the less idiotic Rosenberg.
Remember Rosenberg objected to Koch's harsh strategy toward the Ukraine, (essentially treating it only as a resource to be confiscated for military advantage). Rosenberg saw at least the stupidity and counterproductiveness of this policy, but when he took his case against Koch to the Fuehrer, he lost.
Eendracht Maakt Mag
2003-07-03 17:43 | User Profile
Originally posted by Walter Yannis@Jul 3 2003, 00:25 * ** Did you see that Eduard Limonov was released from prison?*
Yes.
What do you think of his party?
I think that "National Bolshevik" is a ridiculous oxymoron. It's quite a stretch, to say the least, to base an alleged Russian nationalist movement on the work of a communist Tatar-Jew.
Eendracht Maakt Mag
2003-07-03 17:53 | User Profile
*Originally posted by Leland Gaunt@Jul 3 2003, 11:51 * ** Lemonow is a Jew? **
No he isn't. But his philosophy is a system of "National Bolshevism/Leninism"(LOL).
Eendracht Maakt Mag
2003-07-03 18:24 | User Profile
*Originally posted by Leland Gaunt@Jul 3 2003, 12:11 * **
What do you think of Wassiljev and Pamjat?**
Let's just say I respect them far more than I do Limonov and his posse. Did you know that Vassiliev is running for mayor of Moscow? Of course he stands no chance of winning since the city is now populated mostly by non-whites :(.
madrussian
2003-07-03 18:47 | User Profile
Pavel Lungin is the director of "Luna Park". Another nauseatingly philosemitic movie he directed is "Oligarkh", or it may be titled "Tycoon" outside Russia (I think Prodigal Son wrote once that Berezovsky financed that one). Yet another movie with a Jew as the main character was "Taxi Blues" (at least in this one the Jew is shown as a leech and a cheapskate).
Walter Yannis
2003-07-03 20:26 | User Profile
The post of Yannis discredits itself. I realy don't need to comment much on it. To claim that Bolshewism wasn't jewish anmore in 1939 is realy the peak of ignorance. I guess Mr. Yannis never heard of Ilja Ehrenburg, Lazar Kaganowitsh and all the other high ranking Jews in the soviet leadership and secret police.
The CPSU switched ideologies circa 1932 - from Jewish internationalism to Great Russian Nationalism. Stalin's war against the Old Bolsheviks, the great majority of whom were Jews, ended in the exile and murder of tens of thousands of former Party stalwarts, including most notably Lev Bronshtein (Trotsky), architect of the Red Terror and Jewish national hero.
The Doctor's Plot of 1953 nearly resulted in the deportation of Jews to the Far East, and was stopped only by Stalin's death.
Kindly explain how a party that stood for Jewish interests could lead to such contrary results. I look forward to hearing your reasoned reply.
He sheds tears for the poor "Slavs" and the poor commies, at the same time ignores what the jews/slavs of the SU did to the Poles. He is just focused on alledged German "crimes" against the poor Poles. He hides his antigerman resentments behind "Nazism".ÃÂ Oh the Nazis were so eeeevil. He practicly parrots the Jews and the Bolshewik propaganda as a whole.
While I certainly shed tears for the Slavs, I don't need Jewish propaganda to feel anti-Nazi sentiment. As I've stated, my people had a war with the Nazis. Naturally feelings run high in such situations. I don't believe I'm anti-German, though. I shed tears for the German civilians who were killed, raped, dispossessed, and exiled.
He doesn't consider that such harsh policy was just a reaction to the kind of warfare we faced. Even the polish historian Bogdan Musial came to such conclusion. People like Yannis like to blend out single incidents from the rest of the War. so why didn't we behave this way in the West, Africa, Denmark, Norway? Could it possibly be, that the enemy didn't resort to terrorist methods of warfare like the soviets. They didn't even join any of the war-conventions. Mr. Yannis doesn't seem to care about the territorial integrety of Roumania, Finland and the Baltics.All he cares about is his darlin Poles and Soviets.
Hey, I never said anything in defense of Soviet imperialsim, I don't know where you're getting that from. You seem to think that if one doesn't support the Nazi cause then, ipso facto, they must support the Communist cause. That's a non sequitor, to say the least. America stood against both ideologies.
As to why the Nazis didn't commit atrocities in the places you mention, I don't claim to know all the details but it probably had to do with the fact that the Russians defended their homes like men from foreign invaders, and the foreign invaders didn't like it and resorted to the worst sorts of barbarisms as a reaction. The Nazis drew first blood, no doubt about that. The Nazis were starving a million of our people to death in Leningrad while all these things you mention were going on. There's simply nothing good that can be said about that, except that the perpetrators were wiped out by men who loved their country better than their own lives.
The claim that Germany was a "juggernaught" is a joke. Compared to its neighbours, it was from its size pathetic. Everyone of our major neighbours had more and better tanks in 1939. Oh yeah - Hitler could have waited and let 30.000 (!!!) tanks and 12.000 Planes of the Soviets attack first. Sure. and afterwards what would remain would tear the 6 Million soviet troops to "shredds". Am I the only one who thinks such a statement is not only insane, but also utterly stupid? But I guess if you are a soviet-apologist, you realy dont care for sane arguments.
I am no Soviet apologist. But then again, no ideology that I support copied its political forms and even political art from the Jewish Bolsheviks, as did the Nazis. You're the one who supports a system much closer in methods to Bolshevism that Jeffersonian democracy, I think you'll agree. And I'm the first to admit that of the two movements, the Jewish Bolsheviks were probably the worse of the two. So, you have that wrong.
It seems that you've swallowed the whole Jewish line that the Nazis and the Bolsheviks were somehow "opposites." Nonsense, from the point of view of the Natural Law of the Declaration of Independence, you're on the same side of the political scale as Lazar Kaganovich, and traditional Americanism is on the opposite side.
As to whether anybody could have attacked Nazi Germany in 1939 and gotten away with it is an interesting academic question, and I'll leave it to those more learned than me to debate that one. But the question is moot. The simple fact is that nobody attacked Nazi Germany in 1939 (unless you buy the ludicrous notion that pitifully weak Poland would attack superpower Germany, and that in the face of the Molotov pact). Nazi Germany was the agressor. They attacked Poland. The Soviets did, too, by prior agreement with Nazi Germany, but that only condemns them both, it doesn't justify Nazi actions.
**Claiming that the bolshewik party became a russian nationalist one is hilarious. Yah, right. Russian Nationalist usualy slaughterÃÂ tens of millions of their own peasents through famines and mass executions. Its realy funny to see the biblethumping catholic Yannis defend the bloody regime which blew up churches, tortured thausands of priests and monks and made pigstys and vodkafactories out of cathedrals. Yannis is switching sides. He is trying to picture NS as that what Bolshewism realy was. **
Again, I'm not defending the Soviets. They're not much different from the Nazis in their political methods and their sneering contempt for the God-given rights of man. There's not a single good Jeffersonian among them, and I'm proud that my country helped to crush both ideologies.
The forced collectivization of agriculture ended circa 1933, and that was the time Stalin started maneuvering against the Jewish Bolseviks. Read some Soviet history, it's in there for those who are interested.
Yggdrasil wrote to the effect that our media and academy pulled off one of the great cover-ups in history by really stopping any knowledge off the deeply anti-Semitic nature of the 1937 show trials. He also wrote that the fact that this could happen should be cause for hope
I have no desire to convert people. I'm also on no crusade. It's all a matter of struggle and survival of my nation. If people like you think it's ok that our neighbours have more rights than we do, that they can live off the work and labour of past german generations by stealing what is ours, that they are allowed to get away with everything, then dont be surprised that we consider you as an enemy. Dont think because you are white, that this would in any way be a benefit and spare you. Poles that kill inocent germans will get what they deserve. And Yankees that support them dont deserve any better either.
I'll let that one go as a freebee.
You "truly regret" what you said above? Then why the hell did you write it in the first place? I don't buy your apologys. You are just a hypercrite that spouts his vile hatred and then simply says "oh sorry".
Lost my temper. I hate Nazism as much as I hate Communism, because both were the blood enemies of my people. And it's difficult for me to read the things you wrote with equanimity.
**I will be very honest: I don't like you - I realy don't. Actually, you represent everything I hate. A pan-slav, antigerman, bolshewik apologist in the mask of patriotic christian fundamentalism. A "white Jew" as we say here. **
I'm neither a pan-Slav, an anti-German, or a Bolshevik apologist. I'm an American. As such I'm the enemy of all totalitarianisms, lawlessness, and assorted tyrannies, beginning right here in the States. I reject Communism just as vehemently as I reject Nazism, because they're the same thing at bottom.
Again, you're stuck in the notion propounded by Jewish propaganda that the Nazis and Communists were somehow opposites. No way. In political methods and their underlying rejection of the Natural Law, they were the same. My people are the ones who had the great new idea of history - the Nazis and the Bolsheviks were just an industrialized version of the ancient despotisms. Regrettably, that light seems to be growing dim, but that's another story.
But during WWII, that light shown brightly indeed. My courageous ancestors fought and won, and Americans are justly proud of them.
And I don't regret a word I wrote!
Fair enough.
Regards,
Walter
Walter Yannis
2003-07-03 20:32 | User Profile
Originally posted by Prodigal Son+Jul 3 2003, 17:53 -->
QUOTE* (Prodigal Son @ Jul 3 2003, 17:53 ) <!--QuoteBegin-Leland Gaunt@Jul 3 2003, 11:51 * ** Lemonow is a Jew? ** No he isn't. But his philosophy is a system of "National Bolshevism/Leninism"(LOL). **
I believe that he is a faggot, though.
He wrote an autobiographical work. I didn't read it, but my wife read to me some of the more appalling bits.
He's an arse bandit, according to that book.
Walter
madrussian
2003-07-03 20:36 | User Profile
WY,
I don't think the turnabout was such drastic and clearcut, otherwise Jews wouldn't have supported the Soviet Union for so much longer. Of course, there is such thing as inertia and whishful thinking, but still...
The show trial argument isn't very compelling, because it could be interpreted as Stalin overhauling the apparatus and making his power consolidation official, in the process of course consolidating it even more. But in any case, the need for appealing to Russian nationalist sentiment during the beginning of the WWII did signify a change in the essense of the communism. But don't forget the post-war purges that tried to roll back the change in mentality that had occured during the war.
Walter Yannis
2003-07-03 20:49 | User Profile
Originally posted by Prodigal Son+Jul 3 2003, 17:53 -->
QUOTE* (Prodigal Son @ Jul 3 2003, 17:53 ) <!--QuoteBegin-Leland Gaunt@Jul 3 2003, 11:51 * ** Lemonow is a Jew? ** No he isn't. But his philosophy is a system of "National Bolshevism/Leninism"(LOL). **
The term "National Bolshevism" is apparently an oxymoron, right?
Yet it makes perfect sense to Russians. Why's that?
The fact that an ideology called "National Bolshevism" could make sense to Russians goes a long way toward proving that the "Bolshevism" of the old CPSU was replaced by the Russian "nationalism" of Marshall Zhukov and others.
"National Bolshevism" makes sense because Russian nationalism became the soul of the CPSU after 1932. The Jews were slowly pushed out, the Russians came in.
"The Cadres Determine Everything." It's a simple idea. If you have Russian nationalists in your party rank and file, then you have a Russian nationalist party no matter what the written platform is. If you have Jewish nationalists in your party, then you have Jewish interests served no matter how many Marxist angels the theoreticians were placing on the head of a pin. If you make sure that 30-40% of the Ivy League student body, a majority of graduate students at the prestigious Columbia School of Journalism, and a large majority of the mainstream media are staffed by Jews, guess what? You'll have Jewish tribal interests belching from every television in the country.
Stalin was a Georgian, and to paraphrase the great Jewish nationalist Bronshtein (Trotsky) in his biography of Stalin, the important thing to understand about the Caucus is that it's a place of endless ethnic conflict, and the Caucus Mountain people are keenly aware of ethnic loyalties and how to use them to advantage. They understand that as well as the Jews. That's why the only guy in recent history to beat them at their own game was the Georgian Stalin.
"National Bolshevism" is an oxymoron only for those who fail to understand this pivotal truth of 20th century history.
Walter
Walter Yannis
2003-07-03 20:55 | User Profile
*Originally posted by madrussian@Jul 3 2003, 20:36 * ** WY,
I don't think the turnabout was such drastic and clearcut, otherwise Jews wouldn't have supported the Soviet Union for so much longer. Of course, there is such thing as inertia and whishful thinking, but still...
The show trial argument isn't very compelling, because it could be interpreted as Stalin overhauling the apparatus and making his power consolidation official, in the process of course consolidating it even more. But in any case, the need for appealing to Russian nationalist sentiment during the beginning of the WWII did signify a change in the essense of the communism. But don't forget the post-war purges that tried to roll back the change in mentality that had occured during the war. **
As I said, it was a complicated process, and it wasn't clear cut any more than the change in the Democratic Party was clear cut after 1973 and the fall of Nixon. But it was real - the core constituencies had changed, and even though the older constituencies remained in pockets, and even though nobody really wanted to talk about the power struggle, it was real.
So too with the CPSU.
MR, if anti-Semitism wasn't a major part of Stalin's strategy, how do you explain the Doctor's Plot? The fight against "Cosmopolitainsim?" The extreme great Russian nationalism of the textbooks, where Ivan IV was a great national leader, the Tatars were nothing but bad, and so forth. The "Eurasianism" of Gumilev was the historiography that should have ruled had the USSR really been an "internationalist" country, but it didn't.
I mean, does Stalin's "Socialism in One Nation" differ essentially from Hitler's "National Socialism?"
Limonov's ideology makes perfect sense in light of that, it makes no sense otherwise. But it does make sense to many Russians. I see no way around it.
Walter
Walter E Kurtz
2003-07-05 22:28 | User Profile
Yockey's thoughts regarding the 11 hanged/National Bolshevism:
[url=http://www.alphalink.com.au/~radnat/fpyockey/prague.html]http://www.alphalink.com.au/~radnat/fpyock...key/prague.html[/url]
Okiereddust
2003-07-06 01:11 | User Profile
Originally posted by Walter Yannis+Jul 3 2003, 20:55 -->
QUOTE* (Walter Yannis @ Jul 3 2003, 20:55 ) <!--QuoteBegin-madrussian@Jul 3 2003, 20:36 * ** WY, I don't think the turnabout was such drastic and clearcut, otherwise Jews wouldn't have supported the Soviet Union for so much longer. Of course, there is such thing as inertia and whishful thinking, but still...
The show trial argument isn't very compelling, because it could be interpreted as Stalin overhauling the apparatus and making his power consolidation official, in the process of course consolidating it even more. But in any case, the need for appealing to Russian nationalist sentiment during the beginning of the WWII did signify a change in the essense of the communism. But don't forget the post-war purges that tried to roll back the change in mentality that had occured during the war. **
As I said, it was a complicated process, and it wasn't clear cut any more than the change in the Democratic Party was clear cut after 1973 and the fall of Nixon. But it was real - the core constituencies had changed, and even though the older constituencies remained in pockets, and even though nobody really wanted to talk about the power struggle, it was real. So too with the CPSU.
** I agree with Madrussian, it wasn't clearcut, as you also seem to be drifting away from your apparent assertion that in 1939 Russia was as nationalist as Germany. Partly you have to look at it on a case by case basis.
**MR, if anti-Semitism wasn't a major part of Stalin's strategy, how do you explain the Doctor's Plot? The fight against "Cosmopolitainsim?" The extreme great Russian nationalism of the textbooks, where Ivan IV was a great national leader, the Tatars were nothing but bad, and so forth. The "Eurasianism" of Gumilev was the historiography that should have ruled had the USSR really been an "internationalist" country, but it didn't.
I mean, does Stalin's **
Most all historians think that Stalin's "Socialism in One Nation" did differ greatly from Hitler's "National Socialism?", however much the great change from the two bitter ideologies that had fought in Russia and Germany since the Bolshevic revolution. Not only in 1939 but by Stalin's death.
You point out only the flip side of the ledger Walter. Why did apprentic Jewish party cadres still outnumber gentile party cadres in admission to party training schools until almost 1950, for instance? Why did Stalin carefully conduct his show trials as MacDonald pointed out, to hide its latent anti-Semitic of sorts purging of Jewish old bolshevics, by simultaneously conducting show arrests for "anti-semitism" And the biggest question you should have from your position Walter, is why the supposedly anti-Semitic Stalin installed almost completely Jewish communist regimes in Eastern Bloc countries like Hungary and Poland?
The answer, which I think you pointed out, was just that Stalin as a Georgian was a mastery at playing at ethnic conflicts. In Russia he kept power by playing the side of the Russian people against the minorities. In eastern europe, by contrast, he kept nationalism in check by putting the vociferously anti-nationalist minority Jews in power to play them off against the nationalism of the subject peoples.
Walter Yannis
2003-07-06 10:29 | User Profile
*Originally posted by Okiereddust@Jul 6 2003, 01:11 * ** The answer, which I think you pointed out, was just that Stalin as a Georgian was a mastery at playing at ethnic conflicts. In Russia he kept power by playing the side of the Russian people against the minorities. In eastern europe, by contrast, he kept nationalism in check by putting the vociferously anti-nationalist minority Jews in power to play them off against the nationalism of the subject peoples. **
You raise some excellent points.
Your comment above proves the matter for me.
Stalin was a master at playing ethnicities off of each other to maintain power.
The CPSU of Bronshtein and Apfelbaum was a Jewish thing. The CPSU of Marshall Zhukov was a Russian thing. There was never a clean break, and the situation was messy, but as I said the general outlines are clear enough.
The very astute points that you make are evidence that an enormous power struggle took place behind the scenes, just as it did with our own Democratic Party where blacks and Jews displaced the Southern Democrats of George Wallace. That's a very good analogy, I think, to what happened in the CPSU.
In 1964 - 1973 (give or take ten years on either side) you had sworn ethnic enemies fighting for control of the resources of a vast political empire, and the fight happened all within the party. But it's just gibberish to say that both Lester Maddox and Jesse Jackson or Alan Dershowitz were "Democrats"; i.e. men whose political interests were close enough that they were in any genuine coalition. They were in fact the bitterest enemies, but since they both wanted to control the Democratic political machine, they both took pains to call themselves Democrats and to recognize the other as such until the black/Jewish coalition managed to kick Wallace out of the Party in 1968, and then sealed their dominance by brining down Nixon in 1973.
So, too, it was in the CPSU. The faultlines were ethnic. They still are. Watch the news in Russia. The (overwhelmingly Jewish) Oligarchs who took power in the 1990's are slowly being squeezed out by the Russian Putin. He's exiled Berezovsky and Gusinsky, pushed Abramovich to seek political immunity as governor of Chukhotka (bordering Alaska!), and this past week now has Khodorkovsky himself under investigation. The Moscow Times had a recent op-ed piece on Putin's political appointments, and was shocked - shocked! - that they seem to be drawn exclusively from the ranks of the "military." That's a codeword for "Russian," to be sure. Putin also installed Alexei Miller, a Russian of German ancestry and old ally for St. Petersberg, as CEO of the all-important Gazprom (guesstimated assets of $600-$900 billion, depending on the market price of natural gas), as a goodwill gesture to Gazprom's German Ruhrgas interests. He also installed Boris Jordan, the American scoin of Royalist Russian "White" emigres to head Media-Most after Gusinsky's ouster (he's since been replaced). Both of those moves were meant to be symbolic, that's obvious to me. Nobody talks about it, but the message is unmistakable.
Heck, Stalin even made a point of humiliating Jews by ordering my Elder Brother in Faith Sergei Eizenshtein to make the nationalist classic film "Alexander Nevsky" - one of the most jingoistic things ever made, IMHO. Putin's appointments are very much in that tradition. He's saying "I kicked out Gusinsky (at the time head of the Russian Jewish Congress and one of the key players in the World Jewish Congress) and replaced him with a White Russian. Don't mess with me." He's saying "I just installed a wet-behind-the-ears German to head Gazprom because he's loyal to me and he's not Jewish, like the folks who took over the entire Russian oil industry. Hands off Gazprom!" It's all so clear, but nobody wants to talk about it.
Jews were driven out of the KGB and the military beginning in 1932. There were some remaining for show, but not many. There was a Soviet Jewish admiral (forgot his name, Madrussian could probably tell us) who was the head of some CPSU movement against Israel or for the Palestinians of something. It was blatant propaganda, and nobody paid it much mind.
There are numerous anecdotes about the Jewish non-presence in the upper ranks of the military. Everybody knew it. The USSR supported the Arabs in all their wars with Israel, arming them with weapons sold on credit and training them in Russia. That's utterly inconsistent with the notion that the COSU was somehow at bottom a Jewish thing at that point in history. It wasn't.
Here are a couple of other points to consider.
American Jews are notorious for producing traitors, including Oppenheimer and the Rosenbergs, who passed Uncle Joe our nuclear secrets. But America was backing Israel, at least after 1948 when the Rosenbergs were doing their thing. So, why did they do it? I see two reasons. First, the USSR was their baby in a sense, and there was in the diaspora a psychological denial of the anti-Semitic nature of the CPSU at that time. That was a significant factor, I think. Certainly the "Red Diaper Babies" of the 1960's contorted themselves like pretzels to justify their support for Communism, despite the USSR's militant anti-Zionist stance. Second, and I think much more directly, men like Oppenheimer understood that there were millions of their fellow Jews in the USSR, that they were overwhelmingly urbanized, and thus would die en masse in the event of a pre-emptive American nuclear attack that took out the USSR's top cities. They thus saw it to their Tribe's advantage to give Stalin a deterrent. "Mutually Assured Destruction" was, perhaps it could be said, a Jewish thing, something that I suspect Kubrick was getting at in Dr. Strangelove. Think Henry Kissinger.
I think that this dynamic was a big reason that the USSR did not allow Jews to emigrate to Israel. After all, they were largely a parasitic group, causing trouble, stirring up hate and discontent, corrupting the system, etc. You'd think the Russians would be tickled pink to get rid of them. However, the Russian CPSU leadership understood that Jews had tremendous power over American foreign policy, especially after the fall of Joe McCarthy, and keeping millions of Jews hostage made sense in terms of nuclear deterrence and political leverage, especially in regard to their access to the inner sanctums of the American intelligence services.
Okie, we both remember the whole "Refusnik" campaign of the 1970's, right? "Save Soviet Jews, win prizes!" If the CPSU was a Jewish entity at that time, why did it see fit to hold Jews hostage? Why did it persecute Jewish nationalists like Natan Scharansky?
It doesn't make sense. There's more to it than that. I think that what happened is that after Stalin died (or was murdered by Kryushchev, and some contend), and Beria was taken out thus removing the Georgian tyranny (Marshall Zhukov I believe personally shot Beria with his own sidearm), and the entire Russian leadership looked at each other and realized that they were in power finally, but that they were in one helluva fix that prevented them from proceeding too openly. Russia had been all but destroyed, the young generation decimated, and the whole thing was held together by a tissue of Jewish lies. They attempted to work with what they had, downplaying the worst of the Jewish legacy while hanging onto power for themselves and their children, making themselves the new Russian nobility. Kryushchev "freed" the peasants by issuing them internal passports (it wasn't really freedom, but they weren't chained to the land anymoe and could seek work in the cities), he let workers quit their jobs by the passage of a new Labor Code, he allowed market forces to begin to work again (however tentatively) by adopting a new Civil Code, and basically began the "thaw" that allowed finally a whisper of dissent by denouncing Stalin. Get that, he DENOUNCED STALIN.
The history of the USSR after that was one of thaw, things getting out of hand, freeze by the entrenched Russian Party nobility, followed by thaw, etc. Until Gorbachev let the thing get out of hand, destroyed the Russian military and Party, and let the Jews fill the vacuum. Putin is the Russian revanche.
Again, it's messier than that, but that template does, to my mind, explain rather well the observed facts.
Warmest regards,
Walter
madrussian
2003-07-06 18:32 | User Profile
A few more random thoughts.
Is Stalin was the main anti-semite, how come the Jewish support of the Soviet Union stopped roughly at the time of Stalin's death?
As a result of WWII, several non-Jew powerful personalities emerged, for example Zhukov. Did it happen as a concious process, or just naturally after Stalin had to bring new people in after the purges, and the fact that in war merits play a big role in promotions (talented non-Jews got promoted)?
Perhaps he Soviet Union lacked the mechanisms that would make the dominance of the Jew Bolsheviks stable, while the US does have those mechanisms. Or Jews were just unlucky and gradually lost power. I bet many Jews think of themselves as victims and their role in Bolshevism as progressive thinkers who unfortunately had to work with such "backward" peoples not appreciative of their tikkun olamism enough.
Walter Yannis
2003-07-07 05:31 | User Profile
*Originally posted by madrussian@Jul 6 2003, 18:32 * ** As a result of WWII, several non-Jew powerful personalities emerged, for example Zhukov. Did it happen as a concious process, or just naturally after Stalin had to bring new people in after the purges, and the fact that in war merits play a big role in promotions (talented non-Jews got promoted)?
**
I think that it had to do with the fact that if the USSR (and by extension Stalin personally) were to have a chance against Nazi Germany in the war, then it was necessary to rouse the Russian people, to give them something they'd fight for.
That something wasn't the internationalist dream of the Jewish Bolsheviks, to be sure. It was Russian nationalism, and the danger is that it would get out of hand once begun.
And it did get out of hand. Zhukov emerged as a hero, as did Kryuschev.
Having Eizenshtein make Alexander Nevsky is a case in point, I think. The anti-German, Great Russian jingoism of that film is really off the charts. The chorus was "Arise Russian people" (vstavajte lyudi Russkie) against the German invaders, which is about as far as you can get from the International, IMHO.
Have you read Solzhenitsyn's book yet?
I haven't found the time yet, unfortunately.
Walter