Lasha Darkmoon: Kevin MacDonald’s recent review of William Marr’s 1870s pamphlet, The Victory of Judaism over Germanism, raises many interesting questions. “Marr sees himself as a soldier fighting a lost cause,” MacDonald notes at one point, without making it clear if he agrees with Marr that it is indeed a lost cause.
Since the parallels between Germany then and America now are too glaringly obvious to ignore, one is tempted to ask MacDonald: “And what about you, Kevin? Do you consider yourself a soldier fighting a lost cause?”
MacDonald’s article ends with Marr’s chilling two-word prediction: FINIS GERMANIAE. (The end of Germany)
We have seen it happen. Germany’s cadaver lies rotting. Exactly a year ago the state of Israel demanded from Germany a further 1 billion euros ($1.4 billion) in Holocaust reparations for its endlessly traumatized Jewish survivors. Sixty-five years after World War Two, the grim extortion racket continues unabated.
Forget that. The thing we need to consider now is the parallel situation with America. Is it time to write America’s obituary? Or is it too early to say, FINIS AMERICAE — the end of America?
* * *
A confession of ignorance: I had no idea things were so bad in Germany in the 1870s when Marr wrote his prophetic treatise, only recently translated from German into English and now available in pdf format. I had been under the false impression that the notion of Jewish world domination came much later — after the publication of the Protocols (1903) and the Russian Revolution (1917).
Here is a pertinent, relatively modern quotation which will serve as a useful coda to the doomladen citations from Marr that MacDonald presented. Read it carefully. It will not only hammer home the points made by Marr several decades earlier, it will also provide the reader with a sharp reminder of the parallel situation in which America finds itself today.
With one significant difference: America is in a far worse condition.
Under the Jewish heel in pre-Hitler Germany :
It was the Jews with their international affiliations and their hereditary flair for finance who were best able to seize such opportunities…They did so with such effect that, even in November 1938, after five years of anti-Semitic legislation and persecution, they still owned, according to the Times correspondent in Berlin, something like a third of the real property in the Reich [my emphasis]. Most of it came into their hands during the inflation… But to those who had lost their all, this bewildering transfer seemed a monstrous injustice. After prolonged sufferings they had now been deprived of their last possessions. They saw them pass into the hands of strangers, many of whom had not shared their sacrifices and who cared little or nothing for their national standards and traditions…
The Jews obtained a wonderful ascendancy in politics, business and the learned professions [in spite of constituting] less than one percent of the population [my emphasis]… The banks, including the Reichsbank and the big private banks, were practically controlled by them. So were the publishing trade, the cinema, the theatres and a large part of the press — all the normal means, in fact, by which public opinion in a civilized country is formed… The largest newspaper combine in the country with a daily circulation of four millions was a Jewish monopoly…
Every year it became harder and harder for a gentile to gain or keep a foothold in any privileged occupation [my emphasis]. … At this time it was not the ‘Aryans’ who exercised racial discrimination. It was a discrimination that operated without violence. It was exercised by a minority against a majority. There was no persecution, only elimination. … It was the contrast between the wealth enjoyed — and lavishly displayed — by aliens of cosmopolitan tastes, and the poverty and misery of native Germans, that has made anti-Semitism so dangerous and ugly a force in the new Europe. Beggars on horseback are seldom popular, least of all with those whom they have just thrown out of the saddle.
— Sir Arthur Bryant, Unfinished Victory, 1940, (slightly edited for brevity).
* * *
MacDonald notes elsewhere in his thought-provoking review of Marr’s pamphlet: “Marr correctly believed that societies centered around a strong collectivist religious core (e.g., medieval Christianity) or a strong sense of ethnic nationalism are more able to defend themselves against Jews.”
We cannot help asking at this point: So how does America hope to protect itself against the Jews? (Or “organized Jewry”, to be more precise). Is there any hope for the beleaguered majority whose traditional values are now being destroyed by an alien elite who view their new subjects with hostility and contempt?
Consider the two factors that are seen as an antidote to the Jewish poison: “a strong collectivist religious core” (i.e., Catholicism in some historical eras) and “ethnic nationalism” (e.g., the sense of being an American of European heritage).
Ethnic nationalism in America, assuming it ever existed to the same degree as British or French nationalism existed, is now clearly in its death throes — thanks to multiculturalism and malignant immigration policies enacted as a result of Jewish activism — an activism that has helped to produce a polyglot mélange of multicolored folk forever at each other’s throats.
So what about Christianity as a cohesive countervailing force? Why has Christianity failed so abysmally to counteract this spiritual virus?
This is a question I am unable to answer. Others, I am sure, will have their theories — and I wish them good luck.
Despite its history as the only Western institution that has been able at times to stand up to Jewish power, the Catholic Church, of which I am a hopelessly dysfunctional practising member, has proved to be an acute disappointment. It has been thoroughly subverted from within and without. It offers neither guidance nor leadership.
So forget the Catholics—a spent force—many of them, I regret to say, almost as daft and deluded as their competitors in folly, the evangelical Christians.
I am also forced to conclude, with a heavy heart, that there is little hope that American Protestants could come to the rescue. Its infatuated legions — namely, the 50-70 million Christian Zionists who constitute the most influential group of American Protestants — are as rabid in every way as the fanatical Jews who have infected them with their zealotry, egging them on to find solace in eschatological ecstasies and millenarian mumbojumbo.
Life is indeed so empty and sterile for these wretched lumpengoyim that the only thing that excites their sluggish sensitivities is the prospect of Armageddon and the thought of universal and catastrophic death — the quicker the better.
Whipped into a frenzy of religious fervor by the Grahams and the Robertsons, the Falwells and the Hagees, the Lindseys and the La Hayes, these Christian Zionists have become imitation Jews almost indistinguishable from Jabotinski and Baruch Goldstein. They believe in a Greater Israel — entailing further conquests of Arab Land — and in the ethnic cleansing of the Palestinians. They have “adopted” illegal settlements and directly finance with their donations the bulldozing of Palestinian homes, the uprooting of olive trees, and the daily oppression of the rightful owners of the Holy Land. They pray every Sunday in their vast soulless churches for the destruction of Iran. And if push came to shove, they would gladly give their blessings to genocide — and call it “the will of God.”
There are now 80,000 fundamentalist pastors and clergy preaching their message of madness to these ill-educated Christian masses — in many ways as gullible and gormless as medieval peasants. The pernicious views of their “pastors” are disseminated by 1000 local Christian radio stations as well as 100 Christian TV stations. See here.
* * *
Consider the unimaginable war crimes committed by the state of Israel exactly a year ago in Gaza. The world saw it happen. Judge Goldstone saw it happen. His meticulously documented report makes it abundantly clear that Israel is a criminal nation and that its politicians and generals are as steeped in criminality as their Nazi persecutors and recent role models in racism ever were.
Yet here is Christian Zionist Grace Halsell, like a character straight out of Alice in Wonderland, preaching to the starry-eyed Christians who offer incense to Israel: “Every act taken by Israel is orchestrated by God, and should be condoned, supported, and even praised by the rest of us.”
The American government appears to agree with this demonic drivel.
Enthralled by organized Jewry, mercenary and corrupt to the core, this shambolic apology for a government — this psychopathocracy masquerading as a democracy — recently came out in overwhelming condemnation of the Goldstone Report.
America is dead.
Behold the New Zion!
Facing the Future as a Minority
From what I’ve seen, I would say that the Christian Zionists are a creation of the Jewish owned and controlled media. Even the use of the term Evangelical by the media betrays the Jewish mis-understanding of the word.
A true Protestant Evangelical places authority in the hands of the “Evangelists” i.e. The New Testament. Scripture being the highest, and only authority in Protestantism. In Germany the Protestant Church is known as the “Evangelische”.
Seeing Pat Robertson doing his Jack Benny routine complete with grey haired Negro, or even the late Jerry Falwell, who often strayed off the Jewish TV reservation. Remember when Jerry announced that the anti-Christ would be a Jew? Who, but, some poor soul with only a TV connection to the real world could take these posers seriously?
What Roman Catholics’ don’t get is that Protestants do not need to work, or buy their way into heaven! Salvation is a matter of faith—Christ has done all the rest for us. And in some ways these so-called Protestant/Christian/Zionists are no different than Roman Catholic cardinals. They preach Salvation through works, and support of Israel is a work.
Lasha,
The US is gone. Just read some of the popular discussions on the coming minority status of whites.
http://www.boston.com/bostonglobe/editorial_opinion/oped/articles/2008/08/20/the_myth_of_the_white_minority/
I don’t mean the coming coloredness of the US, I mean the way the issue has been framed, with the usual:
1. Hispanics are White. So the Us isn’t going non-white, just non European-America
2. The US is America the land mass, not the US the nation-society. So the US was never really originally white, anyways.
3. Germans were once considered non-Anglos, so a European-US never existed.
Look, I have spend the better half of 9 month trying to de-program people, but the media just churns our more and more.
Given the situation, if you goal is to destabilize organized Jewry, you would be better off advocating as a leftist against cosmopolitan affluent Whites and more effective if you adopted the roll of a Leftist Jew, and advocated against ‘your’ ‘collective’ guilt and ‘ethnocentrism.’
From the article:
So what about Christianity as a cohesive countervailing force? Why has Christianity failed so abysmally to counteract this spiritual virus?
It wasn’t the Jews who made the world godless, it was science.
Historically, the enterprise of science was developed as a means to avoid having recourse to God or other mysterious entities as a means of explaining the why’s of things. Science is nothing but the attempt to bring the world fully into the domain of our rational understanding. To the extent that it succeeds in this, God is dispensed with. This is what Nietzsche meant when he proclaimed that God is dead: We humans have slain him with our reason and our technology; a fully rational man in a universe that can be understood by means of reason has no need for God.
Some people try to eat their cake and have it too by saying that God created the universe, but now no longer interferes in its operation. Yet this is no help. If the universe is a rational place, then God can’t intervene. A given cause must lead to a given effect, no exceptions. There is no room for God in such a universe. He has been pushed out of it.
And who can take seriously a God who is powerless to contravene the laws of nature? If your God can’t perform miracles and suspend the laws of physics in response to prayer, then what good is he? No good at all. Therefore, believing in a God who created the universe, or created man, and who now is powerless to intervene, has very little net value. It is pretty much the same as atheism or agnosticism, since if such a God exists, he is unable to make his existence known to us, or affect the universe in any way.
The much-ballyhooed death of God has also led to a death of morality. All moral codes up to this point in human history have been based on the existence of God or gods, who handed them down to man as edicts to be obeyed without question. As awareness of the fact that there is no God has gradually spread throughout the mass mind of the 20th century, morality has also suffered a proportionate decline. This awareness seems to gain in force with each passing decade. For the death of God we can blame science, especially in its concrete manifestation as the global technological system, since in a rational universe fully comprehended by the laws of physics, God is no longer necessary. Unfortunately though, without a God, it becomes impossible to construct a satisfactory moral system. Moral relativism then rules the day, and soon the people descend down into pure hedonism. Yet although it has replaced God, the global technological system is no substitute for him. The only restraints that the technological system can place on hedonism have to do with purely utilitarian concerns of negative consequences, e.g., “Don’t drink too much, because you might become an alcoholic, and that might cause you to lose your job.” Or, “Don’t let your daughter dress like a slut, because it might lead to her getting a sexually transmitted disease, or becoming pregnant.” So with the death of God, moral absolutes also died. No type of conduct can now be absolutely proscribed.
The cultural anachronism of Christianity in the West should not be confused with true belief in God or gods. Not even the Christians sincerely believe such superstitious nonsense anymore. When a Christian’s car breaks down, for example, he doesn’t pray to Jesus to fix it, as an irrational savage would do. Still less does he sacrifice a child to try to beg favor with God or gods to fix it, like a Carthaginian might have done. Instead, he takes it to a mechanic, thus showing that he, too, recognizes technique, based on science, as the only true god.
There’s plenty of room for God to operate at the quantum level.
Read about the Double Slit experiments.
The Universe is not, at the most fundamental levels, Rational at all, but rather, its very existence is dependent upon an Observer, who can change the outcome through the force of will (e.g., putting in place in the experiment a measuring device, which collapses the wave function).
Chaos Theory shows, there are outcomes which simply can NOT be predicted, irrespective of the amount of information available with regard to starting conditions.
God is subtle, so wise, that He can make his will be done without frightening his creatures with inexplicable, supernatural, magic acts at the Macro level of existence.
Why should America survive? Or rather, is its survival related to, or even compatible with, the survival of European culture?
Americans concerned with “the White race” or “European civilization” tend to assume that America is somehow tied in with the survival of such entities. “We must save our country.” “Bring back the good old days.” “If we could just repeal the 1965 Immigration law or the Civil Rights Act or reinstate Dred Scott, we’d live in a White/European paradise again.”
Was it?
Surely there’s a reason why America is the world headquarters of anti-White agitation, both home and imported/imposed in Europe.
“European heritage?” It must be remembered that only the very worst Europeans settled here: religious fanatics, soulless capitalists, criminals, and those too lazy to work dreaming of the ‘easy life’ on the frontier or with slave labor. Hence its “exceptionalism” vis a vis Europe, so beloved of Republicans and ‘conservatives.’ The multiracial society created by slavery long before “open borders,’ the astonishingly primitive forms of “religion,” the “free market” that views workers as mere commodities, etc.
I tend to agree with Yockey that America was simply one of the “outside forces” used by the Jews to sabotage the evolution of Europe into Ethical [or as Spengler put it, Prussian] Socialism.
The same thing occurred domestically; America lacks a “welfare state” and defaults to “free markets” because of the savage violence directed against labor in the 19th century, which would have been unthinkable in “Medieval” Europe.
As for Roman Christianity, I agree with Evola: if it served as a “strong collectivist [which I would take to mean, capable of nation building and running, on a continental scale] core” for post-Roman Empire Europe it did so to the extent that it was Roman, not Christianity.
This Roman element was precisely what the Protestants rebelled against, returning to “primitive” Christianity [i.e., worship of all things Jewish]. Hence all the grotesque gyrations you note, worthy of a Purim orgy, as well as worse ones: not just “Christian Zionism” but “Christian Identity” [i.e., "we love the Jewish myths so much we must be the real Jews;" now there's a fine foundation for "White nationalism!"]
People sneer at the idea of a return to pagan culture, but is it any less likely than a revival [to use the Evangelical term] of serious Medieval Catholicism? And if pre-Vatican II Catholicism did return to America, just how does one impose that on the Protestant majority? Remember, the Klan was anti-Roman as much as anything else.
Even Roman Christianity contains the Jewish poison that is the root of our problems. Until it is uprooted, we will be in the same condition Marx described in the German Ideology: socialism in a peasant economy would just generalize poverty, and “the same shit would start again.”
I love it when Prots announce, as if for the first time, that Romans “just don’t get” the notion of sola fide, as if it [s.f.] were some profound and intricate concept, rather than an emotionally satisfying “giving up” on the part of an inferior or just exhausted human type.
Mr. Watson proposes that we junk everything that smacks of “work” or “man’s additions” [i.e, the heroic, Roman elements] and rest on the NT all by itself: a collection of stories written by Jews, about Jews and for Jews, using a wretched Jewish-Greek dialect [ebonics!] Yup, that’ll show ‘em.
More profoundly, what Mr. Watson and his compatriots don’t “get” is that all these theological niceties aside, primitive Christianity is an outbreak of a foreign, passive, ["Jesus did it all for you!"] lunar element that Rome had successfully combated in the name of its heroic, solar, active ["works!"] traditions. Judaism belongs to the same lunar strata; hence, for our purposes, Judaism = primitive Christianity.
Someone once said that Evangelicals talk about Jesus as if they were children with an imaginary friend, but it’s much worse. The ‘all powerful Savior” is the Inner Jew, and THAT, not “works” is the reason they obey their Zionist masters.
I agree completely with Adam, Science has destroyed Christianity.
When thinking is based upon Faith and not reason there is no way to dissuade people of their beliefs. To attempt to be logical will force Christian Zionists to dig in their heels and feel spiritually superior in the process so they help Israel even more.
I think the power of these Christians is exaggerated anyway. Those with the money are the ones with power and they promise Christians whatever they want to hear and then when elected do whatever they please and Christians can do nothing about it. They are not that organized and have no effective leadership.
Polls show that Protestant and Catholic leaders are the ones who support Israel and not the rank and file so I don’t think the continual stereotyping and anti Christian propaganda should be given too much credence.
Hitler destroyed Jewish power over Germany by ending Germany’s dependence upon their usury.
World Jewry spent Billions of dollars attempting to destroy Germany’s economy but were unsuccessful because of Hitler’s action. Therefore Jews used America to destroy Germany through war. Whatever White people do we must make certain that every Western nation acts in concert so that we don’t end up fighting one another as we did in WW2.
I think the key is the media and propaganda machines. Most people are easily swayed and will follow where they are led. Jews are experienced enough to know this and without controlling media they could never have accomplished what they have.
George Wallace almost made it to the White House so just because White people are not represented on tv doesn’t mean we’re not out here and waiting for a leader who will speak for us and the worse things get the less it will take for a spark to set things off.
Germany never had satellite tv nor the internet. The entire world knows what Jews are doing.
Whites have come together and formed the Tea Party movement but nobody is reaching out to the founder of that group or taking advantage of that. We can’t just whine that religion used to work to hold us together, we have to see the reality of how things are today and work with what we’ve got. We should use the Tea Party before others infiltrate it and subvert it to their use.
To sum it up, the Christian Zionists are more Catholic than the Pope. LOL.
Here’s the poll I was talking about
Poll: Most Christians and Jews at Odds with Their Leaders over Illegal Immigration
By Christopher Neefus
The CNS News, December 31, 2009
http://www.cnsnews.com/news/article/59164
Lasha is right. Something drastic has happened to Christianity and the evidence is that most Christians are in the South and these people oppose immigration but the following shows that they have been unable to protect themselves. The South is the region with the most non White immigrants. And they call us racists.
South: First U.S. region with majority low income and minority students
http://blogs.ajc.com/get-schooled-blog/2010/01/06/south-is-first-u-s-region-with-majority-low-income-and-minority-students/
@ Barbara
The poll numbers are true. Those in charge of the church’s website are the one’s who are most often out of sync with the church membership.
In an attempt to be inoffensive, the producers of the churches website go overboard to be politically correct.
“Forget that. The thing we need to consider now is the parallel situation with America. Is it time to write America’s obituary? Or is it too early to say, FINIS AMERICAE — the end of America?”
I think the historic American nation, that is the traditional geographic/political/cultural entity that existed pre-1965 clearly is finished. But that is another thing than to say those of European descent are finished as to living on as genetically European on the North American continent on land that they exercise decisive control over in a way that tends to propagate their genetic continuity. Also there is the possibility of Euro-Americans adopting the stance of a revisionist power as National Socialist Germany was with an eye towards total reconquest of the North American continent. The Constitution, and its accompanying body of legal precedent associated with its interpretation, I think would prove a hindrance in doing what realistically need be done to facilitate total reconquest.
“With one significant difference: America is in a far worse condition.”
I doubt America has ever had it as bad as Germany post-WWI and-WWII. Yet extreme hardship is an excellent condition to stoke revolutionary ardor.
“Ethnic nationalism in America, assuming it ever existed to the same degree as British or French nationalism existed, is now clearly in its death throes — thanks to multiculturalism and malignant immigration policies enacted as a result of Jewish activism — an activism that has helped to produce a polyglot mélange of multicolored folk forever at each other’s throats.”
It is the presence of non-Whites and the negative consequences associated with them that is the most powerful force in facilitating racial consciousness.
“So what about Christianity as a cohesive countervailing force?”
Going to the root of it, because a negro or a mestizo can also be a Christian. For all E. Michael Jones’ railing against the Jews, he remarked in an interview that he has a Nigerian godchild.
“Why has Christianity failed so abysmally to counteract this spiritual virus?”
Christianity was only ever associated with, and rationalized consistent with, an instinctive ethnocentrism and nativism. There is nothing of the essence in it that exhorts racialism/tribalism/nationalism. It is not a racial religion as is Judaism.
“Whipped into a frenzy of religious fervor by the Grahams and the Robertsons, the Falwells and the Hagees, the Lindseys and the La Hayes, these Christian Zionists have become imitation Jews almost indistinguishable from Jabotinski and Baruch Goldstein.”
The power of auspicious propaganda to shape the minds of men. That cuts both ways though, if they had been indoctrinated to the contrary, they would have believed as wholeheartedly.
Lasha Darkmoon is a wonderful writer, but for this particular blog, I think there is just too much doom and gloom. It is not the end. The game has barely started. Europeans are in a struggle for survival that will last for centuries. Even by the end of this century, there will be hundreds of millions of Europeans in existence, with deep reservoirs of intelligent and talented people, capable of securing their future. In fact, this blog reminds me of Denethor from Lord of the Rings, ready to call the fight hopeless, falling into despair.
The millions of religious Whites are not all fools, neither are they slaves of Israel. Yes, you can point out a few influential pastors, but congregations are not mindless minions. As time goes on, and the multicultural nightmare begins to unfold, you will see White opinions change. Things are changing slowly now, not quickly, but its happening. This is not the time for defeatism or despairing. Marr’s despairing comments were completely premature and unwarranted. In fact, Germany did react in time, and had an opportunity to change its destiny (an opportunity squandered by Hitler, who chose instead to ignite a terrible war).
I think that the despairing comments on this blog are counter-productive and inappropriate. Your warrior ancestors would not be impressed with this kind of attitude. Instead of hanging your head in defeat, do something positive. Talk to a friend or family member about White displacement, send in a donation to a pro-White group, etc.
Ultimately, Whites will survive this storm. They have survived the Ice Ages, Cataclysms, wars and all manner of threats. Do not underestimate your race.
Hear, hear! My goodness, the pessimism and wallowing are nauseating. First of all, Christianity is ultimately based upon one thing: salvation by faith through grace. Christianity is not the problem or the answer to the question of what/whether America is or continues to be, it is about redemption of fallible beings by their creator. The extent to which America was/is the last best temporal hope for man has much to do with the Christian character of its people and founders, and the extent to which it has fallen has much to do with the falling off of Christian ethics under the long term attacks of irresponsible individualism, consumerism, secular humanism, etc. Also, science didn’t “kill” God, science is simply a tool, like terrorism–it is not an entity or belief system. Yes, the Jews are much to blame for all of this for exactly the reasons we have here what we have–the marginalization of the founding majority by an insecure, hyperethnic, and highly capable diaspora. But Christianity’s raison d’etre is not preserving America/white civilization, any more than Christ’s time on earth was to provide temporal, political independence to the Roman-dominated Jews–the arrogant position that led Judeans to reject Christ.
The europids have been incredibly blessed through innate ability and the cultural norms which promote curiosity, exploration, self-reflection, etc. It is no coincidence that Christianity, a message for all men which was passed and accepted by word of mouth and personal choice for its first three centuries found its most fertile home amongst our great people, the Europeans, who then spread it to the corners of the earth, as only Europeans could, just as only Europeans could apply science to create technology, and only Europeans among all peoples had the respect for the individual enough for government by the consent of the people to evolve to the extent it has. Some of what comprises our greatest strength is also there in our weakness, e.g. the above self-reflection which has been bastardized into self-loathing and guilt by multiculturalism, and this we must moderate to regain our ethically and materially desired society. This I believe will happen after the inevitable implosion of the present monstrosity, because it is by definition unsustainable, whether we refer to the $119 trillion dollars in unfunded liabilities or the impossibly chaotic imperial mixture of non-westerners in our midst (whose votes have so much to do with the unsustainable economic policies which afflict us). As formidable as the post-modern/secular humanist/Jewish juggernaut is, it cannot escape the fact that the invasion of non-westerners it has facilitated to marginalize and weaken the original majority and the corresponding socialist/redistribution policies foisted upon us are no more sustainable here than anywhere else they have failed–and this is without any competing system such as the West standing up to and resisting the old Soviet lummox. The thing simply can’t last! It WILL fail, and when it does, my money is on US!
The bad guys, like Satan, will get their due, and I almost pity them, because the little black kids who will die of Watts/Port au Prince violence when their own elders burn their communities down around them don’t deserve that fate. But like a dog with rabies, if something is simply not compatible with a free and decent society–and where has that ever existed but for Europe or European influenced/shaped states–it must be excised, and so be it. So keep your powder dry, keep the faith, have a safe place to get to when oil prices/food prices/micro chip scarcity/equities collapse/governmental debt default occurs, and be ready to help rebuild our once and future America when the non-white masses are gone/dead and the exploiters have no one to use against us. Can I get an amen?
Israel gets two more German submarines
(AFP) – Sep 29, 2009
A German Navy U212 class sub in the docks in Emden, northern Germany, in 2003
JERUSALEM — Israel has taken delivery of two German submarines ordered four years ago, a military spokesman said on Tuesday.
“We have received two Dolphin-class submarines built in Germany,” he said, on condition of anonymity.
The submarines, called U212s, can launch cruise missiles carrying nuclear warheads, although when it confirmed the sale in 2006 the German government said the two vessels were not equipped to carry nuclear weapons.
The subs were ordered in 2005 and delivery was initially expected in 2010.
Including the two new ones, Israel has five German submarines — the most expensive weapon platforms in Israel’s arsenal.
Germany, which believes it has a historic responsibility to help Israel because of the mass murder of Jews in World War II, donated the first two submarines after the 1991 Gulf War.
It split the cost of the third with the Jewish state.
I did wish to add, especially with a capability now, thanks to Merkel, of nuking any American and European nation, that Israel and its bosses in New York City, have achieved, for all intents and purposes their goal as so carefully delineated in Stanley Hornbeck’s review of Dr MacDonald’s CoC.
It will be a Pyrrhic victory.
Let Shiva do His dance…
I further think it is a mistake to credulously filter one’s opposition to Jewish power through the plight of the Palestinians. It is to be roped into a essentially liberal world view, to adopt liberal premises from which liberal consequences can only flow, consequences that are in the end not in the interests of our race – and ultimately not in the interests of non-Whites. How so? In the real world, there is a hierarchy of peoples who are genetically superior/inferior in terms of civilization building capacity and resource competition. The White race, when imbued with the proper mindset, obviously occupies the top spot, and it isn’t really even close. The next in line are East Asians, functionally the Chinese because of their great numbers. If the White race goes into the ashcan of history the Chinese will inherit the earth for all intents and purposes; they will not be shy about claiming whatever land it is their people need, nor will they think twice in treating the peoples already there in whatever way it is that suits them. Which is not the White way. The Jewish dream of cozying up to them as the as the Eurosphere goes under is a pipe dream, the Chinese would be suckered nor would they be interested. In a way the Jews are heaping up their own funeral pyre, not just ours, unfortunately appealing to the Jews on that basis will prove fruitless – they most likely cannot help themselves. In the genes. Given that, whatever half-measures we may effect to constrain the Jews if kept in our midst will in the long run prove also fruitless. There will to tirelessly advocate and wield influence consistent with effecting policies they perceive as in their ethnic interests (policies which almost invariably seem to cut against our interests) unto the generations is, needless to say, greater than ours. Our will shall break before theirs does. When the opportunity arises to remove Jews from the Euroshpere it must be taken. Which begs the question: Where will we put them? If in Israel, which is where most Jews are that is not here are already, then one need not think hard about what that would portend for the Palestinians.
“In fact, Germany did react in time, and had an opportunity to change its destiny (an opportunity squandered by Hitler, who chose instead to ignite a terrible war).”
I’m afraid there is a contradiction here that is rooted in an insufficient grounding in the facts, Andrew. It was always Stalin’s plan to invade Western Europe, the obvious result of which would have been the conversion of W. Europe into one giant Katyn mass grave, its people enslaved, worked to death in the gulags and starved en masse as need be. It was only the steeling of the German people by Adolf Hitler and the preemptive invasion of the Soviet Union by the Wehrmacht which prevented that apocalypse. Hitler acted then as Germany could not have hoped to compete in an arms race going forward; Germany’s position would only grow weaker. This is the problem with not facing squarely the events surrounding National Socialist Germany, and intentionally triangulating against National Socialist Germany: false lessons and a consciousness of guilt are conveyed to our people that militate against their survival. If one will not do what one must, whatever one must, to survive, then one should not complain too mightily when one sees that one will not survive. And one should not be over sympathetic to our enemies, as if they wish to avoid whatever opposition we may mount against them, however forceful that need be, then they best stand down. Of course they never will.
America is finished, dead and gone; in so far as the America we knew too well before ,the spread of the civil rights cancer cells and how it metastasized in every sphere of activity in America / America is today a colonial settlement of the supremacists. Their unbounded power reaches far beyond of what the eye can see. Their social engineering skills have been honed to such pathological levels that they have been able in the mere space of 70 years to morph and change the demographic face of every nation they chose to change. This is no mere accomplishment. Explaining the reason as to why this is so and its nefarious consequences does not bring us any closer to the solution. Even if immigration from the third world were to stop today, the damaged occasioned by it relentless practice is beyond remedial action, short of draconian and extremely radical steps being applied ( Draconian= effective . Radical=intelligent) The blending process has gone too far and too deep. America’s European heritage has been deracinated and etiolated/ Europe’s Europeans , defeated and occupied since 1945, have succumbed to the level of animated zombies; their youth immersed in the quicksands of memory oblivion; a defeated nation, an occupied nation is an enslaved nation. A nation may be conquered and then resurrect itself at some point in their history. Our enemies have discovered the key element to prevent that potential resurrection in the future. Mix and mismatch, miscegenation and bastardization are natural conditions from which there is no escape to higher evolutionary levels.
CaptainChaos,
Thanks for responding to my post. Obviously you are very well-informed, and a lot of your analysis really cuts deeply into the issues. You are absolutely right of course that the Soviets were busily planning on invading Western Europe, and Hitler knew of this, and wanted to make a preemptive strike. By all accounts, Hitler was quite intelligent, Churchill thought of him as an “evil genius”. Germany certainly was in a very complicated situation in the late 30′s.
By this time though, Hitler had succeeded in uniting most of the former German Empire, and reversing the economic disaster. When I criticize Hitler for starting the war (invading Poland), I understand I am looking at the situation with the benefit of 20/20 hindsight, which noone at the time had. But Hitler did understand the risk of igniting a World War through this action, and he undertood very well how destructive this could be. Did he have no choice because of the Soviet threat? An alternate course of action would have been to establish alliances with Poland and other neighbors, to defend against a Soviet invasion. England and France were both willing to work with him, according to what I have read.
After the invasion of France, Hitler had another opportunity to end the war. From my understanding, he was willing to cease hostilities, leave most of what had been conquered in the West, in exchange for a “free hand in Eastern Europe”. This was of course not acceptable for the English. He initiated bombing England, making a peace treaty even more unlikely. This was an even greater opportunity that was squandered, because at this point Hitler could have established a cessation of hostilities, the British people were not eager for a long, costly war (it was Germany’s naval and air attacks that made the British intractable). A few years of entreaties for peace towards England without aggression would have most probably resulted in an end to the war.
Had the Soviet Union invaded a re-armed Germany through Poland, it is likely that the Russians would have failed miserably. This was evident in their invasion of Finland. The Russian army was formed with generally poorly trained conscripts, who were not very motivated to attack other nations. When Hitler invaded, it transformed the situation into Russians defending their motherland, where they were now willing to sacrifice all.
I think that Hitler did squander great opportunities to prevent a world war, and would have been able to contain the Soviets without this. He was partial to taking huge risks and gambling with the future of the German nation. Ultimately, the war was cataclysmic for not only Germany, but the West. The best of the German people died in that war, an incredible loss to the European gene pool.
Even so, it is possible that without the rise of Hitler, the situation would have been even worse. As you say, Western Europe would probably have been overrun by the Soviets. The world would have entered the atomic age without the US being the dominant power. Bad as WW2 was, this alternate reality could have been even more nightmarish.
“An alternate course of action would have been to establish alliances with Poland and other neighbors, to defend against a Soviet invasion. England and France were both willing to work with him, according to what I have read.”
Neither England, nor France, nor Poland would have been interested in the type of alliance with Germany necessary as they were all of them captured by the petty national chauvinisms and traditional geostrategic power jockeying of the day. Remember, it was Poland that participated in the dismemberment of Czechoslovakia. Also recall, that it was Hitler who halted his panzers at Dunkirk in the hopes that that act of mercy would curry the good favor of Britain necessary to the effect that the alliance he had always sought with that nation would come to be. Rebuffed. Do those sound like the actions of nations with the requisite foresight to form an alliance with the future of the race in mind?
“After the invasion of France, Hitler had another opportunity to end the war. From my understanding, he was willing to cease hostilities, leave most of what had been conquered in the West, in exchange for a “free hand in Eastern Europe”.”
It was France and Britain that declared war on Germany. There is hardly anything Hitler wanted more than an alliance with Britain, even unto a willingness to volunteer German troops to defend the Empire. But…
“This was of course not acceptable for the English.”
Yes, so long as England was left standing as an antagonist there was the possibility of America entering the war on England’s side. Which is of course what Churchill was counting on, which is of course what came to pass, there would be no surrender.
“He initiated bombing England, making a peace treaty even more unlikely.”
Only after England bombed targets in Germany proper beyond the threshold that Hitler could tolerate without retaliation in kind.
“A few years of entreaties for peace towards England without aggression would have most probably resulted in an end to the war.”
And the Russians would have been doing what exactly during those “years”? The suggestion is an absurdity.
“Had the Soviet Union invaded a re-armed Germany through Poland, it is likely that the Russians would have failed miserably.”
Oh? The Soviets at the time of Barbarossa had vastly superior numbers of men under arms and equipment. It was the German edge in superior tactics, initiative and morale that won out for a time.
“This was evident in their invasion of Finland.”
That conflict lasted about four months with the Soviets grinding the Finns down with superior numbers in terms of men and equipment, just as would have been done in the case of Germany. The Soviet advantage over the Finns in terms of fighting men in that conflict was about three to one, Germany would have faced the same situation.
“The Russian army was formed with generally poorly trained conscripts, who were not very motivated to attack other nations.”
There is ample motivation to attack without retreat when one is imbued with the knowledge that if one does not one will be shot in the back, and if one escapes to surrender successfully, one’s family will be sent to the gulag.
“When Hitler invaded, it transformed the situation into Russians defending their motherland, where they were now willing to sacrifice all.”
See above.
“I think that Hitler did squander great opportunities to prevent a world war, and would have been able to contain the Soviets without this.”
No, Stalin’s will to invade was implacable, and at whatever the cost to the Soviet peoples. Every moment spent not answering the threat was a moment in which Stalin’s military might would have waxed.
“He was partial to taking huge risks and gambling with the future of the German nation. Ultimately, the war was cataclysmic for not only Germany, but the West.”
Death is certain, how long one might live on and under what circumstances is not. Yet when the clouds of doom gather on the horizon there may come a time one must risk all, to gain all, to save all, or face not only death but dishonor.
Latvian Artur Silgailis of the Waffen-SS wrote of a conversation he had with Himmler:
“He (Himmler) then singled out those nations which he regarded as belonging to the German family of nations and they were: the Germans, the Dutch, the Flemish, the Anglo-Saxons, the Scandinavians and the Baltic people. ‘To combine all of these nations into one big family is the most important task at the present time’ (Himmler said). ‘This unification has to take place on the principle of equality and at that same time has to secure the identity of each nation and its economical independence, of course, adjusting the latter to the interests of the whole German living space. . . After the unification of all the German nations into one family, this family. . . has to take over the mission to include, in the family, all the Roman nations whose living space is favored by nature with a milder climate…I am convinced that after the unification, the Roman nations will be able to persevere as the Germans…This enlarged family of the White race will then have the mission to include the Slavic nations into the family also because they too are of the White race . . . it is only with such a unification of the White race that the Western culture could be saved from the Yellow race . . . At the present time, the Waffen-SS is leading in this respect because its organization is based on the principle of equality. The Waffen-SS comprises not only German, Roman and Slavic, but even Islamic units and at the same time has proven that every unit has maintained its national identity while fighting in close togetherness . . . I know quite well my Germans. The German always likes to think himself better but I would like to avert this. It is important that every Waffen-SS officer obeys the order of another officer of another nationality, as the officer of the other nationality obeys the order of the German officer.”
The point is that Jews manipulated events to defeat Germany and brought about WW2 just as they now control America and have us committing a holocaust in the ME.
Diversity doesn’t work simply because the group that gets power will use the government to further their own race’s interests at the expense of the General Welfare which is what Jews do.
Given Jewish history and their success in controlling Germany and now the United States, they think that Jews will rule in the One World Order. By destroying the United States and other Western nations thru immigration and elimination of borders they are forcing Globalization upon us.
In the Protocols, which I firmly believe Jews wrote, they claim ruling the world from Jerusalem as the goal. Who can say this is an impossibility. They’re doing pretty good so far. But this rule and its Jewish self interests is also their fatal flaw because nobody on the planet wishes to be ruled by them. The world was happy to submit to Anglo Saxon rule. The Jews are another story. They may be bringing about a world wide Jewish Holocaust.
I don’t like the idea of Jews having Palestine which should be there for every race and religion. Jews and Muslims and Christians lived in peace there before the d**m Jews got control now its a mess. Where would be a proper homeland for Jews? I’m thinking a distance galaxy far far away.
[1] Why ‘America Now’ is far worse off than ‘Germany Then’
I am deeply impressed by the high level of debate on this blog. The breathtaking display of erudition and the profundity of many of the comments makes me feel, alas, little better than a village idiot! I have been justly accused by one of these cognoscenti of needless defeatism. America is far from dead, he assures us, it’s alive and kicking. It’s just a matter of time before the goyim rise from their slumber, reclaim lost ground, and rout the Ancient Enemy forever.
Another suggests that things were far worse in Germany.
I wish I could feel as sanguine about America’s prospects as these optimists do.
I invite the clever commentariat on this blog to concentrate their attention on one question and try to answer it if they can. The question is this: what serious negative factors face Americans today that did NOT beset the Germans in Hitler’s Germany?
I am suggesting that the problems facing Germany vis-à-vis Jewish domination of their culture — the problems of Jewish ‘takeover’ that Hitler attempted to rescue Germans from — were far less formidable than the problems facing any potential American rescuer today.
America’s rescuer will have his job cut out for him. Hitler had it easy in comparison. And Hitler screwed up. Whatever Hitler set out to achieve, he obviously failed to achieve it.
Is this an endorsement of Hitler’s program? No, of course it isn’t. I am merely stating a fact. Hitler had a problem. The Jewish problem. What to do with all these Jews who refused to assimilate and whose obnoxious behavior was itself the root cause of anti-Semitism.
I repeat: Hitler failed to solve this perennial problem.
And yet he had it easy — compared to any potential American rescuer today.
Xanadu
(aka Lasha Darkmoon)
* * * * *
[2] The Christian Zionists.
One of the negative factors I identified — or problems facing America today — is the existence of vast numbers of Christian Zionists in America.
Germany of course had to cope with organized Jewry, a group working from within to undermine the foundations of German society. But one scourge Germany did NOT have, and which America has, is the scourge of an enemy within: i.e., 50-70 million Christian Zionists acting in cahoots with organized Jewry to make things impossible for the goyim.
America’s Christian Zionists, it would seem, are their own worst enemy — blithely planning their own demise without knowing it.
So here is Problem Number One for those of you who dream of a White Man’s Utopia from which other hostile and culturally indigestible races are to be excluded:
what are you going to do with these 50-70 million White American renegades who have joined forces with the Enemy? Who are more Jewish than Ariel Sharon? Who take their orders from the ADL? Who are hand in glove with AIPAC?
How are you going to fit these thoroughly Judaized allies of organized Jewry into your White Utopia?
It cannot be done. So you have a big problem.
* * * * *
[3] Israel and its Jewish American Agents
Another big problem America needs to solve that Germany did not have to cope with is the state of Israel. Germany was singularly lucky in that it did not have Israel hanging round its neck like an albatross. The Germans were not forced to fight Israel’s wars for it. They didn’t have to dash off to Iraq and Afghanistan to die for the Jews. Americans are obliged to do so.
Hitler himself foresaw the Jewish state — and didn’t think much of it. Here he is in Chapter 11 of Mein Kampf:
“It doesn’t even enter their heads [the Jews] to build up a Jewish state in Palestine for the purpose of living there; all they want is a central organization for their international world swindle, endowed with its own sovereign rights and removed from the intervention of other states: a haven for convicted scoundrels and a university for budding crooks.”
Hitler has a point, but he failed to appreciate the extent to which organized Jewry would maximize its power once it had acquired its own headquarters and homeland — complete with its own military arsenal and espionage facilities. Archimedes provides a hint in his famous lever quote, often loosely translated as : “Give me a place to stand and I will move the world.”
The Germans, in addition, did not have a powerful Jewish Lobby holding the entire German government to ransom. German politicians, unlike American ones, were not on Israel’s payroll via campaign contributions from AIPAC and its fabulously rich Jewish supporters — political donations or “reward money” that are bribes in all but name.
In pre-WW2 Germany, Mossad did not exist. No Mossad was around to monitor the internet activities of German politicians to see what financial or sexual shenanigans they were up to. Today, in America, there is constant surveillance of American politicians by Mossad — if not by AIPAC, the ADL and their various affiliates. It follows that the potential for blackmailing American politicians (by Israel’s agents) must today be enormous.
To summarize:
1. Germany did not have millions of Christians Zionists to cope with — a thorn in the flesh if ever there was one.
2. Germany did not have the state of Israel to finance, nor did it have to fight Israel’s wars.
3. Germany did not have AIPAC, the ADL or the $PLC to endure, or the 51 Presidents of the Major Jewish Organization (PMAJO) who claim to speak for all Jews in the US.
In those relatively halcyon days, these specialists in defamation, blackmail and bribery who act as agents for Israel did not exist.
Conclusion: the situation facing us is a grim one. The future looks unimaginably bleak.
Christian Zionists are the easiest problem to solve, once the intellectual basis that is the foundation of Israel worship is taken care of in the seminaries. The foundation – which is on bad soil – is that the jews are God’s chosen people. It doesn’t say that in the New Testament, it is merely a fuzzy feeling that sounds reasonable to fervant believers, because Jesus and Paul, chiefly, started out as jews, hence it seems bad to say the jews are going to hell. None of my fellow Christians have ever been able to refute the line often used by Pat Robertson, who used it when Larry King asked him if he were going to hell, that “No man comes to the father but through me,” as spoken by Jesus, in John 14:6.
My fellow Christians, start confronting your Pastor with that and let’s drive the jew lie out of the church!
I agree with Xanadu. In addition, one must consider that America was not on an equal footing with Germany to resist even at square one. America’s population lacked the close ethnic kindred of countries like Germany and England from the start, plus the populace has lower average IQ, resulting from the fact that most immigrants were people unable to keep a foothold in their native economies in the first place. “Those who cannot compete, leave”, in the words of Adam Smith. I realize there are many smart people in the US, but I refer to the masses.
Moreover, America lacks a hereditary nobility and aristocracy like the ones in old Europe. Were the yoke of Jacob thrown off, so to speak, there would be nothing to which to return. I think this is the reason the BNP has done relatively well in the UK.
I know a woman, a physician, who is an ardent Christian Zionist. In the professional sense, she’s about the smartest thing going, but she has the actual belief that the forces of light and darkness are aligning on the border between Israel and the middle east. She has even invested money in Israel. She preaches the stuff constantly, arguing that every natural disaster on the planet a harbinger of armageddon. My point is that Christian Zionism is a powerful mythology, able to enmesh educated people, not merely “gormless peasants”. I thought these people were an urban legend until I met her.
This was a very interesting and well-written blog post, by the way. It should be expanded into a feature article
Very good points by Xanadu. I’d like to add one, though:
4. Germany did not need to deal with a cultural situation of hegemonic “deconstructionism”. Hitler was only possible because the nationalist/racist discourse was already established (not yet deconstructed).
America’s situation is radically different, since there is no established legitimate, mainstream discourse (except from “patriotism”, of course).
I looked at this graphic from the New York Times and thought, we do fight on of course, but it looks like Game, Set, and Match. Perhaps the Providence a man from the Twentieth Century often referred to will intervene, barring that my dear brothers and sisters it looks GRIM.
http://graphics8.nytimes.com/images/2010/01/07/us/07south-graphic/popup.jpg
Graphic from article:
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/01/07/us/07south.html?ref=us
See also:
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/01/08/us/08census.html
It will be interesting to see what the Americans do.
The occupation of the US is in some ways worse than the Ottoman and Soviet empires, given the biological engineering aspect apparent in the Jewish project. White people of European descent in America are literally going to be wiped out by their own managers.
The Americans’ Christian beliefs, conformist mindset, and respect for the law will prevent any solution being taken that could liberate white people from the present situation.
Leave, or fight back? Americans have chosen the former course.
None of the stuff that outsiders claim to be true of Southern Christians or Christian Zionists is real. I should know. Christians are not the radical brain dead extremists that the stereotyping makes them out to be.
I believe that the hold that Jews have over us is tenuous and completely dependent upon fooling people into thinking that their media creation is supported by all Americans.
When leaders and movements arise that give people another option and an opportunity to go into a different direction people will show that all of this support of Jews claimed by Lasha is built upon sand.
History shows us this is true. Jews have been driven in defeat from every nation where they ever lived. Modern technology guarantees that Jews will be disgraced and hated around the world this time.
Lasha, since you have written about music I thought you might like this
http://racehist.blogspot.com/2009/12/intra-european-variation-in-musical.html
At least on the Protestant side, it’s all sadly true. There is nothing surprising or mysterious about people like Falwell or that slimy obese piece of excrement Hagee. They are just money-grubbing whores. Falwell got cash and they flew him around on a private jet. He wanted to see his face on tv.
The odious priest Charles Stanley makes his money by suckering working class white women in the South to send their kids to fight for zion and they sucker them again “comforting” them after their kids get killed. It’s just money to them.
Christian schools are the only thing peasants have left, the public schools are literally killing fields. Would you want your daughter going to a public school? There is no civil society left, no social clubs, no Masons or Elks. All the role models are Hollywood actors or sports stars.
Obama was right, bitter whites clinging to their guns and bibles. What else is there? They even stole their retirement money.
Those who can make you believe absurdities can make you commit atrocities.
williamm says:
January 10, 2010 at 1:04 PM
Those who can make you believe absurdities can make you commit atrocities.
Brilliant. This reminds me of the old Latin adage, “Quem Deus vult perdere prius dementat” Whom God wishes to destroy he first drives mad.
If the adage is correct, a lot of people in America are heading for destruction.
Barbara Cornett says:
January 10, 2010 at 12:51 PM
Lasha, since you have written about music I thought you might like this
http://racehist.blogspot.com/2009/12/intra-european-variation-in-musical.html
Thanks Barbara, but I think you’re getting me mixed up with Elizabeth Whitcombe who has written some fine articles on music for TOO. (I’ve written about Art).
Btw, I enjoy reading your lively comments immensely. They always make me smile…when they don’t shock me! Keep up the good work.
Is that your photo, or is it an avatar?
CaptainChaos,
I think you are at a severe disadvantage arguing that Hitler’s course of action in starting the war was logical, under the circumstances (of the Soviet threat), as everything turned out so badly for Europeans. Yet you are bravely soldiering on, no doubt you have stalwart Germanic blood in your veins. “Neither England, nor France, nor Poland would have been interested in the type of alliance with Germany necessary as they were all of them captured by the petty national chauvinisms and traditional geostrategic power jockeying of the day.” A political figure must balance risks. As the Soviet threat grew (especially against Poland), France and England would have been increasingly willing to welcome Germany into alliance. Would Poland have refused an alliance offer made in good faith, neighboring as they did the Soviet behemoth? One of the reasons the two powers accomodated Hitler’s early territorial expansion was because they hoped he would be a buffer against the Soviets, which France and England feared. It is difficult to argue that the Soviets would be capable of overrunning the combined forces of Poland, Germany, France and England, even if their forces were organized loosely and inefficiently at the start of a Soviet invasion. For Hitler, the risk of starting a world war against the West was a better choice than trying to work with the West with the risk of Soviet invasion. Was this a reasonable calculation for a leader to make at that time? I think it was reckless.
While Hitler had many strong points as a leader (decisiveness, willingness to take calculated risks when warranted, speaking ability, strong convictions, etc.), one of his weak points was a lack of subtlety. Hitler’s diplomatic policies were generally about blood and iron, about demands and threats. Lets not forget that Britain was a democracy, with periodic elections, and that the population had terrible memories of WW1, and was extremely reluctant to become engaged in another world war. In the case of Hitler’s second chance at peace, had the war with Britain lingered on, with Germany making peace proposals, and friendly gestures, with little hope of Britain ever re-conquering France, it is likely that public opinion would have turned against Churchill. In a democracy, public relations can really swing opinion, especially for a leader with the resources of a powerful nation behind him. Yes, Britain was not ready for peace immediately after France had fallen, but with time, the British people would in all likelihood be willing to agree to a fair peace proposal. The US population was generally pacifist, there was almost no threat of the US entering the war before Pearl Harbor. Britain posed little threat to Germany; Churchill’s bombing raids and other provocations did little harm, and could be easily defended against (British bombing raids could be punished by high casualty rates that would have decreased Churchill’s popularity, for example). Had Hitler been patient, appealed to British public opinion, making goodwill gestures, it is very likely that there would have been a peaceful resolution at some point. In any case, the idea of bombing Britain into submission was foolhardy at best, especially considering Germany’s limited bombing capacity.
“A few years of entreaties for peace towards England without aggression would have most probably resulted in an end to the war.” And the Russians would have been doing what exactly during those “years”? The suggestion is an absurdity.” The Soviets, of course, would have been building up their military. But they were not particularly efficient. Would Germany really have been at so great a disadvantage in a few years, especially after their R&D programs had advanced (better tanks and aircraft, some of the world’s finest by the early 40′s)?
“Had the Soviet Union invaded a re-armed Germany through Poland, it is likely that the Russians would have failed miserably.” Oh? The Soviets at the time of Barbarossa had vastly superior numbers of men under arms and equipment. It was the German edge in superior tactics, initiative and morale that won out for a time.” Remember that Stalin’s officer corps had been decimated, and although superior in numbers and equipment, the Soviet army was not very effective. The case of Finland is just one example. Another is the very poor performance of the Soviets in the first months of Barbarossa. An invasion of the West would have been led by Marshal Budenny, Stalin’s most experienced general, but a complete incompetent. Before the war, almost all of Stalin’s generals were political appointees. A major reason the Soviets did as well as they did after 1942 was the vast amount of aid sent by Britain and the US. This would not have been sent had the Soviets been the aggressors.
“The Soviet advantage over the Finns in terms of fighting men in that conflict was about three to one, Germany would have faced the same situation.” My understanding is that the German army numbered something like 3 million highly trained professional troops at the eve of Barbarossa. In spite of the Soviet advantage in equipment, I just find it hard to conceive of the Soviets slicing through a German war machine (especially if Germany had built an alliance with other Western nations, which I would argue was very possible had this been Hitler’s true policy, rather than territorial expansion).
“There is ample motivation to attack without retreat when one is imbued with the knowledge that if one does not one will be shot in the back, and if one escapes to surrender successfully, one’s family will be sent to the gulag.” Again I will point to Finland, a nation of a few million, which succeeded in killing something like 1 million Russians in the Winter War. The Finnish army had just a fraction of the effectiveness of the German army. It makes a lot of difference whether a Russian peasant is defending his homeland, or is being sent off against some foreign nation in a war that means nothing to him. Invading another nation is made more difficult from the need to have long supply lines and being in the midst of an unfriendly population as well.
“No, Stalin’s will to invade was implacable, and at whatever the cost to the Soviet peoples. Every moment spent not answering the threat was a moment in which Stalin’s military might would have waxed.” This is true. However, I would also refer to the risk calculation I mentioned before. Hitler had to balance the risk of being overrun by the Soviets (with their large but poorly organized army) versus the risk of igniting a war with the West, with all that entailed. A reasonable person could have assumed that invading Poland would start a war with the West. Not only that, Hitler had no guarantee that his gamble through the Ardennes would actually succeed (quite a gamble, considering the possibility of a protracted war against the West while the Soviets watched and waited).
“When the clouds of doom gather on the horizon there may come a time one must risk all, to gain all, to save all, or face not only death but dishonor.” But it is rare that we must risk all. There are always a wide range of options available to any leader. The US could have followed MacArthur’s request to use nuclear weapons against China, to stave off defeat in Korea. This “all or nothing” strategy was unecessary, and would have hurt the US in the long run. Likewise, Hitler’s “risk all” mindset, refusing to contemplate other strategies and options, was just reckless. Hitler had the potential to be one of the great heroes in Western history. But he squandered his opportunities, and became one of the great destroyers of the West.
The Sturmabteilung (SA) was not formed for spits and giggles but to protect the political struggle of National Socialism against Communist thuggery amidst a general milieu of social decay centered around working-class youth. A battle within, in the streets, for the soul of the German nation, so that the battle without could be waged against Bolshevism, international finance capitalism and international Jewry (whose massive involvement in and sponsorship of the former two for their ethnic interests even then need not be stated).
These few pages from The German working class 1888-1933: the politics of everyday life by Richard J. Evans would be read with profit.
http://books.google.com/books?id=3gcOAAAAQAAJ&pg=PA174&dq=weimar+germany+communism&cd=3#v=onepage&q=&f=false
And let it be noted that there is no nation that stands against America that can crush from outside pro-White revolution if it occurs here, which was not the case for Germany. Although America most certainly will intervene to the detriment of a nationalist revival that occurs in the West. If we can win in America, that will pretty well be game, set and match. And if the National Socialists can do it, then so can we. When Germany was crushed the need for Final Victory was not obviated, only postponed.
As Xandu/Lasha sagaciously observers, there are indeed many insightful posters here. The comparison of Third Reich Germany with contemporary Anglo America is very difficult because of the historical, cultural and philosophical differences between the two related population groups, as well an the chronological time differences. The fact that the two world wars also compounded and toxified historical and ideological relations between the two polities, is a factor to constantly bear in mind. The reality is, that, these historical processes played upon, and into each other, and are thus very pertinent. The basic upshot was, that, the Third Reich and racial thinking has been demonized, and is thus of major consequence in understanding how the war was not only a huge Jewish victory, but ultimately, a disastrous ideological watershed. That Hitler unified and restored a shattered and dis-united nation, is a major accomplishment in and of itself. The German dream of a unified all-German national state was very old, and was rooted in the awareness of the fact that the German ethny has existed for thousands of years in Europe. This contrasts markedly with the North American Anglo experience of conceptualizing a mythical “proposition nation”, and the concomitant, conceited denial of Euro-ethnic origins.
In comparison, the Anglo American ethny, though an extension of Europe, has never had a real or strong sense of ethnic identity in its historically brief history. Anglo identity revolves around a juvenile, jingoistic, and nebulous patriotism. In addition, Anglo Americans have a history of having subsumed all of the Puritan Old Testament philosophical influences, along with the liberal Enlightenment baggage of the early republican period. The basic difference, as I see it, is the fact that Anglos/Whites have a very compromised, Judaized mindset because of all of the ethnically self-destructive ideas and influences that they have imbibed over the centuries. Most White Americans are today, mentally poisoned, walking paradoxes of the first order. The crippled Anglo mindset functions as a large net negative unto itself, whereas, this ideological dementia is a zombie-like positive for Jewry, who have virtually complete control over this ‘Gentile’ milk herd. This U.S. aberration essentially functions as a puppet-like, Anglo Golem for the organized Jewish supremacists.
Hence, the comparison between Germany and Anglo America, though plagued by the same basic problem, is very much different in time, place and particulars. Germany did try to save itself through National Socialism, whereas, here, in make-believe America, we are trying to save an ideologically poisoned people from themselves. I am always hopeful, yet ambivalent, about White/Anglo prospects, or their ability to deal with the self-inflicted dilemma that we find ourselves in at present.
Lasha, your pessimism is positively Jewish. And unjustified. The ZOG is about to drown in its own debt, after which all sorts of interesting political combinations and possibilities will emerge.
Christian Zionism is quickly becoming a paper tiger and perhaps looking at it in a different way might help. First, Christian Zionists want Jews to have Israel and go there. Second, evangelicalism itself is going into a severe demographic decline so in the very near future fanatical Zionist politicking may not yield as many votes as it used to. Third, the actual support is a mile wide and an inch deep and the pool is draining quickly. Fourth, as leftist Jews will tell you, the plot line of Christian Zionism does not end well for Jews. Something about 144,000. The last point, please consider that whatever Christian Zionists believe about Jews and Israel the reality on the ground is that nobody thinks that Alan Dershowitz is a good guy.
I believe that Christian Zionism was a 100 year project, and there’s no doubt in my mind it was planned and continues to be directed. The Scofield Bible commentary is just that, a commentary that just happens to support a concept of modern Jewish state in Palestine and identify modern Jews as “chosen.” Perhaps not surprisingly it seems to have the same relation to the biblical text that Talmud does to Mishna. Lymon Stewart and his brother seemed to be the primary (non-Jewish) financiers of the spread of Scofield influenced fundamentalism and the progressively multi-racial Pentecostal movement. There is also an Oxford connection but I don’t know the details.
There has been big money in Christian Zionism, but it’s naive to believe it’s all from popular appeal. If you look at those Christian Zionist media companies you listed, they are simply another type of Hollywood, and it’s financed the same way. Perhaps by some of the same people? I would suspect that this Grace Halsell person is getting a paycheck from somebody after all.
Of course there are rabid fanatics in any religious movement, but again the support is an inch deep. Look at how the televangelists were taken down in the 1980s, it would take a scandal or two to bring down the whole edifice. An interesting piece of trivia is that when they took down PTL their satellite network went to Falwell.
Protestants can interpret the Bible anyway they want, and they have been influenced in the last 100 years to support a Zionist interpretation. I’m far more concerned about general flag waving style pro-war propaganda which proves irresistible to a large segment of the white working class South. Modern Zionism has been like a specific element added to the mix of customs that make up that culture, but the mix itself existed before modern Zionism.
Please keep in mind that the Southern Baptist Convention (the core of the GOP vote) basically opposes organized Jewry on nearly every social issue in modern American society and supports them having a homeland, and probably implicitly, moving there. I’d also note that pro-war propaganda works mostly the same in any culture and white Southerners are a core of the US military and given to fighting, frankly.
A lot of the leaders and being bribed and blackmailed, it’s as simple as that. Then there are the books and tv shows. It’s an alternate Hollywood, or something like Nashville that’s a music industry clone of LA.
Hi Lasha,
Thanks for calling me one of the cognoscenti. I hope that’s a good thing :). May I say that I enjoy your columns in the Occidental Observer very much. I know that one of the purposes of the OO is to act as Paul Revere, or one of the prophets of old, sounding the alarm about the displacement of Whites and their culture. While this is an important role, we need to avoid declaring the battle over before it has really begun. Reversing the displacement of Whites is truly a monumental challenge, and a lot of work lies ahead for White activists.
I think that its useful to envision the struggle for White survival as the “Great Game”, that our ancestors have been playing since Europeans arrived on the scene. Our ancestors have of course faced numerous struggles throughout the ages, from environmental (the ice age, for example) to invasions (the Arabs, Turks and Mongols, for example). Every age has had its challenges, some quite dire in nature, but our European forefathers have always overcome them. We are still here, and so the game continues. The goal of the game is of course for our unique people – our European family (especially those closely related to us) – to survive and prosper. We need to keep in mind that this is going to be a pretty long game in any case (assuming there is no massive disaster). Even if little happens in awakening Whites, by the end of this century, European peoples will be diminished, but still very much alive, with a population numbering in the hundreds of millions around the world. Even at that late date, there will still be hope. The game “ain’t over ’till its over”, and perhaps we can concede that we have lost in the case that our numbers drop to just a few million, which would be a very long time from now even in a worst-case scenario.
Racially conscious whites tend to concentrate on the problems we face, and agonize over the low level of racial consciousness we currently see in the White population. But we need to have faith in our European gene pool. In our population group, there are vast numbers of exceptionally gifted, amazingly capable individuals. It is true that very few are awakened to the threats yet, but they are not fools. There is a sleeping giant here that is awesome in its wrath when its eyes are opened. As this century progresses, there will be numerous crises that will serve to awaken Whites. There will be economic crises, as social programs begin to go bankrupt. Taxes will need to be increased to high levels, and there will be a reckoning with our accumulated debt. There will also be demographic changes, where Whites find themselves elbow-to-elbow with our turd world immigrants, in the middle of ethnic competition. Faced with these crises, Whites will have no choice but to awaken. We already see the very first stirrings in the almost all-white Tea-party movement, and elsewhere. When the giant does fully awaken, we can expect action.
You may be right that “America is dead” in the sense that the solution will be some type of partition of the nation. I cannot foresee what form the solution to our challenges will be, and secession is certainly possible. However, it is just absolutely inconceivable that such a gifted race will allow itself to go extinct. When the threat is fully manifest to Europeans, I can guarantee you that things will change.
Andrew says:
January 11, 2010 at 12:04 AM
You may be right that “America is dead” in the sense that the solution will be some type of partition of the nation. I cannot foresee what form the solution to our challenges will be, and secession is certainly possible. However, it is just absolutely inconceivable that such a gifted race will allow itself to go extinct. When the threat is fully manifest to Europeans, I can guarantee you that things will change.
Thanks, Andrew, I am pleased for you that your outlook is so sunny! While I am not myself believe a doom-and-gloom merchant pe se, I find it useful to assume the role of devil’s advocate for pessimism on an occanional basis — the situation being so critical. I had written you a longer reply in response to your cogently argued critique, but to my dismay it got lost in the ether when I clicked on ‘Submit’. This sometimes happens and is very frustrating…
Sincere best wishes,
Xanadu.
Seadragonconquerer says:
January 10, 2010 at 9:03 PM
Lasha, your pessimism is positively Jewish. And unjustified.
Tut tut, this is so anti-Semitic! :)
If pessimism is “Jewish” and the Jews are winning, would you rather be an optimist?
Optimism is not the cure for terminal cancer.
A man who faces a firing squad does not say, “I will like on the bright side!”
williamm says:
January 10, 2010 at 9:53 PM
I have learned much from reading your extremely erudite posts. Thank you. You appear to be a realist: neither optimist nor pessimist. And that’s possibly the best thing to be.
The Scofield Bible, which you mention your post, is a source of pernicious Zionist propaganda. Did you know that each subsequent edition of this Commentary gets increasingly Zionist and extremist in its sentiments?
We live in a country verging on paranoia.
The other day I went into a bookstore in a small town and asked if I could buy Yusuf Ali’s translation of the Holy Qur’an. I was merely curious to read it because it had an extensive Commentary (like the Scofield Bible).
They didn’t have the book in stock and refused to order it. It was suggested I was showing an unhealthy interest in a book that had been used as a “terrorist manual” by the perpetrators of 9/11. I began to tremble and perspire. I felt they were about to call the cops at any moment and have me dragged away for interrogation.
It was a cold day, and I guess I was wearing a black headscarf that looked vaguely like a hijab, concealing part of my face. The guy serving me probably thought: “Hey, behold the Bride of bin Laden!”
Anyway, I pretended to feel faint and asked my interlocuter if I could have a glass of water. He went to fetch it. When he was in the back room, I slipped out of the shop and made my escape…
Daily Life in the Twenty-First Century. Grim. And getting grimmer by the day. Surveillance cameras everywhere. Cops with tasers strutting around. Potential rapists lurking in every alley. Not nice. Not nice at all.
Hence the pessimism.
Lasha – you said – Is that your photo, or is it an avatar?
You have written about ART and you ask me that. I’m not telling you, you will have to figure it out.
Wow, sorry to hear about your encounter in the bookstore Xanadu.
Positively creepy.
I wonder what would happen if someone asked for “Diary of a Writer” by Dostoevsky. That’s they book where he talks about Jews in Russia (a must read). From what I understand you can only get it in a special edition and for more than a $100.
PC’s a code that encourgaes immoral behavior while passing itself off as a moral aboslute.
Whites are designated as inherently immoral while non-Whites (PC’s protected groups) are placed above criticism in spite of the fact that they are very imperfect indeed, and so, with no real check, are permitted to engage in immoral behavior for which they blame PC’s designated scapegoat, Whites.
And Whites are treated like on big happy family with one head, two arms and two legs, in spite of being hands down the most diverse race in existence.
Of course it has to be held together by a Police State.
But it won’t last.
The reason?
It is disgustingly, nauseatingly, cartoonishly self-satisfied, without at all being self-sufficient. It will collapse on itself.
America is dying from it’s addiction to over-simplified solutions to complicated problems.
Of sentimentality – a product of the Enlightenment. In both religious and secular form.
It lead to an anti-historical, anti-intellectual, anti-spiritual culture that is filled with materialism, sensationalism, and violence. And it’s death, far from causing consternation in me, is the only hope we have. I welcome it with a sigh of relief.
Ahhh, finally!!!!
This is the logical consequence of the ambition to be as superficial and as narrow-minded as possible. To make a big pile of cash without ever having to think.
What else is that mindset going to lead to?
By the time America was established and moved westward (this was the case with both the Americas, but here I’m concerned with the only America that counts*) the West itself was operating in the area of high culture, almost entirely out of Enlightenment values. The values of perfect adaptation of organism to envinronment.
Which meant every moral decision and every scientific or intellectual decision had to compliment the other (this continued unabated and laid the foundation for debacles like the James Watson affair).
It was the beginning of the end of mankind’s relationhsip with and dependency on salvation systems because it was the beginning of the age of facile solutions to complex problems.
It lead to what I call a Culture of Over-simplification whose metaphyscial system was reduced to slogans and gossip. Slogans like “Just Do It”,“Don’t Worry Be Happy”, “Get Over It”, “Move On.” You get the idea. And this metaphysical system is reflected in its social system were everything is turned on its head. Or, can you say, “the last shall be first”?
It was amazing that the more these slogans were repeated and applied to a larger and larger area of human acitivy, the greater, and more insoluable our problems got – and yet no one made the connection. No one put two and two together.
There is no greater example of Americas sentimentality and how destructive it is than in Political Correctness, now the undisputed official State Religion; and no greater example of the deadliness of over-simplification in PC itself then in the coopting of a term taken from Romanticism and debased, degraded and deformed by being cast into a Enlightenment-Sentimental-PC mold.
And that is the notion of – Diversity without Conflict!!!!
It would take the puniest amount of introspection to see that diversity can exist in the Individual – as in a person of diverse interests. And, that those diverse interests lead to conflicts that must be resolved in one way or another just so we can get on with it, act.
In short, it must be resolved through choice making. Which, except in rare individuals of extraordinary genius, is not something that just comes to you, you have to be taught. Here then, is the real value of Culture and Tradition.
From the Individual we move to the Family, Society, Culture, and World.
Lots of Diversity, Lots of Conflict.
How do you simplify a fearfully complex variety of conflicts in yourself without engaging in misrepresentation and self-betrayal? Very difficult. One of the hardest things to face in life is the fact that we never really know if we’ve done the right thing – until we’ve done it. Until after the fact. That is another reason why PC is so obnoxious. The way it judges the past in relation to intellectual fashions of the present (though Dante did pretty much the same, and that’s why Virgil couldn’t join him in Heaven. Though maybe he left him in Hell because Virgil was having more fun).
Then you have conflicts of Family, Society, Culture, and World.
But no. They want all of that, all of that Diversity, WITHOUT CONFLICT!
And people are worried about them succeeding?
A Bit Off Topic:
(this was the case with both the Americas, but here I’m concerned with the only America that counts*)
*This is a friendly joke to those in South America, many of whom I care for deeply. When I first got there one of their favorite things to say was that USA was guilty of presumptuous arrogance by refering to themselves as Americans, thereby overlooking that they were part of North America, and that there was also Central and South America too.
I argued that it made sense for us to say America because we were the only United States of America. So, for us America refered to the United States, and that no such union obtained in Central or South America, as the eternal squabblings and constant back and forth between dictatorships and chaos in those countires made perfectly obvious.
When they refused to see any merit in this point of view and continued pestering me with what I thought was an annoying and stupid question, I tried something else. Directness mixed with humor and charm.
So, when they asked me why we always say we’re Americans as if no other America exists I merely replied with genuine compassion in my voice, a sincere smile on my face, and an unwavering directness in my eyes,
“Because it’s the only America that counts.”
To which they would respond, “Ah, finally, an honest “American.” :)
Life!
Barbara Cornett says:
January 11, 2010 at 6:41 AM
Lasha – you said – Is that your photo, or is it an avatar?
You have written about ART and you ask me that. I’m not telling you, you will have to figure it out.
Tsk tsk! what a headstrong girl you are, Barbara! I may know about Art, but this has has nothing to do with Art but all to do with Computers. My knowledge of computers is almost non-existent. So please do tell me and satisfy my curiosity.
If I were take a guess, I’d say this was probably your photo. Am I right?
Anyway, dear Barbara, do keep in touch. LD.
Pitbullexpress says:
January 11, 2010 at 9:53 AM
Wow, sorry to hear about your encounter in the bookstore Xanadu.
Positively creepy.
Yeah, real creepy. You said it.
Nice to hear from you again, PBE — or is it Dedalus? — but after our last encounter I’m gonna be careful not to cross swords with you cos you’re a real killer! Anyway, speak to you later as I’ve got to go to bed. I’m in Europe right now where it’s past midnight.
Cheers,
Xanadu.
Halsell is not a Zionist; she’s anti-Zionist. She wasn’t stating her opinion; she was summing up the Christian Zionist position.
“I think you are at a severe disadvantage arguing that Hitler’s course of action in starting the war was logical, under the circumstances (of the Soviet threat), as everything turned out so badly for Europeans.”
Uh, it was France and Britain the declared war on Germany. Why is it they could not have had the foresight to see how badly things would turn out for Europeans? If Germany had won the war the existence of our race would be secure in perpetuity.
“A political figure must balance risks. As the Soviet threat grew (especially against Poland), France and England would have been increasingly willing to welcome Germany into alliance.”
Nonsense. The year Hitler came to power Lazar Kaganovitch was finishing polishing off as many as ten million Ukrainians a few hundred miles from Germany’s eastern border. For Hitler: message received, best get strong fast. For Britain and France: not so much, business as usual.
“Would Poland have refused an alliance offer made in good faith, neighboring as they did the Soviet behemoth?”
What does “in good faith mean,” the return of all German lands and people stripped at Versailles? Poland was itself a revisionist power captured by the petty intrigues and chauvinisms of the day.
“One of the reasons the two powers accomodated Hitler’s early territorial expansion was because they hoped he would be a buffer against the Soviets, which France and England feared.”
Yet only as far as a myopic maintenance of power balance according to traditional models. Right thinking and far-seeing men would have thrown those models out the window after the events in the Ukraine came to light.
“It is difficult to argue that the Soviets would be capable of overrunning the combined forces of Poland, Germany, France and England, even if their forces were organized loosely and inefficiently at the start of a Soviet invasion.”
You must be kidding me. The Poles charged their antagonists’ tanks on horse back (one can almost sense a cruel ethnic joke in the making!), France was taken in six weeks and then massive collaboration with the German occupiers began, the Italians – who did answer the call – could not even manage bringing the Greeks to heel without German intervention, Britain was only not invaded as, again, Hitler wanted their alliance, and to commit his forces to his true target, the Bolshevik butchers.
“For Hitler, the risk of starting a world war against the West was a better choice than trying to work with the West with the risk of Soviet invasion.”
Hitler DID attempt to gain an alliance with Britain, and yes, do what needed doing in consolidating the strength the German people (because, you know, it was necessary, see above).
“Was this a reasonable calculation for a leader to make at that time? I think it was reckless.”
It was the only thing that could be done under the circumstances, otherwise the Bolsheviks would be drinking vodka at the Thames.
“In the case of Hitler’s second chance at peace, had the war with Britain lingered on, with Germany making peace proposals, and friendly gestures, with little hope of Britain ever re-conquering France, it is likely that public opinion would have turned against Churchill.”
Even Chamberlain was committed to fight on, it is delusional to think Churchill would have been placated by anything.
“Yes, Britain was not ready for peace immediately after France had fallen, but with time, the British people would in all likelihood be willing to agree to a fair peace proposal.”
German peace feelers were kept from the British public eye, the press was responsible for stoking their outrage. When captured British soldiers from the abortive raid on Dieppe were told of that they responded with bewilderment and anger.
“The US population was generally pacifist, there was almost no threat of the US entering the war before Pearl Harbor.”
The Roosevelt administration policy of slowly strangling to death the Japanese ability to get oil made an attack by Japan all but inevitable. Which is of course what Roosevelt wanted as his ‘back door’ into the war in Europe.
“Britain posed little threat to Germany;”
Except as the means by which America would gain entrance for its forces into Western Europe. That is Britain was not a threat other than in the sense that it posed the greatest threat at its disposal to the German war effort (with the future of our race hanging in the balance), which is to say that it was a threat!
“Had Hitler been patient, appealed to British public opinion, making goodwill gestures, it is very likely that there would have been a peaceful resolution at some point.”
Again, not with the hostile press put to the uses and purposes of the men who wished the war to go on and counted on America coming in on their side (keep in mind the attitude of Roosevelt here). The great mass of White people, even alleged ‘leaders’, are incredibly shortsighted, suggestible and weak-minded, and hence terminally vulnerable to manipulation. You did know that, didn’t you? Or do you have no idea what goes on in this life?
“The Soviets, of course, would have been building up their military. But they were not particularly efficient. Would Germany really have been at so great a disadvantage in a few years, especially after their R&D programs had advanced (better tanks and aircraft, some of the world’s finest by the early 40’s)?”
Your thinking here is too static and linear as we are venturing into the counter-factual. The Soviets were no slouches when it came to producing state-of-the-art armaments, this was the case before every being engaged in combat with Germany. Much of the manic advancements in German war technology were reactive in nature, brought on by the necessities of war.
“Remember that Stalin’s officer corps had been decimated, and although superior in numbers and equipment, the Soviet army was not very effective.”
And also remember that the quality of the Soviet army and its officers improved tremendously in the course of the war.
“The case of Finland is just one example. Another is the very poor performance of the Soviets in the first months of Barbarossa.”
See above. Also, the Soviets didn’t cash in their chips then now did they?
“An invasion of the West would have been led by Marshal Budenny, Stalin’s most experienced general, but a complete incompetent.”
A ‘point’ that is anything but. If a man failed Stalin he very likely may have found himself gifted with a bullet in the back of the head and an unmarked grave. And a better man would be found to replace him, or at least that man had best hope he was better than his predecessor. Quite the incentive.
“Before the war, almost all of Stalin’s generals were political appointees.”
And as the war progress and unto its end Stalin’s generals were STILL political appointees, only they were competent men who improved the more on the job.
“A major reason the Soviets did as well as they did after 1942 was the vast amount of aid sent by Britain and the US. This would not have been sent had the Soviets been the aggressors.”
It would not have been needed were the Soviets the aggressors as they would still have been in possession of their breadbasket the Ukraine and not have had to disrupt their industries by relocating them east of the Urals. See how taking the initiative is to one’s advantage?
“My understanding is that the German army numbered something like 3 million highly trained professional troops at the eve of Barbarossa. In spite of the Soviet advantage in equipment, I just find it hard to conceive of the Soviets slicing through a German war machine”
The Soviets would have achieved it by hitting first and hard, and then smothering to death their opponents with their superior numbers and equipment, both of which would have improved at to quality as the fighting lingered on.
“(especially if Germany had built an alliance with other Western nations, which I would argue was very possible had this been Hitler’s true policy, rather than territorial expansion).”
The other Western nations were all but useless as formidable militaries, pro or con. The best thing they could have done would be to stand aside. Oh, and wouldn’t it have been nice if the Allies true policy was not the territorial contraction of Germany. Funny thing about a sword, it often has two edges.
Nice to hear from you again, PBE — or is it Dedalus? — but after our last encounter I’m gonna be careful not to cross swords with you cos you’re a real killer! Anyway, speak to you later as I’ve got to go to bed. I’m in Europe right now where it’s past midnight.
Cheers,
Xanadu.
Thank you. That was really nice.
And it’s nice also to get a relaxed and friendly response on a comment section where we’re usually all very serious (not without reason of course).
Oh, and as to this, “Nice to hear from you again, PBE — or is it Dedalus?”
As I mentioned before I was inspired by none other than you to switch names for a change.
Just as you use Lasha Darkmoon at TOO and Xanadu at the Blog, I thought, why not switch from Dedalus (which I use at other sites, and mostly TOQ) to Pitbullexpress at the blog?
So, if you or anyone has a problem with it, it’s your fault
Enjoy Europe, Safe return.
So, if you or anyone has a problem with it, it’s your fault
Ooops.
Tried to put a smiley thing at the end of the sentence so you would know I was being friendly, but it didn’t go through.
You’re not the only one who doesn’t anything about computers (insert smiley face).
CaptainChaos,
I see that you are unwilling to surrender even an inch of territory, as per Hitler’s order on the Russian front. You suggest that an attempt by Hitler to create a NATO-like organization (instead of invading Poland) would probably have failed, or even if implemented, could not have halted a Soviet invasion. Likewise, you suggest that after the fall of France, peace was impossible for Germany to achieve (even if attempting to go through intermediaries such as the US, and making goodwill gestures over an extended period). Lastly, you suggest that it was inevitable that the US would become involved in the war against Germany (even if there was no German-Japanese alliance). If you are correct, then Hitler most probably had no choice but to open his 2-front war (and its quite possible that had he followed Guderian’s plans, rather than interfering in the campaign, Barbarossa would have succeeded). I suspect, though, that most historians of the period would not agree with you. At any rate, since we have no way of knowing what would have happened had Hitler made different choices, there is no real way to resolve the discussion. So, it seems that we have reached basically a stalemate here.
JXPR says:
January 11, 2010 at 5:50 PM
Halsell is not a Zionist; she’s anti-Zionist. She wasn’t stating her opinion; she was summing up the Christian Zionist position.
* * *
I stand corrected. My source for the quotation, Stephen Sizer, expressed it so ambiguously that I was misled. He writes in “Christian Zionism: The New heresy that sways America”
http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article12516.htm
Christian Zionism Defined
Christian Zionism is essentially Christian support for Zionism. Zionism is a political system based on ethnic exclusivity giving Jews preferential political rights which are denied to Palestinians. The United Nations has defined Zionism as a form of racism and apartheid. Nevertheless, in the words of Grace Halsell the essential message of the Christian Zionist is this: “every act taken by Israel is orchestrated by God, and should be condoned, supported, and even praised by the rest of us.”
As you can see, this is so ambiguously expressed that it’s not clear from the context if Halsell was herself a Christian Zionist (she’s dead now) or if she was simply, as you say, “summing up the Christian position.”
This does not alter the general thrust of my argument, however, but only reinforces it if Halsell is correct in asserting that 50-70 million Christian Zionists fervently believe that “every act taken by Israel is orchestrated by God, and should be condoned, supported, and even praised by the rest of us.”
Grace Halsell appears to have been born into a very devout evangelical Christian family. Like many naive Christians, she was enamoured of Zionism to begin with, but appears to have undergone a slow process of disillusionment. Here is a passage from a review of her book, Prophecy and Politics: Militant Evangelists on the Road to Nuclear War:
Author Halsell grew up in the dry plains of west Texas, in a devoutly religious, Bible-centered household. Revivalist preachers in those days warned congregations to “Repent or Perish,” to accept Jesus Christ as their personal savior, to be born again…
In her research for Prophecy and Politics, which included two separate tours of Israel with the Reverend Jerry Falwell…Miss Halsell discovered a harsh, Judaic-centered “Christianity,” ready, indeed welcoming, any violence, even total destruction, so long as this would hasten the “End Times” and the Millennium.
On one chilling occasion in Jerusalem, Halsell saw hundreds of Falwell’s people shouting Hallelujahs and Amens as Israeli Defense Minister Moshe Arens depicted Israel’s brutal 1982 aggression in Lebanon — in which 20,000 Lebanese and Palestinians were killed.The killing in Lebanon was applauded as a possible precursor of the hoped-for Armageddon.
http://www.wrmea.com/backissues/090886/860908015.html
Christians like to be exclusive like their predecessors…It is called Judeo-Christian. Jesus came and changed all that exclusivity stuff. He came for all people. No worries when you communicate with Him. He’ll set you straight. Halleluejah
Jillee says:
Christians like to be exclusive like their predecessors…It is called Judeo-Christian. Jesus came and changed all that exclusivity stuff. He came for all people. No worries when you communicate with Him. He’ll set you straight. Halleluejah
The word “Judeo-Christian”, which was not much in common use before 1965 or so, just fascinates me. Since Judaism is a religion based on eternal, everlasting hatred for the non-Jew (Never forget and never forgive!) and the racial supremacy of the Jew (the Chosen People of G-d), and Christianity is based on love and forgiveness (if someone strikes you on the right cheek, turn to him the other also), the elimination of race and universal inclusion (neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither slave nor free man, there is neither male nor female; for you are all one in Christ Jesus), what real thing could such a compound word actually refer to?
Satano-Christian would make more sense and be more honest.
revelatory quote. You’ve either been sleeping on the moon, or spend most of your nights there. Perhaps you’d like to take a Ferrari for a test drive on the A-bahn. That would “quickly” educate you.
One billion. Extortion racket!!
Who would care about the Holocaust. But when it comes to Gaza – wow, suddenly you are a Palestinophile.
I had no idea White Nationalism was at its hart a Hamas front.
But then again, it makes sense. When Jews die, reparations are extortion. If the Sudeten Germans asking for reparations from Czechs and Poles, and Romanians, I’m sure you’ll suddenly jump into action.
Just like your article on Art and Jews – you guys are the new Moonies.
AngryJew says:
January 14, 2010 at 2:42 AM
“We have seen it happen. Germany’s cadaver lies rotting.
(Lasha Darkmoon)
revelatory quote….I had no idea White Nationalism was at its hart a Hamas front…. you guys are the new Moonies.
What exactly are you so angry about, Angry Jew? (Pity you can’t spell!)
Do you really think abuse is a substitute for logic? Is the ad hominem attack the best you can do to win an argument? Has the sneer you habitually wear become a permanent part of your face?
Hear Schopenhauer, you sad fugitive from of the truth:
“All truth passes through three stages. First, it is ridiculed. Second, it is violently opposed. Third, it is accepted as being self-evident.”
I see Angry Jew and others have already got this down pat, but let’s codify the technique. Here’s a primer.
How to Argue Like a Jew
1. If your opponent presents facts and logic you can’t refute, act incensed. Under no circumstances “dignify” his argument by responding with facts and logic of your own.
2. Get angry (or at least pretend to be) and call your opponent names. Call him a “hater”. Call him an “anti-Semite” or a “Nazi”, or a “racist” or a “bigot”. That should scare most people off and draw their attention away from the facts and logic you can’t refute.
3. Attack! Always attack, never defend. Remember, you can make up 10 new lies while he is still trying to present his carefully footnoted, meticulously researched refutation of your first lie. While he’s boring everyone to death, you can be showboating. He’s doing all the intellectual work, and YOU are getting the credit for being the intelligent one. Oy, such a deal, itz!
4. Always tell your opponent he’s “ignorant”, but remember the first rule and never sink to telling him exactly what he is ignorant of. That way, you can retain the appearance of superior knowledge without running the risk of being exposed as a fraud.
5. If your opponent cites expert opinion, just sneer at his sources. Say they are “pseudo-scientists” who have been “discredited”. Always demand more and better proof, even of things that are obvious. Eventually, he will get tired of your nonsense, and you’ll look like a winner when he doesn’t respond.
6. Keep in mind that, as a Jew, you can refute a mountain of opposing evidence by simply citing a single “credible” (and of course, Jewish) source of your own. NEVER NEVER NEVER debate the underlying facts of the matter. That’s boring and will lose the audience’s attention. It’ll make you look like a schmuck!
7. Pathologize your opponent. He must be made to seem to have some mean, perverse motive for presenting those pesky facts and logic you can’t refute. Depict him as suffering from psychological problems. He’s got an inferiority complex, or he’s jealous, or he’s ashamed of having a small penis, or he can’t get laid, or he’s petty and mean in some other way. Here’s an area where you can really let your imagination run wild! Your goal is to create the impression that the only possible motive he has for opposing you is a sick one. BONUS: The sicker you make him look, the better YOU look! You, Dr. Freud, will seem the picture of mental health and well-being by comparison. ADDITIONAL BONUS: The facts and logic you can’t refute will all seem to magically disappear, washed away in your torrent of slime. Havanagilah!
8. Shout your opponent down. If you can’t intimidate him into silence, then use censorship. Get his website shut down/posts removed/ISP yanked, etc. Get him fired from his job. Even get laws passed to make saying what he’s saying a criminal offense. Have no shame about it. Remember, you’re Jewish, and that means you have the moral high ground, no matter what!
9. Never explain, never justify, never sink to reasoning with a non-Jew. As a Jew, that is beneath you. Remember, you’re the Chosen People!
” How to Argue Like a Jew “
It looks like the leftist style of arguing, but the Jewish style is more mechanical. The lack of sincerity is apparent. I’m sure Jews can argue like civilized people. What is shocking and disappointing is to see intelligent Jews who look like gentlemen stoop to roguish methods whenever Jewish influence is discussed.
Point 10.
If your opponent says the sky is blue, ask him for proof.
Adam says:
January 14, 2010 at 3:40 PM
I see Angry Jew and others have already got this down pat, but let’s codify the technique. Here’s a primer.
How to Argue Like a Jew. . .
Adam, this is brilliant. One of the most insightful and entertaining comments I’ve had the pleasure of reading on this thread.
You’ve just turned “Angry Jew” into “Spitting Mad Angry Jew” — or Jew Eviscerated and Disemboweled! :)
Xanadu says:
Adam, this is brilliant. One of the most insightful and entertaining comments I’ve had the pleasure of reading on this thread.
You’ve just turned “Angry Jew” into “Spitting Mad Angry Jew” — or Jew Eviscerated and Disemboweled!
Thanks, Lasha!
But for my part, I must say that it is you who impress me. Clear-sighted, strong-willed, race-conscious women such as you are all too rare.
“…like the sweet apple that reddens in the topmost bough,
on the top of the topmost bough, and the apple pickers have forgotten it,
No, not forgotten it: they could not reach it.”
;-)
Adam says:
January 14, 2010 at 3:40 PM
Adam, thanks for the compliments. First time I’ve been compared to an apple. Wow!
Seriously though, I was extremely impressed by your 9-point primer on “How to argue like a Jew”. In this you codify various ways of winning arguments by the clever use of rhetorical devices and specious logic.
The basis of elementary education in the Middle Ages was the trivium, consisting of grammar, logic and rhetoric. ‘Grammar’ was simply the art of learning to speak and write one’s own language correctly. ‘Logic’ enabled one to reason, spot the flaws in other people’s arguments, and advance one’s own point of view in a rational and consistent manner. Finally, there was ‘rhetoric’: the art of convincing people by recourse to a baggage of tricks.
A classical example of a rhetorical device much in use, especially by orators on the Holocaust circuit:: you develop a catch in your voice before mentioning the word ‘Holocaust’, pausing to wipe an imaginary tear from your eye. A hush descends upon the audience. You wring your hands and a nervous tic convulses your features as you continue in a low, almost inaudible voice to rehearse the harrowing events for which, all too often, there is very little documentary evidence — but lots of “survivors” around (such as Elie Wiesel and Wilkomirski) only too anxious to regale you with their heartrending experiences and convert you to their cause: carte blanche for Israel to do as it pleases.
One of the main rhetorical devices is the argument from authority: you appeal to the Bible, for example, to make your case. Thus we all know that the Holy Land belongs to the Jews because the Bible says so. No contradiction will be tolerated.
In the Middle Ages you were burnt at the stake for questioning the Bible or disagreeing with Catholic dogma. Today, you are pilloried in the Jew-owned media as an “extremist”, a “terrorist”, a “conspiracy theorist”, an “Islamofascist”, a “White supremacist”, a “bigot”, an “anti-Semite”, or a plain kook just not worth bothering about.
In the Middle Ages, moreover, it used be “Aristotle said” (Dixit Aristotle). If Aristotle said it, it had to be right. No further argument needed. It was Aristotle, for example, who said that women felt more sexy in summer and men in winter, and this belief was piously held for centuries by millions of simpletons on no other basis apart from Aristotle’s esteemed opinion.
Come to think of it, it’s winter now…so if you’re a woman, watch out! :)
* * * * *
Today 100 million Christian Zionists base their entire worldview on Biblical prophecies. The Hold Land belongs to the Jews because the Bible says so. The Palestinians are destined for genocide because the Prophets have already predicted their doom. Get ready for the Rapture everyone. The world’s going to end any minute.
The point about the argument from authority is that any appeal to reason is rejected at once, with bitter hostility, if it contradicts the major premise that the authority in question is infallible. Logic is scorned and empirical evidence ridiculed if it contradicts the Bible on the one hand, or, on the other hand, if it dares to question one of the sacred tenets of America’s the new state-subsidized religion: Hollocaustanity.
Six million died. Remember that. 5, 999,999 will not do.
* * * * *
Anyone interested in finding out more about rhetorical tricks is well advised to read Schopenhauer’s extremely entertaining book on how to win arguments by cheating.
His posthumous work Die Kunst Recht zu Behalten, appropriately translated into French as L’Art d’avoir toujours raison has recently appeared in English as The Art of Always Being Right: Thirty Eight Ways to Win when You Are Defeated.”
Rule 38 is called “The Ultimate Stategy”. Schopenhauer writes:
“A last trick is to become personal, insulting, rude, as soon as you perceive that your opponent has the upper hand, and that you are going to come off worst. It consists in passing from the subject of dispute, as from a lost game, to the disputant himself, and in some way attacking his person. It may be called the argumentum ad personam”
Also known as the ad hominem attack, this technique remains the oldest trick available to the unsuccessful arguer.
Sorry for the typos in my previous post, such as these two irritating ones:
“…if it dares to question one of the sacred tenets of America’s the new state-subsidized religion: Hollocaustanity.”
I came late to this thread late but would also like to encourage Lasha/Xanadu in her interesting, clear and honest writing. I was also taken with the words of William Marr. On the one hand, Marr’s declaration of defeat at the hands of Jewish influence seems to mirror our own times – on the other hand there is the irony of what followed in Germany in the 1930s. Although truthful, Marr’s screed was likely also an attempt to spur action (rather than just a declaration of defeat). Without question loosening the system’s grip on power is a more daunting task now than it was pre-1945, if for no other reason than the mass media makes it much easier to brainwash the masses. But when hope seems lost on that front, the Internet pops up and provides a counter-point to the brainwashers. Liberty in America is living on the fumes of the American revolution – but the fact that many Americans still believe themselves free may provide the impetus for another revolution when a gulag state becomes too obvious to be swept under the carpet.
Although not entirely well-versed in the theology of the Christian Zionists, my tendency is to agree that their allegiance to “Israel can do no wrong” is not that deep. This is a line promoted by pathological preachers who are just smart enough to figure out who not to offend in their pursuit of followers and money. The saving of Israel for the Armageddon is a sideshow for the average Christian Zionist – their primary hope is saving themselves from mortality.
Regarding Adam’s Jewish argumentation primer, it must be asked, where do these ‘people’ [of the cooked book] acquire such duplicitous debating skills? Could it be ingrained in their Jewish DNA, or is it to be found in the fabric of the curriculum of the Talmudic Shuls, or is it both? Whatever the case may be, it is very ironic, and duplicitous, how organized Jewry and their Anglo shills, are quick to attack the Islamic Madrases, while their own religious/ethnic training ‘Shuls’ are fundamentally equivalent.
“…Despite its history as the only Western institution that has been able at times to stand up to Jewish power, the Catholic Church, of which I am a hopelessly dysfunctional practising member, has proved to be an acute disappointment. It has been thoroughly subverted from within and without. It offers neither guidance nor leadership.
So forget the Catholics—a spent force—many of them, I regret to say, almost as daft and deluded as their competitors in folly, the evangelical Christians…”
There is in existense still a remnant of Catholics who adhere to the Mass of the Apostles. We are not affiliated with Novus Ordo, SSPX, SSPV, FSSP, nor Opus Dei. We continue to woship God and we stay out of the sects (mentioned) squabbles. We are with Rome in the Pope Pius XII Magesterium (Tradition) and his predecessors all the way back to Jesus. Though we are careful of who enters into the Church, we just continue to pray the Holy Rosary, attend the Mass (with no changes), and homeschool our Catholic children in the Faith. Just wanted those interested to know we’re still here.
Palehorse says:
January 16, 2010 at 11:27 PM
“There is in existence still a remnant of Catholics who adhere to the Mass of the Apostles….we just continue to pray the Holy Rosary, attend the Mass (with no changes), and homeschool our Catholic children in the Faith. Just wanted those interested to know we’re still here.”
I commend you and your fellow Catholics, Palehorse, and only wish I could attend a similar Catholic Church. However, I have the good fortune to live within walking distance of an ancient Benedictine Abbey (in Europe) where Sunday Mass is sung in Latin and many of the lovely ancient traditions are still maintained.
If someone were to say to me “God does not dwell in temples built with stones”, and “The Kingdom of Heaven lies >i>within you”, I would not demur.
All these external factors are ultimately of no account…for God, in the end, can only be found in the utter silence and emptiness of the heart.
And to the atheist who curls a scornful lips at these words, I would simply invoke Pascal’s Wager and quote the great Pascal himself, “The heart has its reasons.”
Lasha Darkmoon: Germany Then — America Now! « The Occidental Observer Blog was very interesting while I was researching homeschool publication for our next generation game. We wanted to created an up to the minute version of Bailout! The Game.
>>Christianity as a cohesive countervailing force?
That’s because every so called Pope since John XXIII has been a Jewish infiltrator, http://www.mostholyfamilymonastery.com/Paul6_mainpage.php
And all, one more (or a few more!) things! I too am deeply impressed with the level of passion and knowlege displayed in these posts! Take heart! As Gandalf (I love it when Tolkien gets bandied, as was done here before this)said in a fittingly apt response to Frodo’s understandably woeful lamentation of living in such a time with such a challenge to face, “So do all who live to see such times, but that is not for them to decide. All we have to decide is what to do with the time that is given us.” We must remember who we are, the stuff we are made of! Did not things seem as dire to Leonidas, Martel, Don Juan, or the lads at Rorke’s Drift? Or the Marines at Hue? We may not all see it through to vindication, but that doesn’t mean the goal can’t be achieved. You can’t win if you don’t maintain the spirit to fight, and judging by the quality of the debate here, we still have some “Numenorean” blood in our veins, as it were. I say again, keep the faith and be heartened for the struggle!
Once again, Lasha Darkmoon has delivered a scintillating, cogent and informative insight into a seemingly insoluble problem.
At great risk, I will state that most of the credit for the present impending doom of the West, America and even the beneficial legacy of the Enlightenment should be laid directly upon the doorstep of the organized religions of the west and the near-west, be they Judaism, Christianity or Islam. Little wonder (in my mind) why I am an atheist! The fate of the West has been in the hands of the Jews (who despise it for historical reasons) mostly because of the goyim’s proclivity to kowtow to superior intelligence. Who, in their right mind would have pursued the US’s course of supporting Israel from Truman’s time to the present, with such blind puppet-like stupidity? We have saved and forwarded Zionism with absurdly assymetrical technical, monetary and military support, while slighting our former friends and suppliers of petrochemical lifesblood, the Arabs. How many times have the latter tried to warn us NON-violently (via OPEC oil-price hikes and diplomacy)? Close attention to Fr. Sheehan’s pithy view might be called for here. He said recently: “Every time anyone says that Israel is our only friend in the Middle East, I can’t help but think that before Israel, we had no enemies in the Middle East”.
Is it not the paradigmatic irony, that Barack Obama, unelectable without the machinizations and support of Jews, has emerged as being “neutral” (at best) re Zionism and the relentless and evil expansion of Israel? Delicious.
Perhaps the most efficiently and overtly treacherous Jew presently undermining the West is George Soros. He is anti-everything that smacks of western freedom and decency. Yet, in another delicious irony, this perfidous blackguard is seemingly willing to let Israel, the last great hope of his vile, and villified co-religionists, hang and rot.
It is beyond my comprehension that American dullards, many having seen their own offspring maimed or killed in fighting Israel’s wars, STILL persist in thinking that we Americans MUST support and defend Israel! Perhaps Obama, serving out his first and last term in office simultaneously (!) will have purposefully set in motion the first germination of a (at least) neutral view towards Israel. It remains for the rest of us to publicize the endless perfidy of the Jews. As the blacks have seemingly run their course, repaying vast Federal subsidies with a gutter-born, criminal, and ever-more-alien “culture” (so feverishly supported AND YET AVOIDED by their Jewish sponsors!), so perhaps will the Jews have done their locust-like damage and overplayed their hand. Let us hope so!
Kudos, Lasha!
Fred,
Your above comments are outstanding. I also very much appreciate your compliments to Ms. Darkmoon. Her political essays are excellent, and I am happy that someone else is drawing our attention to them.
All the best.
No, America will not shake off the infiltrators and return to 1950; but that’s OK. Yes, religion is dead, at least for the non-nostalgic semi-intelligent. The good news: the system that has been foisted upon us, itself, will fail – we don’t have to do too much actually. It will be ugly for sure but Germany faced an equally dire situation (World War 1, almost successful Bolshevik revolution) – and it is this ugliness that will awaken the people. Already, the growing racial strife is getting too big for even the media to cover up; what will it be like in 20 years? No nation has ever survived multiculturalism. The county will fall but out of that turmoil, a new class of the strong and brave will emerge; DNA is a lot older than Jesus, we have all we need.
Imagine a world with no Israel: it wouldn’t be much different than what we have right now. Less wars with Muslims yes but Whites have been fighting people from that area (Mongols, Arabs, and Huns) for over a millennium and not doing too well until recently. Internally though, we’d see no difference if Israel didn’t exist, in fact, we’d have twice the number of Chosen here and twice the influence – wouldn’t that be wonderful.
Soros and most other elite Diaspora Jews never cared about Israel – Herzl’s isolation experiment was the new idea for Jewish existence and it didn’t attract the support of many old schoolers from the “assimilation” school of thought. It is the Soros types who have pushed immigration, PC thought, feminism, multiculturalism in the West. It is not news that “assimilation” has always been the Jewish strategy since Egypt – integration without assimilation is the actual strategy The only times they weren’t “assimilating” was during the autonomous periods – pre-Egypt migration, post-Egypt/King David, and the 100 year Hasmonaean Dynasty, to the best of my knowledge. This group is very good at what they do, they’ve had a lot of practice – why would anyone want to increase their “assimilation”.
Finally, the best strategy for us would be to justify our attitudes and actions by citing the same amongst Jews in Israel – is this not absolutely apparent?! Yet, what do I read here concerning Andrew Brevik? He’s a Zionist – good god. Only a fool would criticize Israel on the basis of racism, colonization, land-grabbing, unfairness. etc.; to condemn Israel is to condemn exactly what we are fighting for.
Does anyone know anything about the very large CasaPound org in Italy?
http://internationalthirdpositionistfederation.s4.bizhat.com/viewtopic.php?t=169