Carl Schmitt, 1888 – 1985
What follows is the English translation of the little known closing speech, given by Prof. Dr. Carl Schmitt at a conference held in Berlin, Germany, on October 3 and 4, 1936. The conference, sponsored by Reich Minister Dr. Hans Frank, was attended by hundreds of German legal scholars, law professors and political scientists, most of them affiliated with the National Socialist regime. The speeches and minutes of the two-day conference were subsequently published in several separate short volumes under the title Jews in Jurisprudence (Das Judentum in der Rechtswissenschaft) and are available in the German language on line.
Carl Schmitt (also Karl Schmitt and Carl Schmitt-Dorotic) was a German legal scholar, philosopher, political scientist and critic of liberal parliamentarianism. His voluminous writings span the fields of international law, political theory, comparative linguistics, geopolitics, philosophy of history and comparative literature. After WWII, Schmitt, along with hundreds of thousands of German and other European professors, teachers and academics, was subject to the process of “denazification” and was removed from all academic and teaching positions by the American occupying authorities.
Some contemporary critics consider Schmitt a big time opportunist and “Hitler’s Crown Jurist.” While acknowledging Schmitt’s influence on modern political thinkers, some of his contemporary (mostly Jewish) critics, like Steven E. Aschheim, from Hebrew University in Jerusalem, also note how “Schmitt’s anti-Semitism demonstrates in great and nuanced detail how his anti-Jewish attitudes permeated the very structure and grounds of his thought and categories.” The speech reproduced here clearly shows Schmitt as a completely accepting the National Socialist world view.
Over the last 30 years, however, Schmitt’s works have gained immense popularity, both in the USA and Europe, among leftist, conservative, liberal and rightwing scholars. Recently, most of his work has been translated into English. Of significant academic interest today are Schmitt’s theories on “just vs. unjust war,” on “limited vs. total warfare,” on the “notion of the political” in different political systems and on the “state of emergency.” His theories on the legal status of “terrorists”, “freedom fighters” and “disarmed enemy combatants,” on guerilla and partisan warfare, are debated today by many legal experts, including military establishments and colleges all over the world. ‘C. Schmitt’ is a household name for many nationalist intellectuals and nationalist parties in Europe (see my Against Democracy and Equality).
After WWII, many of Schmitt’s theories exerted considerable influence on numerous American professors and authors, especially in the USA — although many of them have never made any explicit reference to, or acknowledgment of Schmitt’s works. This seems to be the case with prominent US Jewish authors of the so-called Realist School in political science, legal scholars and opinion makers, such as Henry Kissinger, Hans Kelsen, Michael Walzer, Hans Morgenthau, Morton Kaplan, Hannah Arendt, etc. — authors whose books and theories continue to exert a strong influence in the study of domestic and international law and international affairs, and whose theories have significantly shaped US foreign policy since WWII.
To my knowledge the following speech by Carl Schmitt has never been translated or reproduced in English. It is important to note, however, that other than this short anti-Jewish speech, nowhere else in his earlier or later work does Carl Schmitt discuss Judaism, Jewishness, or makes the slightest critical or laudatory comment about the Jews.
Notice in particular the theme that Jewish identity influences Jewish legal scholarship, and that Jewish scholarship is an aspect of ethnic conflict—”a weapon aimed at us.” While certainly not true of all Jewish scholarship, there can be little doubt that there are indeed conflicts of interest between Jews and non-Jews over the construction of culture—the thesis of The Culture of Critique.
Legal scholarship and advocacy are certainly no exceptions.
As Ivers (1995, 2; To Build a Wall) notes, “Jewish civil rights organizations have had an historic role in the postwar development of American church-state law and policy.” … [This effort] involved keen legal expertise both in the actual litigation but also in influencing legal opinion via articles in law journals and other forums of intellectual debate, including the popular media. It also involved a highly charismatic and effective leadership, particularly Leo Pfeffer of the AJCongress:
No other lawyer exercised such complete intellectual dominance over a chosen area of law for so extensive a period¾as an author, scholar, public citizen, and above all, legal advocate who harnessed his multiple and formidable talents into a single force capable of satisfying all that an institution needs for a successful constitutional reform movement. . . . That Pfeffer, through an enviable combination of skill, determination, and persistence, was able in such a short period of time to make church-state reform the foremost cause with which rival organizations associated the AJCongress illustrates well the impact that individual lawyers endowed with exceptional skills can have on the character and life of the organizations for which they work. . . . As if to confirm the extent to which Pfeffer is associated with post-Everson [i.e., post-1946] constitutional development, even the major critics of the Court’s church-state jurisprudence during this period and the modern doctrine of separationism rarely fail to make reference to Pfeffer as the central force responsible for what they lament as the lost meaning of the establishment clause. (Ivers 1995, 222–224)
Similarly, Jews in nineteenth-century France and Germany attempted to remove education from control by the Catholic and Lutheran churches respectively, while for many [non-Jews] Christianity was an important part of national identity (Lindemann 1997, 214; Esau’s Tears). Because of such activities, anti-Semites commonly viewed Jews as destroyers of the social fabric. (From Chapter 7 of The Culture of Critique, pp. 254-255)
Given this conflict, Schmitt emphasizes that the identity of Jewish writers should be made known and that German legal scholarship should develop in its own direction, excluding Jewish influence.
Schmitt’s speech is a good example of the National Socialist effort to expunge Jewish cultural influences from Germany. Notice particularly Schmitt’s comment that “on the one hand we keep pointing to the necessary fight against the Jewish spirit, yet on the other hand, at the end of 1936, a seminar library in legal studies looks as if the greater part of the legal literature is being produced by Jews. ” Quite clearly, Jews, constituting less than 1% of German citizens, remained an elite well into the National Socialist period.
* * *
Carl Schmitt’s speech:
As all presentations have demonstrated, Jewish law appears to be redemption from chaos. The polarity of Jewish chaos and Jewish legalism, of anarchic nihilism and positivistic normativism, of coarse sensualist materialism and abstract moralism, appears so clearly and so vividly before our eye, that we can use this fact — similar to the studies of racial psychology — as a scientific finding in our meetings for our future work. Therefore, in the capacity of German guardians of law and professors of law, for the first time we have made a contribution to the significant research already carried out in the realm of race studies. In this teamwork of ours, over the last two days, we have arrived at the initial conclusion which preserves the honor of our science in conjunction with other accomplishments, and which, as was rightly pointed out by Dr. Falk Ruttke, are accomplishments that can serve us as models.
1. The necessary task regarding the bibliography is very difficult. What is needed is to determine, as accurately as possible, who is Jewish and who is not. The smallest errors in this respect may be blown out of proportion, lead to confusion, and help the enemies of National Socialism score cheap triumphs. Also, these errors could have a damaging effect in view of the fact that young students can be distracted from the main ideas by small inaccuracies, whereas on the basis of the false sense of justice — so common to our German way — they may readily be inclined to ponder over an isolated case of inaccuracy, instead of focusing on the big and just issue for which we are fighting.
2. Only when we have an accurate register can we continue working in the direction of library cataloguing and, by cleaning up the libraries, protect our students from the confusions that lie in these facts; on the one hand we keep pointing to the necessary fight against the Jewish spirit, yet on the other hand, at the end of 1936, a seminar library in legal studies looks as if the greater part of the legal literature is being produced by Jews. Only by cleansing the libraries will this monstrous suggestion disappear, a suggestion grounded in the fact that the works by Jews are still featured in legal seminars, virtually inviting students to carry on with the absorption of Jewish thought. All legal writings by Jewish authors belong, as Reich Minister Dr. Frank aptly remarked, without distinction to the library catalogue of the department “Judaica.”
3. Also crucial is the issue of the quotations. As a follow-up to this meeting it is no longer possible to quote a Jewish writer just as any other writer. It would be downright irresponsible to quote a Jewish author as an expert witness, or even as some sort of authority in the field. A Jewish writer is for us no source of authority — not even as a “purely scientific” authority. This finding is a starting point when considering the issue of the quotations. For us, a Jewish writer, even when he is quoted at all, remains a Jewish author. The adding of the word and the designation ‘Jewish’ is not an external characteristic, but something essential, given that we cannot prevent a Jewish author from using the German language. Failing this, the purification of our legal literature will not be possible. Whoever writes today, ‘Stahl Jolson’ will achieve much more in a clear scientific manner than by writing long exegeses against the Jews, which, in general, move around in abstract expressions and which in concreto do not affect a single Jew. [The person referred to by Schmitt as Stahl-Jolson is usually known as Friedrich Julius Stahl; by using ‘Stahl-Jolson’ Schmitt emphasizes Stahl’s Jewish background. Stahl-Jolson was a conservative Jewish German legal scholar and philosopher (1802–1861) who had converted to Christianity]
Thus, only when we solve the issue of the quotations, we will be able to remove the Jewish-infected literature [von Juden infiziertes], and attain, instead, German legal literature. The problem of the quotations is not only of a practical nature; it is a fundamental problem. One can recognize an individual writer by the way he uses quotations. I’d like to point to the brazen matter-of-factness of the Vienna School of the Jew [Hans] Kelsen, where everybody quotes each other, with other opinions being neglected — to us Germans an incomprehensible cruelty and insolence. The issue of the citations is not a trivial matter. There are today, as far as the Jewish question is concerned, no more trivial matters. Everything is very closely connected and intimate as soon as the real battle of worldviews starts.
The issue of the quotations will lead to necessary clarification regarding many other individual issues, such as the issue of quoting half-Jews and those closely-related to Jews. I’ll warn right at the beginning against putting in the center of attention fringe issues and interposed issues. This is a standard way of avoiding clear cut decisions. There are hundreds of cases where it is beyond doubt that they are full Jews [Volljuden]. It is a typical Jewish trick to divert the attention from the heart of the matter to the doubt- related issues, to the fringe issues and to the interposed issues. Authors, with who there is no doubt that they are full Jews (Volljuden), will be in the future in our German legal literature, referred to as Jews. When, for an objective reason it becomes necessary to quote Jewish authors, this will be done only with the addition of the word “Jewish.” By the mere mentioning of the word “Jewish” a healing exorcism will start.
4. The last practical goal is related to the issue of scientific research, particularly regarding dissertations. A lot of good material for doctoral dissertations has emerged from the presentations of these two days. I do not think it is necessary that still 70 to 80 percent of hundreds of doctoral dissertations, which see the light today in Germany, continue to be written in the same old style of civil code and penal code dissertations. Again, this is a serious matter, considering how much talent and intellectual potential exists among German youth and what it means when German law professors in charge of the education and the scientific training of these young Germans, steer these young people to distracting topics and away from the daily life of the German people. Here we have a professional task of first-rate importance. If one keeps in mind what has been concluded in this conference on the dissertation themes alone, concerning the legal historical and constitutional historical approaches — as well as the research into the Jewish mind and its influence on German intellectual life in its “intersection” with the German mind, as was very clearly remarked by one of the speakers — it does not seem to be difficult to draw the attention of a young student to the influence of Lasker, Friedberg, and Johann Jacoby [19th-century German-Jewish liberal legal thinkers and politicians] on German legal developments, or better yet encourage a student to study the rise of the civil procedure code and penal procedure code, as well as other laws in relationship to Jewish influence, or have the student focus his attention on the issue of “Jews and the concept of the rule-of-law-state.” There is no lack of dissertation themes and it would be the most stupid negligence if these new themes were not addressed.
III. But most importantly, what turned out in these past days to be the definitive conclusion, is that Jewish opinions, with their intellectual content, cannot be put on the same level with the opinions of German or other non-Jewish authors. We all became aware with the greatest clarity as to this supposed difficulty, such as when there are Jews expressing national and patriotic views, as was the case with the famed Stahl-Jolson. Over and over again in our conference we have come to realize that the Jew is sterile and unproductive for the German type of spirit. He has nothing to say to us, however shrewdly he may keep deducing [kombinieren], or even eagerly wishing to assimilate himself. Of course, he may play around with his enormous mediation and mercantile skills — but as far as the substance is concerned he creates nothing. It is a sign of the lack of training in the study of race and hence in the National Socialist thought to overlook this and to assume that there is a more substantial problem behind this, such as some Jews speaking and writing in nationalist terms, some in internationalist terms — that they can advocate at a moment’s notice conservative, liberal, subjective, or objective theories. Even the much vaunted skills of criticism of the Jew are the product of his mismatch to everything essential and genuine. It is a completely different concept of criticism from the one used by German law professors acting in a genuine teamwork, criticizing each other or promoting each other. Nor is it correct to depict the Jew as a very logical, very conceptual, constructive, or rational person. It is not so much his “care-free logical sharpness” [unbekümmerte logische Schärfe] — what we ourselves mean by logic, but a weapon aimed at us; it stems from the disproportion concerning the topic and the matter.
Facing the Future as a Minority
Today, the US judiaciary and Homeland Security Department are controlled by Zionist Jews. There are three Jewish judges in the US Supreme Court.
American Jewish author, writer and blogger, Max Blumenthal in an article, entitled ‘From Occupation to Occupy: Israelification of American Domestic Security’ –claimed that the high-handed tactics used by American security forces against the Occupy Wall Street (OWS) movement and American Muslims, were taught to them by Israel Occupation Force (IOF) officers….
http://rehmat1.wordpress.com/2011/12/04/ows-and-israelification-of-american-domestic-security/
Tom, thank you so much for translating this brilliant bit by Schmitt! I only hope part 2 and beyond appear soon. You’ve left us on the edge of a cliff.
If one takes Schmitt’s thinking to heart, the thinking in this piece, one realizes that what is currently called “education” is pretty much alien-occupied territory. If not occupied by the aliens themselves, definitely occupied by their mindset(s) which have been deeply encoded in the “being” of White European man via the current state of language and “learning”.
Bottom line: What are currently called “Universities” are in reality mere repositories of “Judaica”, the jewish revolutionary spirit made manifest in the major culture-creating institution(s), and yes, used as a weapon against us.
This infestation is so subtle and so complete that it’s almost impossible to find an insertion point, “peaceably”, from which to correct the distortions.
It will eventually mean the complete tearing down and tearing apart of what we call “Universities”. There’s no way to “fix” the problem inside of the system. It will require a wrecking ball to remove the poison, and only then can we begin to rebuild.
@Gregor:
It’s very dangerous to speak against Jews, Holocaust or Israel at western university campuses.
http://rehmat1.wordpress.com/2011/07/05/jews-against-jews-at-campuses/
Tom,
This is a fascinating essay! Thanks so much for the hard work. I’ve never even heard of Carl Schmitt but am quite intrigued to follow up and to see what you have for Part 2. I find particularly interesting the idea that, no matter what, the speaker cannot fully disengage from his heredity. It is very similar to the idea that a scientist cannot fully interpret a supra-rational world through his rational function because he is “in the movie” and his interpretations cannot help but be colored by his subjective identity and experience as a creature. The fact that we are all stuck in a Jewish movie right now becomes bearable once we can become conscious enough to see the frame surrounding the screen.
Objectivity is an ideal that can be conceived but perhaps never completely realized because the subject must always, in some degree, reflect his substance. How horrible, though, to be locked into an alien world view without the knowledge of the fact!
And now for something completely different, an article about National Socialism, Germany in WWII and a Nazi German political philosopher who espoused a strong dictatorial executive. Now we are rockin’ and rollin’. No picture of him goosestepping available? Pity. Interestingly, his theories of centralized political power seem especially popular among those who like to centralize political power.
Isn’t it about time for some new gushing translations of Bin Laden’s poetry?
@Gregor:
Using your argument as a starting point, one can see the failure of moral conservatism in the USA and elsewhere. For that reason Ron Paul seems on to something in so much as he wants to reboot the system. At least post-reboot (or at least during the downtime) everyone should be on a level playing field then it is game on.
Not sure what to think of all this. Schmitt seems to make the same mistake that many WN’s make, namely complaining about Jewish lack of substance. They only lack substance when it comes to our affairs, and that’s because they purposefully BS us because they know the goyim are dumb enough to believe them. When it comes to their own interests they have plenty of substance.
Also, their legal mentality is not at all complicated; it’s based on punishment and nothing else. Schmitt only trips himself up by going on about “anarchic nihilism” and “positivistic normativism.” Again he doesn’t seem to understand that the tribe has a dual code, and that they can’t be judged on the basis of what they *preach* because what they preach is not honest. They need to be judged on what they practice among themselves, and what they practice among themselves is very honest and rational.
Nothing better than an original translation that is a smooth & easy read!
Another German character whose essays & books have never, to my knowledge, been translated into English is Hjalmar Schacht. Some of it would be dense economics & finance, but, I’m sure there would be some interesting criticism of the roles of the Jews in the hyper inflation, in economic crime, & the post WWI German economy. It was Schacht who stopped the hyper-inflation, while Hitler was still a minor political player.
Here in the US, we may have an even bigger problem in that the Jews in the academy may be hiding, or destroying documents that would cast a bad historical light on the Jews. Of course the Catholics are doing it too, i.e. “no dogs & Irishman need apply” anti White American Protestant baloney.
@Sir Tristram:
Yes Sir! Sounds just like a Sci-Fi movie, but it’s REAL. Kinda takes the wind out of a guy once he realizes it.
“…Jewish opinions, with their intellectual content, cannot be put on the same level with the opinions of German or other non-Jewish authors.”
Interesting. However, I would call attention to H. Meier’s Carl Schmitt and Leo Strauss where a textual analysis of Schmitt’s revisions to his Concept of the Political and The Age of Neutralizations and Depoliticizations is discussed in conjunction with Strauss’ Notes on Carl Schmitt.
Strauss, a Jew, cuts to the core, and reveals Schmitt to be thoroughly caught up within a liberal morality, and finds his essay to be at best only, “Schmitt’s first word against liberalism,” and that Schmitt’s essay, “can only prepare for the radical critique of liberalism” (italics in the original). In fact, Strauss would direct Schmitt back to Hobbes as the first negation of the “political” concept.
Schmitt himself would write to a friend anent Strauss: “You’ve got to read [the Notes]. He saw through me and X-rayed me as nobody has.” With this in mind, one wonders how the above translated speech fits in with a more sober assessment of Carl Schmitt.
Is anyone hereabouts aware that one of Schmitt’s biggest and most articulate fans is Professor Paul Gottfried? Is Mr. Sunic aware of that fact? Has Mr. Sunic or anyone else read Gottfried’s book?
@m: You misleadingly string together quotes and circumstance to imply that Schmitt admits to being a liberal. This calls to mind a couple of Schmitt’s warning from the article:
“it is no longer possible to quote a Jewish writer just as any other writer.”
If you are Jewish, that would vindicate Schmitt’s observation:
“It is a typical Jewish trick to divert the attention from the heart of the matter to the doubt- related issues”
Just one little bone to pick as a translator: Nationalsozialismus really should be rendered in English with a hyphen, National-Socialism. Without the hyphen it’s an English rendering of German nationaler Sozialismus, which, Alfred Rosenberg explained in one of his essays, is not the same thing.
@Edward: I am not Jewish, but I admit that it is the first thing that would be suspected from someone offering an alternate perspective. And offering an alternative perspective vis a vis Schmitt’s own words and his actions was all I was attempting.
As far as “stringing together quotes,” it is difficult to be completely coherent within the context of a combo box in a blog, so one must make some adjustments. In any case, my point was to highlight Schmitt’s claim that there is “nothing” that the Jew has to offer. Below is a longer quote from the speech:
Over and over again in our conference we have come to realize that the Jew is sterile and unproductive for the German type of spirit. He has nothing to say to us, however shrewdly he may keep deducing [kombinieren], or even eagerly wishing to assimilate himself.
As Heinrich Meier has shown, this is just not the case–at least it was not the case for Schmitt who revised his own thinking when confronted with Leo Strauss’ critique. I was mistaken, however, in stating that the Schmitt quote was in a letter. Evidently it was from jurist Gunther Krauss, Schmitt’s assistant at the University of Berlin, and a recollection.
Next, I never said anything about Schmitt “admitting” to be a liberal. If you are familiar with the two works I cited, you will understand that he was in fact attempting a criticism of liberalism. Strauss was germane since that was his project, too.
I do not know for sure, but I presume that Strauss and Schmitt often discussed the liberal problem prior to the former leaving for France, and then America.
One must also not forget that the two had a “working” relationship. Strauss asked Schmitt for a referral in order to secure a position working on a critical edition of Hobbes, and Schmitt assisted Strauss in securing a Rockefeller Fellowship. So Schmitt’s conclusions as presented in the essay are open to some circumspection.
Whatever one’s views, it does not benefit anyone to approach an intellectual topic anti-intellectually.
@Hadding Scott: Just to clarify that there is a real difference: national-socialism is a synthesis of nationalism and socialism, whereas a nation that implements Marxism-Leninism could be said to have national socialism.
@Jason Speaks:
How about truth about Bin Laden and his Al-Qaeda from the White Christian Former British Foreign Secretary Robin Cook?
“The truth is there is no Islamic army or terrorist group called Al-Qaeda. And any informed intelligence officer knows this. But, there is propaganda campaign to make the public believe in the presence of an identified entity representing the ‘devil’ only in order to drive TV watchers to accept a unified international leadership for a war against terrorism. The country behind this propaganda is the US….”
http://rehmat1.wordpress.com/2010/01/06/whose-al-qaeda/
Whether or to whatever extent one agrees with your overall position or specifically with your linked response to Edward’s objection, I urge all and sundry to take that response as a model of how a gentleman ought to debate with other gentlemen. This being an Internet forum, it cannot, unfortunately, be taken for granted that your final sentence merely restates what is obvious to all. What can and must be assumed, however, is that no matter how often its content is restated, it will by and large be ignored.
I find myself absolutely in agreement with what I take to be your point about Leo Strauss: that however dyspeptically one regards him—and no non-Jew, a fortiori no white Christian, should consider him anything but a force for ill—he was a formidable thinker and a man of remarkable insight into human thought and human nature. In fact, it is his employment of those very qualities for basely Tribal purposes that has won him so many disciples among the Kristol and Kagan Krowd. When in Matthew’s Gospel Christ warns his disciples that they need to acquire the cunning of serpents, I am sure that Strauss was one of the serpents He was thinking of.
On an unrelated matter, your response includes a passage from Sunic’s translation that is quoted without comment: “the Jew . . . has nothing to say to us, however shrewdly he may keep deducing [kombinieren], or even eagerly wishing to assimilate himself.” Does deducing make sense to you as a translation of kombinieren here? What could Schmitt possibly mean in this context by his choice of that term? The sense question applies, incidentally, whether or not “deducing” is taken as standing syntactically alone or as also (i.e., along with “wishing to assimilate”) governing “himself” (presumably a translation of selbst). And am I really the only reader puzzled by this passage?
The more I look at it, the more I can’t help wondering whether Mr. Sunic isn’t accidentally leading us astray here. The most literal translation of the German verb is, of course, “combine,” which Sunic is undoubtedly right to find inadequate to the context. Yet wouldn’t a figurative sense of “combine”—something like “fit in with the crowd” or “act like one of the gang” or “blend in”—pair up much more sensibly with “assimilate,” since what I take to be Schmitt’s point is that, no matter what the intentions of a given Jew may be, the only relation that Jewishness can bear to Germanness is that of an infection to a healthy organism. I see no way in which “deducing” could ever be, shall we say, assimilated to such a reading. If you or someone else does, I’d be glad to learn why and how.
@m: My comment above was intended to be linked to your comment, m. I must have accidentally deleted that link.
@Jason Speaks:humbug will always be with us. I have read some Schmidt and have not been schmitten. The Schmidt “concept of the political” as I recall, is pretty primitive. It boils down to something like figuring out who your enemies are and appropriately killing them. Now I have nothing against killing our enemies, if it is productive of moving our cause forward. Any kind of claim that we are even close to successful political violence is nutty.
Now, let me commit the sin of naivete. The Greek notion of the political was this: a community of like-minded folks with race ( we would now say) and common culture who form a fraternity of actors for the common good. Thus a political community was the polis ,,,and the polis was composed of free citizens who could meet and talk about their common concerns. They were united by common interests and common goals and considered themselves a kind of tribe, by modern standards. Debate was highly prized, and Action was speech. Speech also produced policy and war or no war.
The degraded idea of “politics” advanced the nobly lying Strauss, and Schmidt, is anti-liberal, yes, but it is also anti-community and therefore anti-WN today.
War is not the continuation of politics by other means. War is the continuation of diplomacy by other means. When war starts, politics is over, It is the difference between speech and violence .
Lying speech is not speech in the Greek sense. It is just lies. A bio-cultural community does not tolerate lying in its midst. Therefore spies are expelled or killed. A bio-cultural community is formed by Feelings of affiliation based on genetic similarity , common purpose, mutual respect, and self-restraint. It does not hurt to have a common enemy. And there are always common enemies, so enemies help foster love amongst the political community. Hate is directed to the threat of the Other. Hate is thus Good. And Love of one’s neighbors, citizens, comrads-in-arms is Good.
Biology trumps Hobbes and Schmitt and a host of abstracted “intellectuals” who think their “realism” is complete. It is not.
To abandon or butcher the Greek polis and its fraternity of Feeling is a mistake. Politics, or the political, is the complex of emotions that bind a political community. Without it, there are just gangs and “groups” and not a solidified (and fighting) corporate (indeed) body of citizenry.
Nationalism thus recalls the polis and is anti-liberal. Liberals hate us, hate a parochial, particularistic, anti-international and anti-universal political formation. We love it and will fight and die for it. Our people. Our race, etc.
The cynicism of Schmitt, as far as I can see it, is not good for Whites.
As for legal theory and the rest of it….pretty simple but boring stuff. It is almost always liberal: based on individualism, private property, and preservation of wealth. Not that these things are bad, but they must take a backseat to the community. The racial community is first. If it is not, it is liberal.
Finally, I find a lot of this theoretical stuff scholastic, rummaging around in the rag shop. As for a lot of US legal thought coming in part from Schmitt, and Strauss…no wonder the judaized foreign policy of the US is what it is.
The constant attribution of Great to guys like Schmitt leave me cold. Let us have a demonstration of how and why someone is great, not the mere assertion thereof. Finally, there is too much nazi stuff on this list. Surely there are dozens of thinkers who are not nazi who can be discussed. O, and maybe a littler political science on what is happening around us…this time of the beginning of world war 3 for the jews.
I saw in the jewyorktimes today, or the WSJ, that 57% of the Iowa caucus folks described themselves as evangelicals.
What is the general percentage of Republicans who so describe themselves?
I have recently written that given the fanatical submission of the Republican candidates (not Paul) to the jews, a war on Iran is all but inevitable with a Republican win in November. Therefore, it would make more sense to vote for Obongo who is greatly personally irritated with Netanyahu, and adheres to a universalistic , liberal ideology that opposes the dispossession of Palestinians. He would probably nix a war on Iran. He would also favor less erosion of political rights here at home, and he just announced that the Pentagon budget is set for the axe.
And why not vote for him. There is no more money for the Blacks and Mexicans, so he cannot do much more damage there, and to the extent that he does continue to do more damage, that ultimates benefits WN because it angers more White voters and tax-payers. Whatever dough is saved by a Repugnican Administration in welfare cuts, will be spent 2 or 3 times over for another war.
It seems to me that I and we have overlooked the Religious Factor with regard to Israel. All those White folks clinging to their guns and Bibles, or their BMWs and country club memberships, don’t like the niggers and mexers, but they luv Israel and will presumably die for Israel. It, again, is Protestant insanity. Then the evangelicals believe that Isreal must exist for the return of Christ. Israel is the launching pad for the great Levitation, the Rapturing of the Saved up to Heaven.
These realities are far more important to discuss than Schmitt’s or anybody else’s legal theories. Also, Schmitt said to get rid of the jews in the universities. Fair enough. Enough said. What else?
Joe
@Pierre de Craon: Pursuing this Schmidt/Gottfried/Strauss theme: While Paul Gottfried as a paleoconservative is strongly opposed to Strauss, he ironically notes that Straussians themselves because of Strauss’s interest in Schmidt, have been accused of fascist sympathies.
@Okiereddust: That’s a nice interview you link to, ORD; thank you. You are right, of course about the irony, but I suspect that you and I and Gottfried are about equally disinclined to feel sorry for the neocon slime over anything unpleasant that befalls them. I must say, too, that I wish that everyone I disagreed with on important matters was as worthy of respect (even admiration on occasion) as Gottfried is.
The site of the interview, which I’ve never before run across, is also kind of interesting. Yet it’s hard to work up enthusiasm for guys whose knowlege of Tolkien is so deficient that they think that “Dunedain” is a Sindarian word. What do they think the High Elven language is called, I wonder? Queeny? Quanya? Qwerty?
pierre de crayon
Kombinieren is indeed difficult to translate. On the surface it means simply to put, like Sherlock Holmes, one and one together and thus arrive at two. In the above context it has wider connotations, like a shifty assessment of sentiments and ethics that interest the Kombinierer only insofar as he can use them for his own egoistic advantage.
As for myself, I am wary as well about an absolute concentration of power in one hand only. It may work with leaders like Salazar or Franco, men rooted in Christian ethics and mindful of their afterlife. But others, like Hitler, may set out with the best intentions but then, particularly in the face of growing adversity, loose all contact with reality. Ideal are, in my opinion, the old ways where a bunch of nationwide chieftains elected their king and kept a sharp eye on him.
@Joe Webb:
If we need to compress his thoughts into a blog comment sentence (his book is a mere 80 pages, but – needless to say – very dense, and I cannot claim to have fully understood it), his concept is that the enemy is one who is so alien that you conceivably could have an extreme conflict with him, e.g. a conflict where either of you might be killed. In other words, while members of a political entity could debate and have disagreements as much as they can, they shouldn’t find it conceivable to fight civil wars against each other, or be massacred by each other. According to this framework, having Serbs and Croats in one state is going to produce problems, because the two can conceivable massacre each other, in fact, they have already done so. Same thing for Hungarians and Romanians, Poles and Germans, etc. etc. Now you might understand where Jews get into the picture. (Schmitt doesn’t seem to me especially obsessed with Jews, although of course once you use his framework, Jews are enemy, according to that definition. On the other hand, while he might agree that Jews are enemy, or at the very least that they can be enemy in his framework, he probably didn’t think much about Jews, and only made that speech to please the Nazi government. Otherwise he would have written something about Jews, but he didn’t, other than this speech.)
If you have strong disagreements with your opponents, but you cannot imagine a situation (and neither can he) where you would be killing each other, then you are (or should be) part of the same entity. As far as I understood Schmitt, it’s not really about liberal democracy vs. authocracy vs. Nazi dictatorship.
@Jason Speaks: Unfortunately I didn’t have time to answer anybody in some older threads, let alone join in new ones, but I read some of the Ernst Jünger comments. I agree that a more balanced view is needed. But I wouldn’t criticize the site for having too many articles featuring “Nazi Germans”. I think that it’s difficult to deny that Germany had many of the most formidable thinkers (especially thinkers who are valuable for a racialist and/or nationalist movement) in the century or so before 1945, and that none of these were totally hostile to Nazism. So either you shut out the (probably) majority of these thinkers, or you will end up with a lot of “Nazi Germans”.
As a Hungarian I’m in a very difficult position regarding Nazism, because Hungarians traditionally regard Poles as friends (Polak wegier dwa bratanki, tak do szabli tak do szklanki – Lengyel, magyar, két jó barát, együtt emel kardot, kupát!), and we helped a lot of Poles to flee Poland and go to the west (fighting the Germans), but still we spent the war more or less allied to Germany, so we (non-leftist Hungarians) also have at least some (and usually quite a bit) understanding of the German positions either. Sometimes there is no black and white. Both had some points, both had follies, and so it all ended in tragedy.
@The Admiral On Horseback:
Of course, Schmitt liked the idea of a dictatorship, and he derived it from his concept of the political, but that’s not the core of his idea. At least as far as I understand it.
@The Admiral On Horseback: That is a very fair point: A great many German thinkers came from that period, and some of them were associated with National Socialism, some were not. So, I certainly wouldn’t want to exclude them. Nor, by the way, am I opposed to discussion of NS or WWII or any other related topic.
What I mean to say, is that TOO should be careful about ever appearing to make common cause with the regime in question, or to carry its banner, for all sorts of obvious reasons. And of course, TOO doesn’t, but I sense it takes only the tiniest of openings for fans of the mustachioed one to leap forward. Both original Nazism and the modern skinhead-ish version are an unfair cross for us to bear, but there it is. I would also avoid giving anti-American types the feeling they have an opening to pounce. They are a toxic bunch that will drive Whites away, in my opinion.
But German thinkers of this period and before are among the finest the world has ever produced, I certainly want to be educated by them. Has German thought been totally neutered since WWII on social, political and philosophical issues? Is there an awakening in recent years? I certainly hope so. Not of NS, but of the truly German intellectual.
@Pierre de Craon:
Thank you for the reasoned response. First, I’d like to suggest that the passage in question:
“[The Jew] has nothing to say to us, however shrewdly he may keep deducing [kombinieren]…”
can be split into separate, stand-alone, statements. My point turns on the first part. Regardless of the subsequent “deduction,” the idea that there is “nothing” that can be taken from Jews must be parsed in light of Schmitt’s actual behavior. Here, a closer reading finds that Schmitt is referring to the German geist”:
“Over and over again in our conference we have come to realize that the Jew is sterile and unproductive for the German type of spirit.” [italics in original]
However, in the preceding statement Schmitt writes, “that Jewish opinions, with their intellectual content, cannot be put on the same level with the opinions of German or other non-Jewish authors.”[italics added]
In the first statement Schmitt makes an essential, metaphysical observation; in the second he comments on the specific “content” of Jewish opinions. The first is normative, the second appears to be an empirical statement.
Whatever the case, one is entitled to make conclusions. Either Schmitt changed his mind about the intellectual content and value of certain Jewish thought [but perhaps not about their spirit] after the rise of National Socialism, or he was being opportunistic and simply adapting to the extant regime in order to keep his daytime job. One notes that after the rise of the National Socialist regime, Schmitt never answered any of Strauss’ letters.
@Tom:
“Another German character whose essays & books have never, to my knowledge, been translated into English is Hjalmar Schacht. Some of it would be dense economics & finance…”
Couldn’t agree more! Schacht clearly didn’t see the nexus between the creation of money by the central bank and the commercial banks, and the loss of the mark’s value on the forex markets, blaming speculators. Speculators did indeed clean up shorting the mark, but even over the course of WWI circulation had risen fourfold, and after the war that amount surged exponentially. More money chasing the same goods and services translates to higher nominal prices than would otherwise be the case.
Schacht resorted to the same expedient – money creation – in the NS era, evidenced in part by the need for the comprehensive price controls enacted (bad inflation memories from the Weimar days stayed his hand to a degree).
What would be interesting is to know the extent to which the commercial bankers and their clients influenced the central bank in its disastrous monetary policy during the Weimar era. One imagines (as in the closeness observable today between Goldman Sachs and friends, and the Fed) that the two parties worked in sympathy.
It’s staggering that this stuff hasn’t been available for study; kudos to Dr. Sunic for the translation.
On December 2, 2011 – Russian Pravda published an article by Yuri Sosinsky-Semikhat, entitled “Animal fear of Jews in Arab states”……
http://rehmat1.wordpress.com/2011/12/05/do-jews-live-with-animal-fear-in-muslim-states/
@Jason Speaks: You have attempted to promote this utterly confused type of pseudo-intellectual hogwash before, on many occasions, here at TOO.
Me thinks (at least on this topic) you are utterly paranoid and out of your depth. Those of whom you speak with contempt were not Nazis. I have already told you here on these pages that this term is a derogatory label extracted from the Jewish (Yiddish) lexicon … which is why we see the word Askenazi. That is the Yiddish word for “German Jew”. The ‘nazi’ consonant inferring the geographic location.
The true German intellectual IS a National Socialist … by definition!
If it wasn’t for the German tribes we would not have had a Europe! Our culture east of the Rhine would have suffered the same sorry fate as the Gauls as pursued by Julius Gaius Caesar: merciless annihilation followed by the complete assimilation of the surviving remnants by a rampaging Rome.
It has always been nationalism that has allowed the German people to thrive and prosper, and also to live peaceably with their neighbours; at least, up until they were threatened with external aggression in those years immediately prior to both WWI and WWII.
It is German unity (NS) that put the ‘crown’ on European culture. It is German unity that turned France and England into nervous wrecks during the latter part of the 19th century; hence the contrived alliances (Entente Cordiale and Triple Entente) that led directly to the First World War, because a Prussian dominated German Empire knew full well that it would have to strike first to survive the impending pincer movement.
Ergo, the intolerable injustices imposed upon Germany following the First World War was the fundamental cause of the Second World War. Period.
Hitler was a tactical fool (and mentally spooked by assassination attempts) but his opportunistic invasion of the Bolshevik Empire to the east saved Europe from being overrun by the massed Soviet forces … they would have poured westwards by late 1942 at the latest. The Germans got the Asiatic b*stards first. We should celebrate that fact, and honour their memories (i.e., of the Reich). Even here at TOO.
For the record, I have no objection to this article. It is good to have it translated and it is merely informative as to a particular statement by Schmitt.
I think his idea of designating Jewish authors is well grounded. They are, even in scientific matters, as Schmitt notes, more than likely to be heavily biased in favor of Jewish interests and antagonistic to White interests, at the same time.
@The Admiral On Horseback:
The discussion was more nuanced and came about not as much for the quantitative idea that there were too many Nazis featured in TOO articles, or merely pictured, but for hazards of association, the rubric and trappings of Nazi Germany, the attraction of its unmeasured adherents to TOO (which does not want this kind of association), and for a remark within the text, that specifically called for counter-point to the Nazi point of view. I never would have said anything were it not for the textual issue and the ensuing discussion – which was worthwhile, nevertheless – would not have come about.
@Anglo Saxon:
It is as if to say Rome, France and other European nations were, and are not European. This is silly talk. Germany is integral, sure, but so are all the European nations.
As for Germany always being the victims and merely defensive…only engaged in righteous pre-emtpive strikes, I am satisfied that is not true. Moreover, there is nothing amazing or German specific about nationalism or socialism. Any people who care about their race are going to be socialistic and nationalistic to a certain extent.
The Germans are well and good, but you speak of other Europeans cultures almost as if they are not European.
There are many things about the European culture of France, e.g., aesthetics, that I prefer to German.
@daniel: Your ignorance of what you are attempting to debate pours off the page. Evidently, true European history is foreign territory to you.
That is your facile interpretation of what I was explaining in my previous comment, nothing more.
I will assume you are American. But many Brits suffer the same disease too. You people have been so mentally conditioned to see Hitler and Naziism as the single source of all evil in this world that you now have become utterly blind to the true sources of evil that have always lain elsewhere, and at other times. You are like children. Always eager to faithfully parrot your Jew masters’ voice. What pathetic and gutless examples you have set the ‘White world’ since 1913. “American leadership” is a contradiction … and a sick joke.
Read 1984 (George Orwell) … again if necessary … to identify your obedient, grovelling character echoed in that book.
Between c. 1870 and 1914 it was Germany who kept the peace (diplomatically) in Europe, not France or Britain. Here are some other simple perspectives. Germany didn’t ‘invent’ the concentration camp. It was invented by the British during the second Boar War, and later perfected by the Bolsheviks following the Red Revolution. Can you not see the common thread connecting the two? Eugenics was not ‘invented’ by Germany. It was invented and implemented by so-called ‘progressives’ in the United States of America during the 1920s! I could go on, but that is illustration enough for now.
Esoteria, the word, comes to mind. We are entering Breakdown and world war and many here on this list are sifting thru old rubble.
Scholasticism is another word that comes to mind.
Intellectualism and careerism come to mind. Hey, I need a WN career. I look at my bookshelf and wonder what more juice can be squeezed out of this already picked-over carcass of a book.
Schmitt has Never impressed me. Otoh, Spengler has been moderately interesting. Meanwhile the Burning Cities come slowly into view.
@Anglo Saxon:
You are truly not even worth responding to.
@daniel:
I share the concern with our image. The mere fact that this debate comes up demonstrates the validity of the article. The Jewish ability to infiltrate and distort our culture, and our very conversations, is something that must be elucidated.
Nothing has hurt our people more than the poisonous ideas of Jewish feminists. Jewish women had ample cause to disrespect their own men. Their ability to cause so many of our women to go along with them defies all reason.
@Alice Teller:
The awareness created by Sunic, MacDonald and others in the struggle is helping. I believe that those who have said that nothing is working are not taking into account that the Internet has only been effective for a little more than 5 years now. It is sinking in the background and taking effect. My understanding is that learning requires a number of “subterranean”, unconscious compartments to fill in first and then it reaches a plateau of new consciousness.
We’ll do it.
Speaking of my own example, the video of MacDonald, from “Line In The Sand”, where he discusses Jews and immigration, was actually what brought me openly into the struggle.
I agree with you that the racial, population and ecological tragedy is mind boggling. And how could people have let this happen?
I never understood it. The signs have been clear for a long time now, and have bothered me for many years.
A word of encouragement, however: While America is really hard psychologically, in regard of gender relations, I have come to see that gender relations can be normalized with a homogeneously maintained group – that’s encouraging, because nobody, outside of Joseph Paul Franklin, was more bothered than me – I hope humor is granted there.
We may have suffered horrific losses, but I believe that with women like you, some of the people around – together, that there is an effective course of action.
I continue to be impressed with some of the folks in the struggle – it’s really like an extended family, a great feeling.
Anyway, I’ve taken a stab at some of these problems and will have more to say…
I look forward to your participation, Alice. You seem to have a good view of things.
“Today, the US judiaciary and Homeland Security Department are controlled by Zionist Jews. There are three Jewish judges in the US Supreme Court. ”
American soldiers are being posted to Israel. Of course it happened back in the 1973 war. Also in 1973 every single American tank and lots of other material was airlifted to Israel. Nothing was returned of course.
Looks like we will go to war with Iran pretty soon.
@Gregor: I agree with both you and Sir Tristam. It is a horror movie we are living in. It is even worse for women. Forbes magazine recently ran an article on the burnout of working women in their thirties who have no choice but to continue because of huge student loans. American women went from the best treated in the world to slavery in two generations. Some liberation!
@Pierre de Craon:
I noticed it too.
I think he might have meant “arrange himself”, meaning in constant adaptation of the people around him. “psychological adaptation as in “anpassen durch kombinierende mentale Wege, (mentally flexible, changeable, thought processes easily maneuverable in kombinierenden Formen.) but never being or becoming it, thinking German, speaking etc. in a combination of ways to “look like, look alike” respectable, intelligent, objective, to speak as though…, until Germans buy it that they are highly intelligent Germans too, and then enter top academic or political positions. Then they can begin their work on us, like here in the US. They did not succeed in Germany, and the US (the saviours of the world) is definitely blind, and Germany too tolerant, and of course disastrous when recognized to late.
Great article by the way. It should wake some up.
@daniel: Thank you for the kind words. I too have hope.I am not aware of the theory of learning that you refer to, but I believe that for many people breaking the taboo against voicing opinions that are currently forbidden in what passes for polite society will occur quickly once we hit the titration point.
As young people encounter a world completely unlike the one they were promised, if they followed the rules, their outrage will be hard to ignore.
I am saddened by the amount of misplaced anger I find on this site. I understand the frustrations, but we must make allowances for those still locked in the matrix.
@m: Sorry if I misunderstood, but when you said that Schmitt was “thoroughly caught up within a liberal morality,” it sounded to my pedestrian ears like you were calling Schmitt a liberal. That would have been misleading. It is true that the liberal Stephen Holmes considered Schmitt to be less anti-liberal than Strauss, but others such as Robert Howse dispute this.
Meier sought to rehabilitate Schmitt by using his relationship with Strauss to deflect against Schmitt’s antisemitism. It is true that Strauss’ Notes on Schmitt’s The Concept of the Political provoke a response from Strauss in the subsequent 1933 edition of his book. However, that was three years before the 1936 speech quoted in this article. Perhaps Schmitt had soured on Strauss in the preceding years. It would not have served Meier’s purpose to focus on such a falling out between Schmitt and Strauss if it occurred.
The rejection by Schmitt of Jewish opinions and intellectual content is indeed surprising in light of his previously positive relations with Strauss. Schmitt’s vehemence seems almost personal. Did something happen between him and Strauss to reverse the previously positive view of Schmitt toward Jewish collegues or was Schmitt only courting Nazi officials? An answer the that question could shed some more light upon the shadowy and posthumously destructive Strauss.
@Anglo Saxon:
I think anybody that learns much about modern German history would have to recognize that National-Socialism in Germany did not fall out of the sky, nor was it an effect of mass-hypnosis by some hidden conspiracy, but it was an organic development and fulfillment of certain longstanding tendencies in Germany’s political tradition.
The notion that National-Socialism was somehow un-German seems to be born of the need to reconcile the monstrous lies of Allied war-propaganda with the fact that Germany became a U.S. ally a very short time later, in the Cold War. It looks like an embarrassing about-face unless you can say, Oh, those people that we fought a few years ago, they weren’t really Germans.
I do agree with you that there is a never-ending stream of unhelpful blather from the usual suspects on this blog. I don’t even like to respond to it because in a way that validates their activity and makes the problem worse. What would Carl Schmitt say to do about this?
It seem that the Jew knows us better than we know ourselves. Here we are trying to define how and what he does to us, instead of finding ways to exclude the Jew from our lives and culture. It could start at a personal level by just snubbing Jews and the race traitors socially instead of caving in to political correctness.
@Ritchard:
I am for being civil with Jews and other non-Whites so long as they are civil with me, and so long as the society that constitutes the basis of this civility still seems to maintain a semblance of law and order.
As regards race-traitors, I totally agree. Nobody wants to be unpleasant, but when some White girl gives birth to a mulatto child, unless she is treated unambiguously as an outcast, it corrupts the whole family. We need to recognize that miscegenation is a vicious act of disrespect toward parents, and an attack on the race.
Here’s a little-known fact, by the way: Thomas Jefferson actually at one point proposed that White women that produce mixed-race offspring should be deemed beyond the protection of the law.
I have never heard that any law proposed under National-Socialist rule went that far.
@Trenchant: The late Otto Friederich has touched on Schacht’s role in bringing the hyper-inflation under control. Although, Friederich was a Semitically correct Harvard historian, and he was the only one that I know of who has touched on the role of the Jews in the hyper-inflation. Pointing out that the Jews had access to hard foreign currency through the Netherlands, while the German currency was worthless. He also interviewed Jews involved in the Weimar governments’ economic policy & central bank who claimed that they did not know that printing money would cause inflation!
Schacht was a banker, but, not involved in the Weimar government or central bank prior to being brought in to stop the hyper-inflation.
@Edward: There is room for discussion, and different ways of looking at the Strauss-Schmitt relation. I do not have any final answers.
A draft to a forthcoming study by Robert Howse (on line with a search) downplays any specific Strauss “connection” to Schmitt’s subsequent revisions, and actually Howse has nothing much good to say about Meier at all.
He contrasts Meier’s interpretation to that of Karl Loewith. In <Martin Heidegger and European Nihilism Loewith, “offers an interpretation of the changes between the second and third editions that has nothing to do with the influence of Leo Strauss. Loewith sees these changes as the in nature of a Gleichschaltung: Schmitt had finally decided to throw his lot in with the Nazis and, consistent with what Loewith calls Schmitt’s ‘Occasional Decisionism,’ adapted his treatise on the political to the demands of the moment.”
In Howse’s view, Strauss was a minor player, perhaps a footnote, in Schmitt’s legacy, however it is conceived.
@Anglo Saxon: Goethe, on the downside of uniting Germany:
“Then think about cities such as Dresden, Munich, Stuttgart, Kassel, Braunschweig, Hannover, and similar ones; think about the energy that these cities represent; think about the effect they have on neighboring provinces, and ask yourself, if all of this would exist if such cities had not been the residences of princes for a long time.
“Frankfurt, Bremen, Hamburg, Luebeck are large and brilliant, and their impact on the prosperity of Germany is incalculable. Yet, would they remain what they are if they were to lose their independence and be incorporated as provincial cities into one great German Empire? I have reason to doubt this.”
National Socialism is no more than a political doctrine.
@monte:
@European:
@m:
@Edward:
Thank you all for your comments, which contribute immensely to understanding both the sense of the quoted passage and, what is much more, the nature and development of Schmitt’s thinking. I can only hope that Sunic’s part 2 is half as informative as your remarks!
What m notes—that the time line of the Strauss-Schmitt relationship raises many questions about Schmitt’s motivations—seems to me inarguable.
@Hadding Scott:
How does this explain why many Germans had to sign a document and were then advised:
Auf Grund der Angaben in Ihrem Meldebogen sind Sie von dem Gesetz zur Befreiung von Nationalsozialismus und Militaerismus vom 5. Maerz 1946 nicht betroffen.
Der Oeffentliche Klaeger
or:
you underwent De-Nationalsozialistische und Militaeristische de-nazification?
To me this says more that not every German was a Nationalsozialist. Or am I mistaken?
@Tom:
Jews numbered significantly amongst the winners, and big winners, of the Weimar hyperinflation. Being internationalists and traders, this is hardly surprising. Speculating on money printing is what everybody does when they elect to buy something now, rather than have the price rise some time hence. I don’t condemn that per se – I do the same myself – and I don’t have any control over what Dr. Bernanke does.
Bottom line is I don’t know whether Jews were instrumental in the monetary policy creation, or just reacting to it. It’s clearer in these days of bail-outs that banking is essentially a political industry, profits privatized and losses socialized, with a handy traffic of personnel between Wall St and the Beltway. It would be hard to imagine it were different in post WWI Germany.
I’ve also heard rationalizations of the Weimar hyperinflation as an expedient to reduce the real burden of the war reparations by extinguishing nominal debts in currency of reduced real value, or the weakness of then incumbent government and its consequent lack of will to use fiscal measures to address budgetary problems.
@Anglo Saxon: I hesitate to respond to anything you post, since you have, on this very blog and in writing, called for the death penalty to be imposed on anyone who disagrees with your theories, so one tends to tread rather carefully. I should be relieved that all you have done so far (as far as I know) is to personally lead vociferous campaigns to have me permanently banned from TOO. Small beer compared to the death penalty. Ah, to be empowered with final, unanswerable authority, huh, Anglo Saxon?
Hoping to avoid the guillotine, but feeling rather intrepid, let me offer this: The term “National Socialism” either means something or it doesn’t. Modern Nazis tend to engage in equivocation for such a chest-beating lot. To define NS as anything vaguely nationalistic or socialistic, and then to define both of those terms so loosely, is to make our vocabulary useless. The National Socialist will say, “well, how can anyone be against NS, since you want a nation don’t you? And there is some kind of social system involved, right? So therefore, you are already halfway to National Socialism!.
Using that kind of vague wordplay, more or less every nation on earth is already National Socialist. But that is not what NS refers to, if it is to have any use as verbiage. It ¬¬¬¬¬¬means a distinctive form of government and social organization that is best exemplified by National Socialist Germany, during the period with which we are all familiar. Not Germany centuries ago, but Germany during that period.
@European:
Not every American was a Reaganite either. What’s your point?
@Jason Speaks:
Good man, that Anglo-Saxon, and ahead of his time.
@Hadding Scott: This, for anyone who has doubts, is an example of the Nazi attitude towards free expression. How, by the way, can the term Nazi be offensive to you, when you engage in so much weaselly wordplay to begin with? I’m not surprised a Nazi like yourself wants to shut down free expression, since you never respond to any of the serious criticisms of National Socialists. It’s almost as if you don’t even feel the need to even fully understand the period.
Apparently enough is not enough. Nazi talk is absurd. That was then and it is now now. ‘
We should instead discuss what governance would look like under a WN regime, both with or without Enemies. Joe
@Jason Speaks:
I don’t consider your criticisms to be serious.
@Hadding Scott: The invasion of so many White European nations by NS Germany is a serious concern, one raised by several posters. It doesn’t seem consistent with being pro-White. A country can only be allotted the invasion and conquest of so many White European countries in a decade and still be called “pro-White”.
@Hadding Scott: By the way, I level the same criticism against The North during the Civil War (or War of Northern Aggression as some say). Obviously, they were not pro-White either, But, at the same time, the South made mistakes leading up to the war – it’s leaders should have been more aware of the power they were coming up against. The North tended to get swept away by moralistic arguments that were suicidal for their race; The South tended to surrender to a hotheaded bravado – they thought their intense honor would get them through any conflict.
It’s that kind of balanced view I favor. Germany was treated terribly after WWI and subjected to massive bombing during the war, that is a fact. But there are all kinds of problems with NS Germany that we also need to be aware of.
@Hadding Scott:
The criticisms are legitimate. It’s very possible that a peaceful Germany could have simply “waited it out” and let France, Britain, and the USSR decay under tribal rule. That, however, would have taken decades, and the tribe would have been clamoring endlessly for war that whole time. It’s difficult to say whether or not war could have been avoided.
@fender:
Jason Speaks’ criticisms are not serious. Anybody that resorts to caricatures and histrionics to such an extent is not worth answering. How can I be expected to respond to somebody that spews a litany of old misinformed accusations about Hitler and National-Socialism when he has already laid the groundwork for portraying me as a nut if I respond to everything that he says point by point? I think the fact that his statements are made in bad faith is abundantly clear, and therefore there is no point in trying to discuss any of it with him.
Now, if you think that there is some reasonable possibility that Germany could have avoided war, I think you just need to look at what I posted last time this claim was raised on another thread: Was Hitler Responsible for World War II? If that’s not enough for you then go to the sources that I mention.
@Jason Speaks:
Wai..wai..wait a minute, Jason. Where did you get your history lessons from?
Although you don’t go into details, let’s do that for you, let’s look at the “invaded” countries one by one:
Austria?
A 100% Germanic tribe. The Austrian parliament decided in 1919 to join Germany (!). Prohibited by France/Britain. The NS realized the right of self-determination, so important to the champions of democracy.
Checoslovakia?
3.5 millon Germans held hostage in a country whose name and language were those of two Slav tribes, one of which actually less in numbers than the German “minority”. When the NS “invaded” the Sudetes, this artificial Versailles construct collapsed and the white Poland and white Hungary “invaded” their “Checs” populations as well.
Poland?
2.5 – 3 million Germans put overnight in a foreign country that swept trough Germany and cut her in two parts. The NS didn’t even want the territory back. They only wanted Danzig and an extraterritorital road. Refused, as we know. So the Germans “invaded” the “Polish” Germans (and some more).
France ?
That Germany “invaded” France is the most ridiculous claim. It was white France who declared war on white Germany. What should the Germans do? Sit there and wait for the French to come?
Belgium?
They not only let British bombers overfly their territory to make the early raids on German towns, but cooperated with the French militarily as was shown by captured documents.
Norway?
A well known race between the white Anglo/French expedition wanting to invade white Norway in order to cut the German iron supplies.
USSR?
We already had this in a previous thread.
Greece?
A blunder of Mussolini to which the British reacted invading Creta, before the Germans came and drove them out.
I’ll stop here in order not to make my response too long.
@Hadding Scott:
The notion that National-Socialism was somehow un-German seems to be born of the need to reconcile the monstrous lies of Allied war-propaganda with the fact that Germany became a U.S. ally a very short time later, in the Cold War. It looks like an embarrassing about-face unless you can say, Oh, those people that we fought a few years ago, they weren’t really Germans.
This was my point. National-Socialist was a Party. It was nothing more or less, and not of long standing as someone indicated. It was eine Arbeiter-Partei growing out of the need of the times. It seems History is being made into a word-game, and much more then what it was, and unnecessarily much more complicated too. Amazing!!!, that was my point.
I wouldn’t have Hadding tax my my hard-earned any more than anyone else. I’m perfectly able to give of my own accord, if I feel so moved. To be forced to save my brother, on pain of incarceration, is absurd.
@Jason Speaks: Abe wanted the war to save his beloved tariff. The abolitionist/moralist argument is fig-leaf stuck on after the fact.
@European:
The NSDAP of course was only formed after World War I, but the trends that it embodied had been around for decades. The synthesis of nationalism and socialism (in order to curtail class-conflict) in Germany started with Bismarck, who also made great strides toward unifying all German lands. At bottom it’s all about unifying German people. Adolf Hitler carried this agenda farther. There is nothing un-German about this agenda.
@European:
Definitely not.
Probably you would also argue that Communism was just a party in the Sowjet Union.
National-Socialism was a complete “Weltanschauung”, in reality a revolution, an ideology encompassing not only Concepts of the Political, but many areas (ecology, art…) and thinkers, from Nietzsche to Heidegger, passing through Carl Schmitt.
What is difficult to swallow for some commenters here, is that most of the ideas inherent in the National-Socialist revolution are actually their own. These commenters have been injected the anti-nazi serum by Jewish controlled MSM so often that the simple view of a German uniform causes reflexes of revulsion and horror – just as their mind control masters had programmed.
Quite another thing is, whether this obvious relation of our WN concepts to National-Socialism should be stressed in public. But the mere fact that National-Socialism fought the same fight as we, some decades ago, should make us attentive to their ideas and errors.
@Trenchant: I agree to a large extent, however I think the moral fervor of the North was very real, even if it was used by Abe as cover. People don’t bleed and die in trenches for tariffs. I also think a policy of delaying armed conflict with the North would have been more prudent on the part of the South.
@sylvie: Yes, some of the expansion that NS Germany engaged during that period is legitimate and more-or-less prudent. But I don’t think you can say it was all justified. Doesn’t it seem more like overconfidence and personal aggrandizement than rational statecraft? How many pre-emptive wars make sense at one time? After all, the policies failed to achieve good for the German people, which should have been their goal, right?
Better leaders would have avoided having a nation of 85 million Germans be at war with the US, Britain and the USSR, with a combined population of 370 million all at once. I’m not arguing that every Allied action was justified, merely that they were predictable and the NS leadership should have made better calculations.
I believe you are constructing a version of events in which NS Germany is blameless, perfectly rational and the innocent victim of a cruel world. I don’t think this is accurate, any more than the US allying itself with the USSR was a moment to be proud of. But I don’t think every action the actual NS leadership took was for the good of White people or even Germans.
@sylvie: What is difficult to swallow for some commenters here, is that most of the ideas inherent in the National-Socialist revolution are actually their own.
No doubt that there is some overlap, but I I’m starting to think the image of NSists as the premier example of racially aware Whites is overblown. Most of the things Hitler said about race and even the Jews, were common beliefs during that period, all around the world. Woodrow Wilson and other American Presidents believed Whites were superior to blacks as well as other races. Most American politicians were comfortable with some form of White Supremacy until after WWII. Social Darwinism was all the rage in the US and Britain. Eugenics was proposed by many American progressives. Even Churchill made comments about race and Jews that would be impeachable today. Hitler himself praised the works of American and British thinkers on race, from which he said he had learned much. We forget how common race-realism once was.
Since race-realism became the official enemy of the State, everyone points the fingers at Nazis, as if they were the only people on earth who held these beliefs, instead of noting that race-realism was a commonly held belief among White people everywhere.
@daniel: Then why did you?
@Trenchant: Interesting contribution (as usual by you) but I shall have to disagree with your conclusion; that German National Socialism is/was a mere political phenomena. Naturally, I would agree that the 20th century political aspects of NS to which you refer (1932-45) were certainly born out of a great and artificially imposed trauma, were they not? I believe all right thinking people have now accepted that cause & effect.
In contrast, I see National Socialism in Germany, or amongst the people of the separate German City States and Regions, as going right back to the effective Germanic tribal resistance to the spread of Roman hegemony, culminating in that great and decisive victory — the Battle of the Teutoburg Forest — over several Roman Legions; all under the leadership of Arminius (Hermann) Chieftain of the Cherusci, and the first man to unite the authentically German peoples.
https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/wiki/File:Herrmann-von-Vorne.JPG
Even that Jewish/Zionist Encyclopaedia, known as Wikipedia, acknowledges: Arminius’s victory against the Roman legions in the Teutoburg forest had a far-reaching effect on the subsequent history of both the ancient Germanic peoples and on the Roman Empire. The Romans were to make no more concerted attempts to conquer and permanently hold Germania beyond the river Rhine.
Therefore, I would posit that the seeds of a unified German identity, resistant to outside influences, and possessing a great capacity for self-reliance and innovation, were planted by that wonderful victory … and, perhaps more importantly, by the state of mind that must have existed in order that the involved tribes could prepare for such a make-or-break battle.
The word socialism has been much abused and demeaned by the poison of Jewery’s Marxism (i.e., International Socialism). Socialism’s true meaning (as I expect you may have already noted) simply describes any natural and sincere cooperation (cultural, economic, technical) between people of like kind, and like mind, for the betterment of all the participants, and their families.
The ‘National’ element in socialism is particularly important to the German people simply because they have been obliged to live ‘surrounded’ by determined enemies of differing genetic composition, positioned on either flank, for most of their existence. The British, being an island people, have considerable difficulty grasping this simple concept. And as for most Americans, they simply believe they live on another planet.
Commenters posting here at TOO, perhaps the vast majority, appear to have no concept of the damage and bloodshed imposed by Napoleon’s French forces when they invaded the German territories with a blood-lust that is rarely acknowledged. This occurred, of course, a little before Napoleon’s huge army failed to take Moscow and then were driven back by the typically Arctic weather, to be picked off by rightly vengeful survivors as they marched (trudged) back to an Illuminati controlled France.
If you know anything about the concept of the “hidden hand” and its meaning to the Illuminati, then you will instantly identify the link when you look at the famous painting of Napoleon Bonaparte by Jacques-Louis David, in 1812, entitled: The Emperor Napoleon in His Study at the Tuileries. Images of which can be readily viewed on-line.
Angelsachse
@Trenchant: There has long been a strong cohort of devotees of the Führerprinzip to be found in these precincts, hasn’t there, and for reasons I quite fail to comprehend. Perhaps it embodies the proof positive of Dr. Johnson’s quip regarding the triumph of hope over experience. A more likely explanation, I fear, is the failure of many to have had purged from them the desire to tell other people what they must do and how they must live on pain of [fill in the blank and hope to God it's not "death"]. Faced with the postadolescent realization that no one else is convinced of their capacity to lead others and likewise compelled to face the sad fact that they type a lot better than they think, they resort to ascribing semidivine—or, rather more often, semidiabolic—qualities to Attila, Tamerlane, Charles V, Napoleon, Lincoln, or Hitler. Then they sneer at everyone that fails to share the fantasy.
Hand in hand with misguided hero worship goes devotion to the unitary state, especially one lucky enough to be built on lots and lots of skulls and skeltons. Talk of “uniting” Germany is as misguided-assumption-based as is similar whiggish talk about “manifest destiny” and “progress,” which always seems to end up involving one hell of a lot of folks getting good and dead or enslaved while a very select handful gets good and bloody rich (of which few, curiosly, a sizably suspicious segment is always or almost always Jews).
The locus classicus of this sort of unacknowledged-preconception-ridden thinking may be found among historians of China (whatever their ethnicity or race), past and present, literally all of whom take a vast, unitary Chinese dictatorship as not merely an ideal but a norm! This same worship of subjugation in the name of racialist or nationalist glory disfigures this thread and many others at TOO, as can be seen in the offhand remarks about Bismarck and his “unifying” the German lands. Were the German lands more German for being unified, whether by political chicanery or the sword? Put otherwise, were the Chinese less Chinese during those halcyon epochs when “China” was “fragmented” into a dozen or so countries each still generally twice the size of present-day France? Were the French less French during the medieval centuries when feudalism left the landscape littered with minor princelings with, not coincidentally, limited capacity for evil (cf., too, your own extraordinarily apt and ahem trenchant quote from some clever fella called Goethe)? Indeed, were the Germans less German during the long post-Carolingian and pre-Napoleonic centuries when the Heilige Röm’sche Reich consisted of fifty or so duchies, counties, and principalities and when the occasional ordinary folks who had a mind to get up and go regularly got up and went—largely unobstructed, be it noted, even if only because it was usually too much trouble for the local bigwigs to stop them?
There is an immense amount of talk hereabouts concerning history and its lessons, but precious little of it seems to emerge from the keyboards of people who have learnt anything. We hear a lot about the glory of great empires and the heroic deeds and racial/national wisdom of great leaders. Some times and places are better than others, of course, and in every age and place there live a fortunate few who prosper or at least pass their days with some shreds of dignity. Yet can it really be doubted that for the great mass of men, reading about the glories of even such an exemplar as Octavian’s Rome beats being alive in it? Indeed, as a dear friend put it to me some years ago, it is wise to be highly skeptical about the advertised virtues of any of history’s “great” men, or at the minimum any not named Louis IX of France.
I offer that dictum as a starting point for the cleansing process that, to quote from Johnson again, might reasonably be called Ridding the Mind of Cant.
@Anglo Saxon: I commend you first and foremost for your diagnosis of the monster Napoleon, who was the wellspring of all the great European evils of his own day and an ardent Trotskyite more than a century avant la lettre. Of course, too, I agree with you, Trenchant, and many others that the roots of World War II go very, very deep. Finding any “leader” who either went into it or came out of it with clean hands is virtually a labor of Heracles.
Indeed, the only place I differ with you on a significant point is on the wisdom or virtue of “unity” and “unification,” which words I think you use in their usual political senses. (I have a longish comment languishing in “moderation,” one I drafted before I read your latest comment; in it I take rather a whack at what I consider the overpraised joys of enforced unification.)
I don’t in truth share your fondness for the word or the concept of socialism either, but since, at least as you portray it, it worked—both voluntarily and quite well—not only for old or ancient Germanic tribes but also for far more up-to-date Scandinavians, among others, prior to the Tribally inspired and directed African and Arab invasions that are destroying their countries, I won’t emulate the Tribe by telling others how they must live. Whilst I consider the elevation of tolerance to the status of the greatest of the virtues (if not the only virtue) a hallmark of the disordered state of these times, tolerance too has its proper albeit limited role: in resisting the impulse to tell other peaceable people how to order their affairs . . . or else.
@Anglo Saxon: Well, I have a beef with Bismarck, the great centralizer, as well. Naturally this antipathy extends to Napoleon, and his legacy (to be glib, Paris is France).
To address the valid concern on self-defense, it’s not always the case that big is beautiful. Napoleon chose to retreat from Spain after those irregulars – the original guerrillas – drained his forces long after the regular army had been routed.
I confess that my views on defense have been particularly informed by this anthology:
http://www.4shared.com/office/aPaKEz5u/The_Myth_of_National_Defense_b.htm
(Carl Schmitt is cited on quite a few occasions).
@Anglo Saxon: @Anglo Saxon: Risking the wrath of one of your guillotines, I will sally forth.
The Battle of the Teutoburg was no doubt an event that Germans could rally around, but if it was the fountainhead of NS Germany, since that was an event which took place over 1,900 years prior to 1932, it can only be so in the vaguest poetic sense. And to the extent that it is true, it shows that White people can fight each other after all, even without the assistance of outside parties. The simple role of ethnic competition among various White groups often gets downplayed when we put our histories forward.
I would remind the defenders of Herr Hitler that Rome also claimed most of its wars were “preventative”, a tradition of prevention that lasted several centuries and conquered most of the known world (a good thing, by the way, for Roman fans like me). So, Herr Hitler had certainly learned something from those nasty ol’ Romans.
Socialism’s true meaning … simply describes any natural and sincere cooperation (cultural, economic, technical) between people of like kind, and like mind, for the betterment of all the participants, and their families.
Almost every tribe, every village, virtually every cooperating group of humans that has ever lived can now be deemed socialist by this definition. Socialism either means something or it doesn’t, it can’t be synonymous with broader terms already in existence. By the way, doesn’t coercion drive out cooperation? Were the Poles part of a cooperative system from their viewpoint? Wonder how the French, Danes and Norwegians felt about it. Of course, there were many in France that seemed to welcome Germans marching around their country, so it can be complicated, but there was a bit of bossiness involved in Herr Hitler’s actions, I think it’s fair to say.
A certain amount of ethnic chauvinism is a healthy thing, provided one doesn’t go too far, and provided one finds some method of self-criticism that will prevent self-delusion (see Triver’s book). Sometimes ethnic chauvinism stems organically from our own identity, and sometimes it is adopted (like those Whites that retell the last 500 years of history to present Native Americans as veritable angels who never knew violence until mean ol’ White Man showed up). I get the whiff of ‘Hitler good, everyone else bad’ in this pro-NS German takes on history.
@Pierre de Craon: Indeed, Pierre, indeed.
And before I move on, may I take this opportunity to wish you a “Very Happy New Year 2012″.
Yes, socialism. You may have sensed it already, but I do aver to the natural state of socialism: that born out of shared blood and shared experiences.
Like you, I resist a top-down, imposition of ‘pseudo-socialism’ predicated upon some simplistic ideology. Indeed, all ideologies by definition must be simplistic … pas?
Throughout Europe, the German Volk wanted to be unified. They had long possessed an emotional urge to be unified. They could still remember the murderous arrival of Napoleon’s forces, and were now, approximately 100 years later, feeling a similar and sinister threat building in those lands that had hitherto been the quiescent and stable Russian Empire.
Then came the great trauma of WWI and the treacherous Versailles treaty opened the gates to Jewish/Zionist manipulation, not only of its money supply, but of its entire culture.
The zeitgeist for NSDAP’s ensuing popularity was already in place. The NSDAP leadership exploited it in order to ideologically cleanse Germany of a ‘poison’ that had been troubling (if not threatening) the German volk ever since the rise of Zionism under Hertzl and the Rothschilds. A classic “them or us” situation.
Between 1919 and 1930 they had seen, a thousand times, what had happened in nearby Russia —- the repeated and bestial tortures, the Othodox Churches literally turned into abattoirs for humans, the unambiguous racial victimization of true (White) Russians, the blood drenched genocides carried out in one area after another, plus the inhuman Gulags —- they had absolutely no wish to see any of that repeated in Germany.
But, an attempt to introduce Bolshevism into her borders (along with the same bloodthirsty behaviour) HAD been made earlier. You will doubtless recall the Communist uprisings in central Germany during the latter part of WWI, and the Spartacus uprising in Berlin.
One has to face the challenge of a hostile extreme, with an equivalent but opposite extreme. That is natural law.
**************************
SOME PERSPECTIVES FOR YOUR FUTURE REFERENCE:
1919 February 12: Karl Radak, a member of the German Bolshevik delegation is arrested in the Bolshevik propaganda office in Berlin. Police discover an outline plan for a general Communist offensive to take place in the spring. According to this plan, The Red Army was to march through Poland into Germany to join up with a simultaneous German Communist insurrection. (Topitsch)
1919 March 30: British Prime Minister Lloyd George informs Lord Riddell, “The truth is we have got our way… the German navy has been handed over, German merchant shipping has been handed over, and the German colonies given up. One of our chief trade competitors has been crippled and our Allies are about to become her biggest creditors. This is no small achievement.” (Versailles Twenty Years After)
1919 Easter: Lanz von Liebenfels, now living in Budapest, is almost executed on Easter Sunday by a Communist firing-squad during the Hungarian revolution. It seems significant that his linking of anti-Semitism and anti-Bolshevism date from this period. (Roots)
1919 April 4: The Jewish Chronicle in London states, “The conceptions of Bolshevism are in harmony in most points with the ideas of Judaism.” (Soon afterward, Victor Marsden the London Morning Post’s reporter in Russia wrote that 477 of the leading 545 Bolshevik officials were Jews).
1919 April 6: A group of anarchist intellectuals in Munich, inspired by the example of Bela Kun in Hungary, proclaims what it calls the Bavarian Soviet Republic.
1919 April 13: After a ‘right-wing’ [?] uprising is crushed, a more serious band of Communists seizes power in Munich. Leadership is taken over by the Russian emigres Eugen Levine-Nissen, Tobias Axelrod, and Max Levien. All three are of Jewish descent and had been bloodied in the 1905 Russian revolution. During the reign of terror that follows, schools, banks and newspapers are closed due to looting and violence. (Roots)
1919 April 29: The German delegation headed by Graf Ulrich von Brockdorff-Rantzau, the German foreign minister, arrives at Versailles.
1919 April 30: Seven hostages from the Thule Society are taken to the cellar of the Luitpold Gymnasium, a Red Army post since mid-April, and executed, supposedly in reprisal for the killing of Red prisoners by Whites at Starnberg.
1919 May 1: Free Corps troops enter Munich and take it from the Communists after two days of heavy fighting. The famous Erhardt Brigade arrives at the city singing their marching song, which began with the words: “Hooked cross (swastika) on steel helmets…”
1919 May 6: The Treaty of Versailles is finally ready to be presented to Germany, after three and a half months of argument and comprise.
1919 May 7: Members of the German delegation are summoned to the Trianon Palace at Versailles to learn the new Allied treaty terms. After carefully reading the new treaty, Brockdorff-Rantzau denounces it, reminding them that President Wilson’s Fourteen Points had clearly provided the basis for the armistice negotiations, and are as binding on the Allies as on Germany. He also insists that the economic provisions of the treaty will be impossible to fulfil.
1919 Autumn: The Protocols of the Elders of Zion begin circulating in Germany, Europe and America. (Segel/Levy)
1919 September 10: Representatives of the now tiny republic of Austria sign the Treaty of Saint-Germain, just outside Paris. The once great Habsburg empire had completely disintegrated in October and November 1918. Austria recognizes the independence of Czechoslovakia, Poland, Yugoslavia, and Hungary; it also recognizes the award of Galicia to Poland, and of the Trentino, South Tyrol, Trieste, and Istria to Italy. Austria is forbidden to unite with Germany, as many in both countries had envisioned.
1919 Polish armed forces capture much of Lithuania and the Ukraine. Polish leader Jozef Pilsudski aims to establish a Polish-Lithuanian-Belorussian federation allied with an independent Ukraine. It will soon lead to the Polish-Soviet War of April-October 1920.
1919 Grigory Zinoviev, head of the Petrograd party organization, is appointed head of the Communist International (Comintern).
1919 Russian-American anarchist Emma Goldman is deported to the Soviet Union.
@Anglo Saxon:
Obviously, I responded Just enough to let you know that I cannot be bothered with you – sure enough Hadding is not going to call you a “German chauvinist”.
@daniel: Anyone who doubts Nazi (excuse me, National Socialist) leadership could be hard-headed, stubborn and dismissive of the rights of other Whites, need only look at the posts their defenders put up. And these are the people we are to take as the best example of being pro-White? A constant, uncritical stream of Nazi talking points, defending Hitler and attacking virtually every other group of Whites in Europe, going back 2,000 years! With friends like this, who needs enemies?
We are told the Anglos were very bad. The French were very bad. The Russians were very bad. The Poles were very bad. And those naughty Scandinavians! So, with a heavy sigh, the poor Nazis had no choice but to invade all of them – simultaneously – they were forced into it, can’t you see! Herr Hitler topped of his strategic brilliance by declaring war on the United States. Always a smart move.
Now, some might think taking a nation of 85 million to war against almost 400 million was a bit foolish, even vainglorious. But when you have leadership driven my mystical insight, you can’t question them can you? Well you can, but you end up being shot.
You can put facts in front of Jason Speaks all day long and he’ll still be saying the same old stuff. It’s a waste of time.
@Hadding Scott: I guess it’s just you and the other 12 National Socialists in North America against the world. Good luck!~ Try and stay out of jail like most of the rest.
@Anglo Saxon: An excellent list, no doubt about it. Permit me to add one item to it as an addendum to the third from the bottom:
August 1920 (subject to correction): In what came to be called the Miracle at the Vistula, Jozef Pilsudski’s Polish forces destroy a much larger Soviet army that planned to move into Germany after eradicating Polish opposition.
Pilsudski was by no means a wholly admirable character (as the Slovaks discovered less than twenty years later), but he saved central Europe from the Bolshies for a generation. For that alone, he merits our gratitude.
@Anglo Saxon: Almost forgot—thank you for the kind greeting, and a very Happy New Year to you, too! May things in your country and mine turn out to be more promising than they look to be at the moment.
@Hadding Scott: Mental Disorders are (currently) defined by:
(1) the ICD-10 Chapter V: Mental and behavioural disorders: part of the International Classification of Diseases produced by the WHO … and …
(2) the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM-IV) produced by the American Psychiatric Association (APA).
I have yet to find one that would adequately describe Jason Squeaks’ symptoms.
‘He’ (or maybe a kind of butch she?) has literally been encamped on this TOO website ever since November/December of 2010 at least. Either he is being paid to do this, or two or three guys are doing shift work posing as a generic “Jason Speaks”.
Presumably our little mascot suffers nightmares about “the Germans” as this is (about) the fifth time he has suffered a meltdown on these pages in response to Third Reich issues.
@Anglo Saxon: Does that list of Mental Disorders say anything about people that issue death warrants for anyone that disagrees with them, like you have on this blog – which I assume is okie dokie with TOO. I love Germans by the way and think of them as some of the best the White race has to offer. I just don’t feel the need to condemn every other White group since the days of Rome in order to praise them.
Guys like you are truly scary. I don’t take your talk of death warrants lightly. I have no illusions what guys like you would do if you ever had any power. Other Whites who disagreed with you would be the first victims, and since that seems to include the vast majority of Whites, we would all be in danger.
Sadly, TOO and MacDonald engage you conversation like you are some decent person. You are not. But then, they seem willing to engage that “Mark” character in casual talk, and he has been trying to rope someone into his federal entrapment scam for ages.
Look, if TOO wants to be a front for Nazism or write loving translations of Bin Laden poetry, well you should have the good manners to at least tell us so we can quit wasting our time on this dead end ship.
Jason Speaks, I am sorry for the dirt poor rhetoric that you are enduring here. Some arguments have been soundly defeated here and in the prior thread; and the defeated side has resorted to ad hominem attacks.
@daniel: Thanks, but I shouldn’t get involved in these disputes, it’s my own fault. You have endured attacks too and handled yourself far better than me. It may be best to stay out of these squabbles, but on the other hand, I feel something should be said to counter this strain of “National Socialism” and anti-Western tripe, lest it corrupt the whole site.
Let me know if you find another site that promotes White interests in a reasonable way, this one may not be for me after all. I am also finding a fair number of “White Nationalist” sites are soft on Hitler and go in for self-destructive extremism. I saw Hitler praised as a great hero on one site whom they claimed possessed supernatural power (yawn). This is madness, it will fail miserably.
Amren is not a bad site, they are rational, but they don’t deal with Jewish issues at all. I think it is important to talk about Jewish influence and its impact on White Civilization, but the discussion of Jews seems to bring out the loons, so I don’t know how to handle it.
Cheers and good luck!
@Jason Speaks:
Jason Speaks, I am not prepared to abandon TOO just yet, but may have to as well, if this keeps up. It is absurd for someone who has made the kind of cogent arguments that you have to endure ad hominem attacks here.
Your arguments were brilliant. Far better than your interlocutors. You handled yourself with aplomb and you won.
In fact, looking at the Nazi arguments here, they turned what would otherwise look like an ad hominem attack into a accurate moniker – they are idiots. They have one idea:
Hitler’s national socialism was only good and anybody who disagrees that it is only good is bad.
That some of these Nazis have logic is clear. That their reasoning and judgment is poor is equally clear.
Though I do not share the hatred for Amren that some have, I do not find myself interested, personally, as I do think it is necessary to address the Jewish issue more directly and critically.
However, if it does become necessary to bail out of TOO and go somewhere that does not cater to so many folks who care about Germans only, but values all persons of native European extraction (yes, Germans too), their need to defend themselves, I’d be interested in that as well. ..would even be interested in starting up such a site.
In the meantime, KM and Sunic have made some clear statements that they do not want the rubric of Nazism. They both indicate a respect for all persons of European descent and a valuing of their help in the struggle.
I take them at their word for that and believe rather, that they are grateful for you fine arguments.
TOO has an extensive archive. It goes back years; to long before I posted my first comment here.
Perhaps the madman who keeps claiming I issued a “death warrant” against the Jason Squeaks pseudonym could kindly link back to the precise comment in which this alleged “death warrant” appears? ROFL.
Other TOO readers would then be under no illusion about the sorry mental condition of the individual (or individuals) posting as “Jason Speaks”.
@Pierre de Craon:
Thank you, sir. Once again you have stated our position with clarity and dignity. The advance of the white freedom movement in this country depends on men like you who debate in an intellectually respectable manner.
Many bright people in the Wiemar Republic faced the same level of cultural infiltration by the Chosen as we face today. It is interesting to read their thoughts. However, history would suggest that they did not find the correct solution.
Personally, I have no more desire to be subjected to a white “Will to Power” than I do to a Jewish one. I prefer freedom.
@Jason Speaks:
When things get concrete, it is difficult to see where you stand, except for anti-nazism. Since I think you are intellectually honest, but a bit misled by the Zionist popaganda machine, I would nevertheless be interested in your opinion.
You were complaining that the Germans invaded other countries. Perhaps my list was too long. I’ll narrow it down to just two points, hoping this time to get an answer (if not, I wont bother you again):
1) Do you think it was a good idea to maintain 3.5 million Germans under Chec rule?
2) Do you think the Germans should not have entered France after the French war declaration ?
Jason, no one here was born NS. We all came the same track. I was ant-nazi, too, before I started using my own brains.
As a writer for the Los Angeles Times, Joel Stein, boldly declared in December 2008, in a column for that daily paper: “As a proud Jew, I want America to know about our accomplishment. Yes, we control Hollywood I don’t care if Americans think were running the news media, Hollywood, Wall Street or the government. I just care that we get to keep running them.”
Thirty seven years ago, two of the most powerful men in our country, indeed, in the world, frankly discussed this matter in a private conversation that should be much better known. It was in 1972, in the oval office of the White House. President Richard Nixon and the Rev. Billy Graham — the nation’s best-known and most influential Christian evangelist — were alone. These were not just prominent and influential men. They were shrewd and astute individuals who had accomplished much in their lives, and who had thought a lot about what they had observed and experienced over the years.
We know about this one-on-one conversation, and exactly what the two men said to each other, because Nixon had arranged for all conversations in his office to be secretly recorded. He regarded these recordings as his personal property, but he was later forced by court order to give them up. It wasnt until thirty years later — in 2002 — that this conversation was finally made public.
Here’s how their talk went. Graham said: This stranglehold has got to be broken or the country’s going down the drain. The President responded by saying: You believe that? , Yes, sir,said Graham.
Oh, boy, Nixon replied, So do I. I can’t ever say that, but I believe it.
________________////____________________
Now consider for a moment what this means, for America and the world, and for us today. Here’s the most powerful political personality in the United States, indeed the most powerful man in the world, and the most influential religious figure in the US, in agreement about the Jewish hold on our media. They didn’t talk about the Jewish role in the media, or even Jewish domination of the media. They spoke about a Jewish stranglehold on our media.
For everyone who cares about our nation and the world, it’s worth asking and answering two questions. First, were Nixon and Graham right? Were they correct in what they said that day about what they called the Jewish stranglehold on the media? And, second, if they were right, what does that say about America and our society?
Two of the most influential men in our country were so afraid of the intimidating power of the organized Jewish community that they felt unable even to mention publicly this stranglehold — that’s the term Graham used — on our media, a stranglehold that they regarded as so harmful that unless it is broken, America, again, their words, is going down the drain. What a telling commentary on the corruption and perversion of our national life!
Why do 97% of non Jewish Americans allow this ?
Understanding and countering this power is a critically important task, not merely for the sake of historical truth in the abstract, but for the sake of our nation and the future of humankind.
A similar over prominence occured in Germany & the USSR & we all know how that turned out.
Basically Jews are clever & the Goyim are dumb.
American Christians ( Jews for Jesus ) will maintain the status quo.
It was allowed to be set up that way & the poor goyim are lost.
.
@sylvie:
These commenters have been injected the anti-nazi serum by Jewish controlled MSM so often that the simple view of a German uniform causes reflexes of revulsion and horror – just as their mind control masters had programmed.
I suppose you are right considering the media and movie-industry transmitting hatred toward Germans and the National-Socialist ideas.
Just a small note. No matter where Germans find them selfs, in old Germany, Prussia, Siebenbuergen, Hungery, or in the US etc. Germans will always try to unify. Their lifes and land is central in Europe and they were exposed from all sides by “others”, not to mention those Jews within our Country. Is is our nature to unify, it is our strenght. Jews are quit the opposite, they feel strong in chaos, in disorder they feel unnoticed and can hide. They work hard to create chaos and wreck any unity or common ground. But they do seek out unity, our strength or international support for their agendas. In the end they do not have to take responsibility for failed actions or losses, blame the International Community. (it was their idea) Again they go blameless (juvenile behaviour) – (Think Iran and observe)
@European:
When I read some of your comments back I realize that some of us are saying the same thing in different ways.
It is the same as you are trying to analyzing love. Those who know love need no analyzing. They know why, how come etc. The same goes for being German, or ideas grown out of German culture, demographics or of National-Sozialist regimes. Needs no commentary. But as Sylvie commented it is important to view the failures and successes, and not repeat them as the US is not central to Europe. So my apology, I get it!
How many times do we have to say that we think that Germans are fine, but not only Germans – we want them to preserve themselves as we want to preserve ourtselves – and we want to help them do that but we do not want to be killed by them? That’s all. I don’t think the Nazi association is a good idea. In MacDonald doesn’t think the Nazi association is a good idea – maybe he is stupid?
@daniel:
Your error is to think National-Socialism is all about killing Poles and other Europeans. The Germans lived with Slav people during centuries without too much trouble. Prag was a mainly German speaking city not so long ago (Kafka). In fact, it was the seat of the first German university.
During the Sudetes conflict, Hitler stated that he didn’t want Checs in Germany. So why did the Checs insisted on integrating millions of Germans with their cultural homeland in a Slav country?
This site is about discussing the basis of a White Nationalist mouvement, theoretical and practical, history and future. In this context, ignoring the Third Reich is as silly as running around with swastikas.
@sylvie:
“Your error is to think National-Socialism is all about killing Poles and other Europeans.”
That is not my error because it does not represent my thinking, Slyvie. I think a lot of people don’t go for the rubric, not just Poles. I am half Italian too. I had cousins in Musolini’s army. I don’t feel the need to pledge unswerving devotion to him or the third reich, therefore.
What I am very sure of is that MacDonald has good reasons for not wanting associated with it. He could not have been more clear. Moreover, we do not need it, to pledge affection, or even respect for it. We can think for ourselves now and we can adopt aspects of nationalism and socialism without genuflecting before the Third Reich. It had disastrous consequences and is not beyond criticism, and even fundamental rejection for having an overly narrow in-group out-group concept and a reckless strategy overall.
I can understand presenting even the most hard core “National Socialists” point of view. What I cannot relate to is other European views, that dissent from it and even very strongly, not being presented as well. Nor do I think that the ad hominem attacks are valid. There has been some trickery as well…”see, you are talking about it! It’s you who did it! There he goes, bringing it up again…all we did quite innocently was present the German view”.. only the German view and prepared pseudo justification for another inter-uropean war.. “and he wants to make a big thing just because a guy was shown in a German army uniform” How many times did I have to repeat that it was a textual matter that had me taking issue?
The obfuscation that then ensued was indeed, suspicious.
“The Germans lived with Slav people during centuries without too much trouble. Prag was a mainly German speaking city not so long ago (Kafka). In fact, it was the seat of the first German university.”
I understand, but it is history now. Losses and revenge on all sides have been substantial enough. …Kafka, I thought he was Jewish? Anyway..
During the Sudetes conflict, Hitler stated that he didn’t want Checs in Germany. So why did the Checs insisted on integrating millions of Germans with their cultural homeland in a Slav country?
I don’t know. I know that in some cases, German craftsman and builders were invited in because they were good. In the case of the Czechs, I can mainly guess that given the war that they came to regret the invitation as a mistake. I really do not know about that. Speaking for myself, I would rather have my nation than a well built building to live in built by some other folks . But I do not know what the Czechs were thinking. I have been to Czech and they seem to be doing ok.
This site is about discussing the basis of a White Nationalist mouvement, theoretical and practical, history and future. In this context, ignoring the Third Reich is as silly as running around with swastikas.
I don’t recommend running away from the issue, but I really do not think it is central in a positive sense now – on the contrary, it is a central example of rubric that we want to get out from under. It is apparent that there are those who blanch at criticism of the third reich, defense of those Europeans it treated as enemies, and those who do not think that it represents White nationalism.
There has been ad hominem attacks on these views and it shouldn’t be. It is even against the comments policy of TOO:
“Comment Policy
Comments that include personal insults”…
@sylvie:
It’s kind of funny how these guys haven’t noticed that Dr. MacDonald and Dr. Sunic obviously have no qualms about presenting ideas and personalities from National-Socialist Germany.
I did hear Sunic’s interview with MacDonald last week wherein Sunic solicited from MacDonald some statements about how “trappings” of National-Socialism are to be avoided, but one may infer from the manifest editorial policy on TOO, and Sunic’s own writing, that anything other than trappings (e.g. swastika banners, brownshirt uniforms) is evidently fine. I find that entirely comprehensible — indeed I generally avoid “trappings” myself — since that imagery feeds into the caricature that Jason Speaks here has been working so hard to invoke.
These complainers are really on the outside here.
@Hadding Scott:
Once again, tricks.. avoiding what I have said – That I took up a textual matter. And, it is clear MacDonald went a bit beyond denouncing mere trappings, he said, “It is a non-starter, we had a war with ‘these people” ..
I don’t know who Jason Speaks is, but his arguments appeared reasonable to me. He bent over backwards to say that he likes Germans, that he thinks a critical stance against Jews is imperative, etc – he did everything but pledge allegiance to Hitler and you are saying that he is an outsider..
Therefore, what are we to suppose about you?
You know Hadding, you are free, Slyvie too, to have a site that only welcomes and allows for a German point of view. I’m not into it. If a site will not allow for other Europeans to defend themselves as well, then I don’t go there. That’s all.
@daniel: Nobody is attacking Polish people here. It’s your warped Polish-chauvinist version of history, pretty much uncritically based on Allied and Soviet propaganda, that is putting you at odds with others.
@Joe Webb: May I ask you to be a little more patient. You have clearly thought long, and hard regarding these issues and seem to have the background to understand them better than most. For many of our folks it is very hard to see clearly. People will find their way by different routes. All should get a warm welcome and a chance to explore the ideas offered her before they are treated with derision or contempt because they have not reached the exact set of conclusions and prescriptions that another has.
I would also urge you to consider your position on evangelical Christians. These folks also believe fervently in the sanctity of marriage. That does lower the divorce rate much. What is preached, especially by the public figures, is not necessarily what people feel in their hearts.
I certainly understand your impatience. I often share it. You also have so much to teach us. Teaching requires patience. Are you up to it?
@daniel: Some of the stuff that you’ve said is so unrealistic that there seems to be no point in talking to you.
For example you don’t take account of the fact that Hitler tried to make an anti-Soviet pact with the Poles but they rejected it.
If you admitted that, the next thing that you’d have to admit would be that this was a really DUMB move on the part of the Polish government, since it ultimately, somewhat predictably, resulted in several decades of Soviet hegemony over Poland.
Superficially the Poles can claim that they have been victims of belligerent neighbors. On closer inspection it was in large part the fault of their own government.
@Hadding Scott:
. “Nobody is attacking Polish people here. It’s your warped Polish-chauvinist version of history, pretty much uncritically based on Allied and Soviet propaganda, that is putting you at odds with others”
1. “Nobody is attacking Polish people here:”
I’m not sure that was exactly my claim. Though if it were to be, there would be evidence of even that, in the past few threads. It would be tiring to go into that. Moreover, that was not the issue, initially. I was concerned to address the implications of a statement that expressed German victimization whilst not providing a counter point and context.
“It’s your warped Polish-chauvinist version of history”
That is ad hominem attack, right there.
” [your version of history,] pretty much uncritically based on Allied and Soviet propaganda, that is putting you at odds with others”
3. This is the line that you and your friends feel the need to maintain. That people who don’t think Hitler’s national socialism were beyond reproach are brainwashed or mentally ill. That you would call me a “warped Polish chauvinist”..having seen all that I’ve written in the past few threads, while not calling some of the other commentors, “German chauvinists”, based on their far – far – more biased advocacy of a German point of view is yet another indication that you are the one who is disingenuous. Not that I want you to call them German chauvinists Hadding. I just wish, for your sake even, that you were not so sensitive to views critical of the “National Socialists” – we can’t even call them Nazis! – that illustrate other European points of view; and, which can indicate that the “National Socialists” were not only victims; were not perfect; did not necessarily represent an overall White nationalist point of view.
There is another problem with your insistence on being referred to as a national socialist as opposed to a Nazi. That is, it puts one into the trap of sounding as if they are criticizing all things national and all things national, when that is not the case at all – one is criticizing Nazism, which is, like it or not, understood meaning Hitler’s regime of that era.
*all things national and all things social
@daniel:
Combination: strawman and projection. Nobody here is claiming that Hitler’s government was flawless, but are trying to maintain that Poland was not at fault for its own fate in World War II by retailing the Allied and Soviet propaganda-image of Hitler as reckless and evil.
but you are, that is.
@daniel:
The one thing conclusively proven here is that both Jews and nazis will do anything to have their own way. There can never be a simple disagreement. One party is always stupid, crazy, and immoral the other is perfectly correct on all counts – and morally superior. What a bore!
@Alice Teller:
Alice, I have noticed that too.
@daniel:
This brings me back once again to my point about how it’s a waste of time to tell you anything. My first posts in this thread were about how a correct English rendering of Nationalsozialismus should be hyphenated. That really avoids the possibility of confusion about what kind of socialism is meant.
@Hadding Scott:
That’s going to avoid confusion in the public’s eye. Good argument! How incorrigible I am!
@daniel:
One thing that it certainly reduces is the invocation of decades of Hollywood propaganda. When you use the slang-word “Nazi” toward people with whom you disagree, you are not being civil.
@Pierre de Craon:
Why is everyone arguing about German History? What is it that everyone is taking from this? What is relevant today.?
Why do you write in irony? I like reading most of your posts, but dislike dis-respect, when some of us don’t have all the facts at our fingertips. And again, how is it all linked to relevance for today? Or is this just a parade and an interchange/competiton of how much we know?
I can understand and comprehend the speeches of Schmitt, philosophies, idealogies, theologies of German or European Academics, but I do admit, I have trouble understanding some of you here. The beauty of multi-cultural White?
@Hadding Scott:
That is the recognized term for the regime. If it’s being roughly equivalent of “commie” is supposed to be uncivilized, I can disagree for myself and respect the public for maintaining that one. It is known, it is understood. It is not even especially derogatory. They called me a “commie”, who horrible!
@Hadding Scott:
That is the recognized term for the regime. If it’s being roughly equivalent of “commie” is supposed to be uncivilized, I can disagree for myself and respect the public for maintaining that one. It is known, it is understood. It is not even especially derogatory. They called me a “commie”, how horrible!
@European:
I would love to turn attention to matters of today. Fully intend to do just that. But, it seems that there does have to be occasional distinguishing of White nationalists efforts today, from those who would have us to appear like Nazis.
@daniel:
Who are “those”?
This isn’t a realistic reference to anything that happens on TOO. I would love to see the use of this n-word banned here. That would remove the main prop from daniel’s and Justin Speaks’ rhetoric.
@Hadding Scott:
“Who are those?”
Whomever.
@daniel: Baloney. You need to say who “those” are, because it’s really hard to understand, given that you’ve already said that you have no problem with the presentation of Sunic’s piece about Carl Schmitt, who really was, as you would say, “a Nazi,” who even advocated burning Jewish books, which is a big part of the image of “Nazis” to which you refer.
@Hadding Scott:
You are splitting hairs and you are wasting time and precious efforts with minutia about WWII. Don’t bother me.
@daniel: I am not splitting hairs at all and this is not about WWII.
I am calling attention to the fact that if you were a bit consistent with your anti-Nazi mania your main targets here (“those who would have us appear to be as nazis”) should be Tom Sunic for writing this piece and Kevin MacDonald for publishing it. Your main problem is not with me or with Sylvie, but with TOO.
I should clarify that I don’t think there is any such thing here as “those who would have us appear to be as nazis,” except in the imagination of certain people. That word Nazi has a big cloud of fantasy around it, and people that use it constantly are usually not even trying to deal with reality.
@Hadding Scott:
I am not splitting hairs at all and this is not about WWII.
I am calling attention to the fact that if you were a bit consistent with your anti-Nazi mania your main targets here (“those who would have us appear to be as nazis”) should be Tom Sunic for writing this piece and Kevin MacDonald for publishing it. Your main problem is not with me or with Sylvie, but with TOO.
No Hadding, I can explain the distinction clearly. It is just that it gets to the point where it is a waste of time – as others such as European, Alice and more have noted.
Ok. Let me do it. This article did not bother me; it was different from the last article because it was just presenting a statement by Carl Schmitt.
The article of Junger had a comment by Sunic to the effect that there had been large deportation of Germans from the East after WWII and we will see who gets it next time. He has said that in a couple different places now. That is what I thought it called for context; and you began your dishonest charges of Polish chauvinism, various dissimulation, projections and straw man argumentation.
“anti-Nazi mania.” Are you ok, Hadding? MacDonald has said, emphatically, that he does not want this guilt by association, “it is a non-starter, we fought a war against these people.”
Sunic agreed.
With that and all else that they have said, I would say that they are not Nazis. They are are not unsympathetic to the German situation now, and in history, but they are not Nazis, because they can allow for other points of view and for criticism of the Nazi point of view.
You don’t seem able to do that. And you seem intent on dragging everyone into the mud of dissimulation. You have been dishonest in too many instances already for me to bother with.
MacDonald has been clear that he does want association with Nazism. I am not confused and he is apparently not confused either, that an academic discussion of a third reich figure is different from wholesale advocacy of a Nazi position which both you and Slyvie seem to take.
If I am mistaken, and MacDonald does advocate a site that wants to allow only for claims that Germany and the Third Reich are beyond criticism, then I suppose that would be “Nazi”, and he can have the site that is oriented that way. Fine, he can do that, and I’d just go elsewhere.
I should clarify that I don’t think there is any such thing here as “those who would have us appear to be as nazis,” except in the imagination of certain people. That word Nazi has a big cloud of fantasy around it, and people that use it constantly are usually not even trying to deal with reality.
“the imagination of certain people”
As I’ve said, this your line, that people who disagree with you are brain-washed or insane. You have made a convincing argument that Nazism is a valid term. It serves to distinguish between nationalists, socialists, White advocates and those, such as yourself, who are fixated on the notion that The Third Reich were the only folks capable of thinking, the ones who have it right, that they had things perfectly organized and figured out, that anybody who disagrees with that is hysterical, a chauvinist, mentally ill, brainwashed by propaganda etc etc etc, what a bore indeed.
Not sure what is worst, the immorality of your position, its destructiveness to the struggle, or its being a tedious boring waste of time….now a distraction from important cooperation to defend native European peoples…yes, with the German distinction too, as I have said every time (and you call me a Polish chauvinist – you are really absurd).
@daniel:
I didn’t see the interview, but if Prof. MacDonald considers this to be an argument, it is a poor kind, far below the level of the rest of his work.
The answer is obvious:
Yes “we” fought against “these people” … and that is exactly why “we” are now in this mess.
Because actually who won the fight were not “we”, who fought, but “they”, who made us fight against “these people”. And “these people” were the only allies left in the struggle for WN to survive…
@sylvie:
“it is a non-starter, we fought a war against these people.”
(Kevin MacDonald)
Sunic agreed.
“I didn’t see the interview, but if Prof. MacDonald considers this to be an argument, it is a poor kind, far below the level of the rest of his work.
The answer is obvious:
Yes “we” fought against “these people” … and that is exactly why “we” are now in this mess.
Because actually who won the fight were not “we”, who fought, but “they”, who made us fight against “these people”. And “these people” were the only allies left in the struggle for WN to survive…
I think that you are simplfiying his position as he, they were cutting to the chase. I disagree that it is exactly why we are in this mess. I do think that Hitler could have exercised better judgment and that any neighboring nation would rather not have fought Germany, even if they had not been so formidably equipped.
I keep hearing the suggestion that if Stalin had invaded Westward, that all would have stood by as Germany was allowed to be destroyed and ruled by The Soviets. The Poles had already fought off such an invasion from The Soviets – which was heading for Berlin. Western Nations, the US included, could have been expected to taken Germany’s side in that event.
@daniel:
Okay. This is quite an eye-opening admission. Your REAL objection to the Juenger piece was based on how it bears on Polish interests today.
That really has nothing intrinsically to do with national-socialism as a doctrine. Why you keep going on about “Nazis” is beyond me, except that this is rhetorically easier than trying to get people to care about Polish territorial claims.
Again, your main beef is with Sunic, not with me. I guess I’m just a less daunting target.
@sylvie:
Exactly correct Sylvie. Ultimately, it was Zionism, World Jewry, and the International Banking fraternity who ‘won’ the Second World War because, after the United States was finally dragged into the conflict, against all intelligent advice (and via the invitation given to the Japanese to attack Pearl Harbour) it was then fought solely for the benefit of those listed.
Think of all the Zionist entities that were created in 1945/46 as a consequence of Germany’s destruction: (i) the United Nations, (ii) the World Bank, (iii) the IMF, (iv) the International Court in the Hague; etc., etc. Most of these ‘institutions’ were envisaged and desired by Zionists and Communists alike long before World War Two.
Mass immigration of non-whites into hitherto exclusively white nations also commenced shortly afterwards. Had Germany been allowed to defeat the Soviet Union, Europe would be a beautiful place right now, with virtually zero immigration from Africa or the Indian sub-continent.
By destroying Germany (remember that had the war continued on another few months, the Jew-controlled USA had an atomic bomb ready to drop on the heart of Europe) we delivered a very severe wound to the entire White (i.e., European) peoples or race: whichever term you prefer to use.
One of the main conceptual problems you Americans create for yourselves (and then infect the world with) is that you insist on interpreting Judaism as an authentic religious movement.
It is not. Judaism (meaning the mainstream nonsense as practised by so-called ‘Jews’ from Germany, central Europe, and Russia) is simply a vehicle for international organized crime. Nothing more. The Talmud is a toilet bowl of totally insane hogwash.
The archaeological record does not validate Judaism. Even many prominent Israelis have publicly acknowledged that fact. The Torah does not define what passes for Judaism. But the Talmud does.
Judaism represents the ancient worship of Saturn. The “Star of David” is derived directly from ancient Saturnian symbolism. From the hoax (there was never an Abraham, never a David, and never a Solomon) “Star of David” we get the occult symbolism of 666.
The Rothschilds know all about Saturnian worship, which involves engagement in periodic blood sacrifice because that is what they practise. I have seen photographs of certain Rothschild family women wearing Satanic jewellery. Because the Rothschilds bankrolled the creation of Israel, we see this Saturnian symbol adorning the State of Israel flag.
——————————————————-
Some words of advice, and a plea:
People like ‘daniel’ are either here to deliberately foster discord, or are simply idiots completely out of their depth.
As for the character posting as “Jason Squeaks” I have already exposed him as an ‘agent provocateur’ at least 5 times here at TOO. All the evidence you need is in the archives.
The TOO moderators have already acknowledged the problem (twice I think) but seem unable to deal decisively with “Jason Squeaks” due to technical limitations. The TOO website is likely hosted by a Third Party, therefore the TOO moderators do not have access to all the on-line controls needed.
No normal person, with something sincere to say, would post so much and so often as this “Jason Squeaks” character has done. That is why I repeatedly say, he has literally been living on this website. If you think that is normal behaviour, then please justify your belief.
Again, if you doubt my assessment of his true, scurrilous reasons for literally living on this website, then I would urge you to dedicate at least 3 hours investigating the archives so that you can see the frequency with which he has posted, his slimy methodology, and the repeated waves of mayhem he has caused.
My advice (or my plea) to you is to … please stop feeding the monkeys. Doing so would also show respect to other sincere users of this website who are equally tired of certain idiots we have tolerated for far too long.
Angelsachse.
@Anglo Saxon:
The problem with daniel is that he puts Polish interests ahead of everything else, and he finds the perpetuation of World War II propaganda to be convenient for that purpose.
@Anglo Saxon: I would have let it go, but Anglo Saxon is lying, so for the sake of those who may be fooled by him, let me answer his challenge. He dared me to produce the post where he spoke of the death penalty. This was for people who did not believe his particular theory about 911 and was directed at a poster named “Scooter”.
Notice that Anglo Saxon did not dispute my statement, he merely hoped I wouldn’t be able to find it (you can judge by this that he knew he was guilty but hoping the entry couldn’t be found). Below is the last paragraph of the rant in question:
Those claiming 19 Arabs brought down the WTC Towers (and Building 7 about 8 hours later) after hijacking four passenger airliners using just box-cutters and shouts of Allah Akbar, are complicit in a criminal act of unprecedented magnitude. Knowingly, they are accessories to the murder of about 3,000 innocent people, and will be subjected to the same justice that will sooner or later be administered to those in the USA, England, and Israel known to be responsible for this prime-time act of genocide.
This includes the Death Penalty. You have been warned Scooter.
Get that? He is directing that at Scooter and everyone else. He is saying that they will be subjected to “justice”, which includes the death penalty. Then he tells Scooter, he has been warned.
Now, people have all kinds of theories about all kinds of things, and it is quite fair to dispute the official story and engage in debate, but I read what Anglo Saxon wrote as a threat, and I would not take it lightly. Those who are interested can go see the actual post, it is here:
http://www.theoccidentalobserver.net/2011/05/bin-ladens-assassination-wake-me-when-its-over/#comment-35364
You can find it by doing a search for “death penalty”. It will show up, along with me calling him out for his thuggish behavior.
And to provide context for why I find Anglo Saxon so toxic, we need to see some of the things he and a poster named “Mark” wrote in relation to White women. They are both deeply anti-female, in the most violent sense. A female poster named Mary Anne was shocked by their statements, and I have never seen her here again. Mostly likely, she was run off from the site by them.
Mark said:
After a couple of White female race-traitors have been beheaded in this country, and the whole event videotaped and archived, so to speak, by sending the video file to every White Nationalist website and to fora frequented by Whites so that it’s available to view 24/7, you will see an immediate and marked decrease in White female race-treason.
Mark goes on to note that many White women will have to be punished publicly, so that the memory will be seared in the public’s memory. Then he adds that no woman will be allowed to go past high school and they will be completely disenfranchised.
And later, Anglo Saxon chimes in:
We white males need to enforce (as Fathers, Brothers, Husbands, and Boyfriends) maximum discipline upon our drugged-up women…
In the context of this “discussion”, the dread of what he means by “maximum discipline” becomes only too disturbing.
These are not the remarks of a sane man. These are not remarks that will gain a fan base for TOO. You can go to this article and do a search for “beheaded” and find the relevant passages.
@Jason Speaks: Forgive me, having to deal with these repulsive comments by Anglo Saxon and Mark made me forget to include a link to the relevant posts. These is the thread that contained their violent anti-female posts:
http://www.theoccidentalobserver.net/2011/02/romantic-commitments-part-1-2/?show=comments
@Jason Speaks:
“We are told the Anglos were very bad. The French were very bad. The Russians were very bad. The Poles were very bad. And those naughty Scandinavians! So, with a heavy sigh, the poor Nazis had no choice but to invade all of them – simultaneously – they were forced into it, can’t you see!”
Here’s the thing: do Americans run America? Did the British run Britain? Did the French run France? Did the Russians run Russia? The answer to all of these is, of course, no. We shouldn’t confuse governments with their peoples.
@Pierre de Craon:
A simple cost/benefit analysis of conflict today argues in favour of defensive strategies. First, because the cause of defending one’s most loved enjoys legitimacy; no one fights as he who righteously repels the invader. Second, and on a purely utilitarian plane, in an industrial society with a high division of labour, most of the wealth produced is value-added. Sword and sandals days, you could swoop in, grab the wenches and gold, and then decamp, and the whole exercise might prove worthwhile. Fast forward to today, can you imagine invading Japan and conscripting sullen salarymen to pump out Camry’s or Lexus’ to pay for the invasion? What booty could be seized? And at what cost?
So contemporary war is a losing economic proposition for the invader, but so what? Invaders might have deep pocketbooks and bloodlust to match. In that situation, there is no panacea, but radically dissolving the country into millions of angry families, potentially armed, and with no centralized structure to behead seems like a wise way to make the enterprise even more costly than it might otherwise be. There, I’ve just discovered hot water!
@Trenchant:
This is probably why most belligerent powers don’t demand unconditional surrender the way the USA habitually does.
@ Pierre de Craon:
As a postscript, IHR has a good piece on the Allied hunger blockade, post-WWI. Here’s an excerpt:
“On both sides, at the outbreak of hostilities, the populations appeared to be enthusiastic about the war and in a state of euphoria which owed a great deal of its virulence to the glorification of War by the “futurists” in literature and art, as well as by the more rabid nationalists during the first decade and a half of the new century.”
I’ve highlighted the part that seems to warrant attention, but that Weber seems to have missed. Why was it that young, working men eagerly volunteered for war, in a way that never had happened in previous eras? Was it pure coincidence that Bismarck had brought in compulsory State schooling, and many other European countries had promptly emulated him? King and country and all that!
http://www.ihr.org/jhr/v07/v07p231_Hall.html
@European: Sir: You are mistaken in saying that I was writing with irony (though I did use other figures of speech), nor was I being disrespectful—certainly not with regard to “German history,” at least considered as a whole. I was simply complaining about what I regard as the seriously mistaken confusion of appropriate national or racialist fellow-feeling—whether among Germans, among the French, among all Europeans, or among all people of an Occidental background—with the elevation to the level of an ideal of the large unitary state with an immensely powerful ruler. That in short is what the Führerprinzip refers to; it has nothing to do with Germany beyond the mere fact that the most widely used form of the term for the concept is the German-language form.
Do you really think it is disrespectful of me to say that I distrust and indeed fear both the fact of and the tendency to create and maintain huge unitary, imperial states, virtually every one of which was created as a dictatorship or became one very quickly? Please recall that as a deplorable example of the disparaged tendency I cited historians of China, though I could just as easily have pointed to European historians of today who think that the only thing wrong with the EU is that it doesn’t execute enough Christians as thoughtcriminals. Indeed, almost fifty years ago I was reading history and political science that confidently asserted that Europe had a future if and only if it restructured itself along the lines of the USA, and the USA that these historians worshiped was, not the confederation of free states bound primarily by fraternal, racial, and religious affection that arose after the Revolution, but the centralized-by-force post-Civil War “Union” that reduced those once-free states to the status of largely powerless administrative subdivisions.
The minds of the young have been polluted by this centralizing tendency of historical thinking and education—this belief that in the political sphere small is unbeautiful, is indeed hideous—since at least my parents’ youth a century ago (I have the books to prove it). My complaint was simply that this thread and hundreds of others here at TOO display this (as I see it) lamentable and dangerous phenomenon in full flower.
I won’t repeat here what I typed above; so please be kind enough to reread the earlier posted comment in the light of this one. I can’t stop you disagreeing with my opinion, of course, but unless you are prepared to insist that any disagreement with you is inherently disrespectful, there was no disrespect—least of all for Germans—in what I wrote.
@Trenchant: I hope you don’t expect an argument from me, my friend! Permit me to note, however, that having been compelled (by the draft) to carry arms in one of imperial America’s biggest and most pointless wars, I find it almost impossible to separate my private revulsion for such conflicts from more dispassionate analysis, especially that of the Realpolitik variety.
Apropos the quote that is your second paragraph, permit me to recall Brenton Sanderson’s superb recent four-parter about, inter alia, Dadaists and Futurists. Its revelation that the clandestine spiritus rector of these and other “spontaneous” social and artistic movements was the Tribe contributes emphasis and clarification to the point of the quoted matter.
@Hadding Scott:
Anglo Saxon:
People like ‘daniel’ are either here to deliberately foster discord, or are simply idiots completely out of their depth.
“The problem with daniel is that he puts Polish interests ahead of everything else, and he finds the perpetuation of World War II propaganda to be convenient for that purpose.”
Hadding You are a liar. I care about ALL European peoples. I have said it time and again here, consistently and without exception. Because I do not ONLY care about Germans -and Oh, how horrible!, I care about Poles too, now your smear and spam obfuscation strategy is trying to say that I only care about Poles. That is a lie and it is disproved many posts over and without exception. I took issue with that statement by Sunic over a sentence – that does not mean that you, Hadding, are ok by me – Sunic has given me a chance to talk, has tried to promote cooperation among Europeans and has not tried to drive me away from White advocacy, whereas you have continually spammed this site in order to do so.
You are clearly counterproductive to the struggle. Either you are a Nazi, some kind of idiot who thinks that Hitler and the Third Reich was that to which we should all pledge allegiance, or you are an FBI agent. There is no two ways about it.
@daniel:
It doesn’t seem to occur to you that the perpetuation of the caricatures of World War II propaganda is bad for White people everywhere. I noticed that you cloak your Polish chauvinism in a pretense of general concern for others, but in fact you are hurting those others.
@daniel: Jews do the same thing when they manufacture a coalition of disgruntled minorities to support their own specific grievance. Henry Ford noted this already in the 1920s.
* I honestly do like Whites.
Hadding said:
“It doesn’t seem to occur to you that the perpetuation of the caricatures of World War II propaganda is bad for White people everywhere. I noticed that you cloak your Polish chauvinism in a pretense of general concern for others, but in fact you are hurting those others.”
Daniel replies:
No, Hadding, I genuinely like ALL European peoples.
That is the truth. You continually angle to isolate and marginalize me – I suspect that by trying to characterize, to smear me as a “Polish chauvinist”, you can turn opinions, especially Nazi ones, against me.
But your smears are not true. I honestly like all Europeans. I honestly do like Whites.
Hadding,
You live in a kind of hell – it was/is to me – that is not at all of your making. I was born and have lived most of my life in the United States.
Can you imagine that Negroes would be able to take White women? I don’t know how anybody stood for that – at a minimum, they should have been, should be required to live with them and the consequences of their way of life.
People like you and I are looked upon as the bad guys for being against that. That is backwards.
When I was beginning to mature, I had my suspicions, I was always surprised, when I had occasion to talk to Jews, that they were very predictably antagonistic to the interests of native European folks. And I was ready to go right at criticism of them when I attempted to embark upon a graduate career.
Well it was not so easy. People like MacDonald, Sunic, Metzger, the folks at VoR have provided more articulation as to why.
You, Slyvie, The Anglo Saxon, have had your people burned, in some days, literally.
Your women are being given to Negroes. And you are described by Jewish media and academia as the bad guys.
I believe that I understand you. I just wish, that somehow that you could understand that I do not want harm of you, that I want you to be freed of Jews an other non-Whites, other Europeans too, where you might rather not associate with them.
The problem is, I think, that in the pain of this miscegenating, the saturating hell of Jewish propaganda, that you, Slyvie, Anglo-Saxon and myself were born into, your battle position is characteristically Nazi. What is most unfortunate, is that it is unnecessary. Moreover, characterisitic Nazism is what kept me and I am sure, many others away from the struggle, and NOT only because it has been subject to Jewish misrepresentation – but because it is indeed, a position that basically cares about Germans to the exclusion of other European peoples interests.
I wish to look forward to being friends with you, slyvie, with all Europeans who are concerned to defend themslelves against Jews and other non-Whites. And I hope that we can stop talking about World War II. It is not the only interesting subject matter and it is not the important issue now. Why this discussion has emerged important is because somehow we have got to cooperate as Europeans (I include Russians as European derived), to defend ourselves against Jews and other non-Whites. And, when I talk about defending European interests, I always favor maintaining the distinctions of the various kinds of Europeans, though a modicum of intermarriage should not be problematic, rather is likely to be positive.
@Pierre de Craon: (or should it be “de Crayon“?)
I think you are mistaken about centralizing being the main force behind wars and I don’t know where you see it in hundreds of comments here.
Since you refer to the “Führerprinzip” – and Trenchant to Bismarck – you probably condemn the policy to put all German tribes under the same roof.
First, this is not centralizing. All depends on how the united tribes are administered. In the case of Germany, they were largely independent and to this very day, Germany with its Länder structure reflecting tribes, still is the most decentralized country in Europe.
Second, your distinction between “once-free states” and centralized “powerless subdivisions” is highly arbitrary, since the “once-free states” are themselves products of a certain amount of centralizing.
Third, we will soon realize that the WN mouvement will need some form of centralizing, dispersed in a flood of immigrants we will be “exterminated” soon.
Centralizing in itself is not the problem as long as you give a common framework only to people with more or less the same cultural mindset. That’s exactly why the European Union will fail: the Club Med has a different view on spending than the northern states, for example.
@Gregor: I suspect your analogy of the wrecking ball is correct. The Tribe’s control will not go peacefully, but go it must.
@Jason Speaks: We need to take a look back at WWII. The US did NOT win that war. The Jews did, and converted their former control of the German culture and economy to control of the US culture and economy. All with our “tolerant” help.
@Doug: There is truth in that and no one minds examining that period for how the US may have gone wrong. And while we are at it, let’s see how Germany may have gone wrong too, along with England and Europe. But aren’t merely dealing with historians (when it comes to the posters anyway), we are dealing with a fair number of Nazis and German chauvinists, some of whom hate everything about America since its founding and have a serious crush on Islam. They also have contempt for most other Europeans That’s a problem for some of us. If TOO want to cater to that crowd, I just wish they would say so.
Understanding is one thing, thinking ou are going to build a Third Reich in America is worthy of some time in a looney bin.
@Joe Webb: The “Great Levitation”! That deserves a prominent listing in our lexicon!
@Doug: Remind me of this please; did I pen that? O yeah, the Israel launch-pad for the enraptured.
Speaking of such metaphors, the physics phenomenon of Black Holes, those apparent holes in space from which even light cannot escape…due to a Great source of gravity, again, apparently, tempts me to apply the, more like a simile, Black Hole to the Nazi discourse.
Can we escape it and preserve WN as untainted by a hopeless perseveration on the nazi deal in which light (as in enlightenment) is doomed by die-hards who would rather be right than successful in winning, yes, hearts and minds of our people?
Sick of it. Let me put it another way: sex is great but is for the bedroom only.
Joe
@Jason Speaks:
What a caricature! I feel as if I were watching Frank Capra’s Why We Fight series from 1943!
By the way, my understanding is that the n-word that Jason Speaks has been using constantly is no longer freely allowed on TOO. This is progress! That should raise the overall level of discourse considerably.
@sylvie: Thank you for your comments. Clearly, I think you’re dead wrong. And I do know how to spell my screen name.
@Pierre de Craon:
Sorry Sir, the “crayon” was just a joke, I thought you had some humour.
@Hadding Scott:
The reason why the N word should be allowed is because it actually distinguishes nationalism, socialism, White nationalism, and Germans from association with Hitler/Third Reich freaks.
@sylvie: I do.
The brevity of my reply was a function of the fact that any longer answer would only have repeated things I wrote in earlier posts on this thread and several others. (I see no humor in pointless repetition.) I did not think it necessary to underline in detail that I do not agree with your view that my description of the original American states and their colonial antecedents contained “arbitrary” elements—this is a topic I have studied in detail for thirty years—or that what the USA, my native country, needs to deal with the present and future socioracial catastrophe is yet more centralization. The United States is already one of the most centralized nations in the entire history of the world, and it is ruled (and has been for many decades) by executive ukases that are generated at the whim of whoever happens to be the incumbent presidential czar or, what is worse, at that of any of the dozens of sycophantic tyrant-apprentices whom he empowers to write and issue such commands.
I do not see how the self-evidentiary character of this state of affairs could be plainer. I regret sincerely that it is not plain to you, sylvie. Centralization—and the opportunities for effective corruption it presents to monied villains of any persuasion, a fortiori the Jews—is at the root of our long-active dispossession. This hole needs to be filled in, not dug yet deeper.
@daniel:
The problem is precisely, daniel, that you want to designate people as “freaks.” That’s not really civil discourse, is it?
The term National-Socialist, National-Socialism, is accurate and produces no confusion. You don’t have to use loaded propaganda-words if you are interested in honest communication.
@ Sylvie:
Think of centralization from the point of view of the other party, the suborner. Is it going to be easier to get to know intimately and control one politician with an enormous electorate, or two thousand contesting minuscule seats? The latter is a logistical nightmare – expensive and problematic to monitor the myriad “investments”. If you were AIPAC or similar, plenty of money but limited manpower, which would you militate for, devolution or concentration?
@Hadding Scott: But you must realize, that Daniel is interested in attracting a larger group than just National Socialists – he wants to reach the great mass of Whites. After all, the number of actual National Socialists in the entire world is probably less than a few hundred people; he wants to reach tens of millions.
You have staunchly defended the memory and ideology of National Socialism, and you appear to have an intimate knowledge of its arcana, right down to the proper German pronunciation for this term or that phrase. But you are acting almost as if there is no history between America, Britain, France with regard to National Socialist Germany. You must be aware of how hateful the imagery is to them, how much they despise the ideology and how much revulsion they feel on hearing the term “Nazi”. You may not like it, but you are surely aware of it.
If German National Socialism was beaten back in 1945, when it had a strong nation behind it, it stands zero chance today. Not even Germany has any interest in it, so why would it be viable in the nations that fought wars against it? And of course, most people do regard any proponent of National Socialism as a freak, which I am sure you are aware of. Now, you may feel outrage about it, but you must acknowledge that it is true; it is a bit of a PR problem for you. What is your plan for dealing with the vast majority of Whites who will not be as kind as Daniel has been to you?. They will call you much worse than a freak. Will you simply puff up in indignation and tell them they are pronouncing some term without the proper German accent? Good luck with that.
@Jason Speaks:
Your position is extremely ill-considered, if you mean what you are saying.
I had a French girlfriend for a number of years. Her family are old-fashioned conservative Catholics and their attitude toward the German occupation was consistent with that expressed by Professor Robert Faurisson:
That Communist terror became part of the political establishment in France with the Allied conquest in 1944. Without that Allied conquest France would not be overrun with African immigrants today.
@Hadding Scott: I heard a man who was an American fighter pilot in WWII say that he had dinner with an educated couple in France sometime around ’44, and after feeding him, they wanted to know why Americans were bombing so many nice places in France. He told them we had to because that is where the Germans are hiding, but the couple responded that the Germans hadn’t done when they came in. He chuckled about it, telling us he wanted to say to them, “well you didn’t put up much resistance to the Germans”.
It’s well known that many in France supported NS and that should be remembered. Perhaps more importantly, the reasons for that support should be explained. As far the African immigrants in France today, is that truly a result of Allied victory? I’m not disputing it, but it was my understanding that France had decided to ally itself with Arab nations in order to create a counterweight to the US; sadly this policy allowed many immigrants from Arab (and African) countries to immigrate to France.
Does anyone know the source of the France’s immigration policy? Was it related to Allied victory or part of France’s desire to build ties with Muslim world in order to oppose US power.
@Jason Speaks:
That pilot was really a smug jerk, wasn’t he?
@Hadding Scott: No he wasn’t, he was actually a well rounded guy who could see different sides of an event. Why would you call him a jerk? He thought the French were not particularly impressive as warriors, to be honest. He thought they lacked courage, but he didn’t really chastise them that much for it. And remember he was in a war in which his comrades were dying as well.
So out of all that, you just want to call an American WWII veteran a jerk? That is your response? Well, that is your legal right in this country. But, this helps to clarify things for me. I don’t think there will ever be any cooperation between anyone like me and people like you. You are too driven by anti-Americanism.
You didn’t even address the issue of why France truly opened itself up to Arab immigrants. Every time I have tried to have a dialogue with NSist (notice how I walk on eggshells so as not to use the “N” word that may offend you), it ends like this. Same with Anglo Saxon, same with several others. At the end of the day, they hate America, they hate most of the West, and love Hitler, and that’s it.
@Jason Speaks:
and @ Hadding,
Unless you were both there, lived it, breathed the last 100 or so years of Zeitgeist in Europe, you KNOW NOTHING. What you are arguing about is who wrote History, what facts are in, and which have been left out, not to mention the scale of emotions running thru these lands in WWI,( now we also know the mental toll soldiers take from war, much worse then PDSD, chemical war fare, and we do not know all the mental affects that had on a Nation or Soldiers), the pests/plagues & deceases like cholera etc., the great depression with no work in sight, the infra structure and political collapse, the heavy reparation payments that the German Country was plagued with etc. etc. etc. You leave all this out, your facts and fight over words and History means nothing, and EDUCATES NO ONE. When you fracture a people, a nation or a land, or fracture and choose only to see half of what is there, than you come up with a picture that is inaccurate.
My parents lived thru Nazi Germany, but rather religious folks, and so my father did not have to fight, but had to do duty in the Red Cross picking up the wounded. He got a Nazi medal with the Swastika. Does this make him a Nazi?
Just stop fighting over words. Nazi, Nazi, Nazi, if anyone is offended it is just a four letter word. OK! Nazi’s were damaged People or Soldiers coming from WWI. The whole Country was damaged, peoples lives where damaged from WWI, grief, hunger, illnesses, orphaned kids like my father. America knows nothing. You go to other Lands and fight and leave your country in tact. But then 9/11 came, and I am sorry it came. It was much easier flying to Europe before that. (and sorry for the innocent life’s lost) You can’t even remember your civil war, only from books. It is not in your blood. When a Generation has paid in blood, the next generation feels the blood lost. Get this please! Jews have the same feeling. That is what makes us all HUMAN. But they carry it too far… 2000 years past. Ridiculous and agreed! Europeans have hurt feelings too among each other, but much more willing to forgive due to the Christian influence which Jews hate and differ.
So please stop fighting over what some consider we should not say or talk about. Jews have controlled the usage and the charge of words for gains-sake. Stop it this in my opinion. Jason, I am not a fan of your thinking, although sometimes you are right, but not this time. Your fears are ridiculous and your accusations too.
History happens among parties, a natural law or contract has been broken, and then there is war. WHO broke “contract” with people here? If I screw you over, you have the money to sue me, I go to jail. That’s the American way. But after WWI there was no money, the Jews had it and ran. Zionism, Communism etc. etc. piece it all together.
Bed-fellows for too long (opposites living in a country)
It gets complicated.
Did not mean for it to get this long.
@Jason Speaks:
The French lost huge numbers of men in the First World War. It’s probably hard for an American to appreciate that, since U.S. casualties in both wars were quite small by comparison and the war was not nearly as long, nor was it fought on U.S. soil.
The French were defeated easily in 1940 because they were equipped to re-fight the First World War and that’s not how Hitler played it. They were completely beaten so far as regular warfare is concerned, and how much effort or valor the individual soldier might exhibit was irrelevant.
Since Hitler gave France a generous peace there was no compelling reason to try to fight on with sticks and stones. The so-called French Resistance was a bunch of Communists who didn’t mobilize until the USSR was attacked.
The U.S.A. of course was also helping the Communist cause, (beginning March 1941) even before it entered the war.
These are just a few reasons why your pilot friend, as represented by you, is a smug jerk.
For that he should have been angry at his own government for dragging America into war needlessly.
The question is utterly irrelevant. It simply is not conceivable that a Europe under National-Socialist German hegemony would be committing racial suicide like this.
@Hadding Scott: I think there is a way to get people to rethink WWII and WWI, and to see the tragedy of the events (by ALL players on ALL sides), but it will never come to pass if it requires people to spit upon their on soldiers or call them jerks. This is a non-starter. After, all, there was power politics being played by everyone, including the Germans.
Pat Buchanan may have a method that works, that is both patriotic and realistic. I think it is good to point out to people in England and the US, that they fought a war against Hitler only to surrender to Mestizos and Muslims, but if we get caught up in lecturing their 20 year old service man for not committing what would legally have been treason against their own country and joining forces with Uncle Adolf … well again, you just step all over your own message. That gets dismissed immediately.
Are you not familiar with the history of NS in America? It was never anything but a bleep on the radar screen and now it has shrunk to literally nothing. Why are you flogging that dead horse? You have to decide if your primary aim is to change anyone’s mind or is it simply to be a good National Socialist, consequences be damned.
@Jason Speaks:
And of course the U.S. Government has been SO good about safeguarding America and the West.
@Hadding Scott:
Hadding … clearly you are a civil and intelligent man. Nevertheless, I must ask, why do you engage in debate with a known freak writing under the pseudonym “Jason Speaks”??
If I am interpreting your recent responses to this pseudonym correctly, then you seem to be attempting to convince ‘it’ of your (superior) points of view. I can tell you now (as I attempted to hint to “sylvie” earlier) that you are completely wasting your time. You really are. I have witnessed over 20 months of this kind of nonsense involving more than 25 different TOO commenters. It is exactly the same pattern, the same responses, the same counter-responses, every time.
I will say again for the hard of hearing. “Jason Shrieks” is an agent provocateur. You can pretend he is just one person sitting alone in his/her room in front of a computer if you prefer. But you are deluding yourself. Why? Well because all the evidence suggests you would be wrong to assume this.
Someone (or something) is paying “Jason Shrieks” to stay logged-on to this website. Except for short, daily breaks lasting about 8 or 9 hours, this loon monitors the comments section of this website 24/7, and has done since at least November/December of 2009. In an earlier comment I did write 2010, but time flies! I do believe my regular contributions to the TOO comments’ pages actually began in late 2009. Therefore, it is also possible there are two people writing under the same pseudonym (shift work) as it is unlikely one person could keep up such an effort … unless, of course, they were certifiably insane (and paid by somebody/something).
I can also tell you that according to the time stamps normally created by “Jason Shrieks” uploaded comments, whoever is writing them comments is most likely writing from a location outside, and well to the east of the USA. Conceivably a Zionist in London, but could also be someone living in Israel (but not much further east than that).
He/she, and those he/she represents, are absolutely paranoid about seeing any positive discussion here at TOO about inter-war Germany, the Third Reich, NSDAP, National Socialism, and Adolf Hitler. They have expressed this hysterical paranoia each and every time any of these topics come up for civilized and intelligent discussion.
So, why are you engaging with this deranged, Zionist-motivated troll?
@Jason Speaks:
Sorry, but any American that calls French people cowards after all their losses in World War I, which lasted four years for them and was fought on their own soil, is a jerk.
The American habit of bombing civilian targets and then expecting to be viewed as liberators is also pretty jerky. We need to grow up and stop being jerks.
@Anglo Saxon:
No, I get it. I have noticed days ago that he wasn’t really trying to have a reasonable discussion. I ignore most of his BS.
Didn’t you notice just now, though, how awkward it was for him when I brought in a side of the French situation of which he was probably not aware? He switched from trying to evoke pity for the poor French “victims” to calling French people cowards!
@Anglo Saxon: As I understand, all posts using the N-word are moderated now. Short of banning some people, I think it’s a big step in the right direction, because it forces Jason Speaks et al. to try to make their views look credible in ordinary language, which I think is not going to be easy.
@Hadding Scott: And does it not bother you Hadding, to engage in civil conversation with a poster like Anglo Saxon, that spoke of death threats against anyone who disagrees with him and then lied about it? Do you think his conversations with Mark that recommending beheading women on videotapes, is reprehensible? Or is this fine with you, a contributing author to TOO? Do you agree with Anglo Saxon that death penalties should be imposed on people who have different opinions and women beheaded in public?
By the way, TOO would be fully aware that I am inside the United States, since they have my address I assume. I would say to TOO, that if you find the contributions of Anglo Saxon and Hadding to be consistent with your worldview, than you will certainly lose people like me (which is most likely Anglo Saxon’s goal). That may be fine, perhaps this is the direction TOO wants to go in, but you cannot have both. You can either have a shot at reaching a wide audience of Whites, or you can stay with National Socialist crowd that speaks of beheading women. Your choice.
@Jason Speaks:
You’ve been striking that silly pose for a while. If I were in Dr. Kevin’s shoes I’d say don’t let the door hit you in the butt on the way out.
@Hadding Scott: So you endorse Anglo Saxon’s warning to Scooter about the death penalty being used on him? And you endorse imposing “maximum punishment” on women, up to and including the videotaped beheading of females, who people like Anglo Saxon find disobedient? Or can a big bad National Socialist even answer a straight question?
It is irrelevant to question the Hitler/Third Reich Worshippers around here. He/They are flawless.
“The question is utterly irrelevant. It simply is not conceivable that a Europe under National-Socialist German hegemony would be committing racial suicide like this. ”
Since Hitler offered very generous peace to everyone..
No possibility to imagine things otherwise.
It wasn’t like they and their predecessors in WWI had any responsibility for the death of more than 50 million Europeans. No, nothing was there fault. Everyone should have just done what Hitler and Himmler wanted!
@daniel:
Aha, so it’s really Germans in general, not National-Socialists specifically, that you see as the great culprits.
@Hadding Scott:
No it is not, it is the Ns in their context that I see as having significant, but not unshared, responsibility for a tragically flawed plan – hardly beyond reproach.
Notice how Hadding has tried to isolate and pit me against Germans. I am not against Germans. I look upon them as my brothers and sisters.
And that is why the N word is necessary – to distinguish between Germans and “mildly” flawed regime of WWII
@daniel:
FYI there were no National-Socialists running Germany in World War I. You seem be talking out both sides of your mouth.
@Hadding Scott:
FYI,
I obviously knew that when I used the word, “predecessors”:
“their predecessors in WWI” ..
Because The WWI regime was bit “National-Socialist” does not, or should not mean, that I cannot be uncritical of it, as well.
Nor does it mean that there is need to affix present day Germans with the WWI regime. A distinguishing word would server there as well. As most Poles, for example, reject Poland’s feudal era as a flawed regime – they would not want to go under its rubric now.
Correction
FYI,
I obviously knew that when I used the word, “predecessors”:
“their predecessors in WWI” ..
Because The WWI regime was NOT “National-Socialist” does not, or should not mean, that I cannot be uncritical of it, as well.
ReplyReply
@daniel:
Further correction
FYI,
I obviously knew that when I used the word, “predecessors”:
“their predecessors in WWI” ..
Because The WWI regime was NOT “National-Socialist” does not, or should not mean, that I cannot be CRITICAL of it, as well.
@daniel:
So, is it only the guilt-ridden and apologetic Germans that you like?
@Hadding Scott:
No, it is ones that can reasonably allow for counter-argument that I like, ones who can accommodate the well being of all Europeans into the struggle against Jews and other non-Whites. Europeans, i.e. Germans too, neither harming nor being harmed by other Europeans as the strict, orientative rule. You understand the concept. I do no know Germans who have this concept, who are nevertheless very proud and defensive of Germans, even of their historical positions, and I like them just fine.
@Trenchant: You make my point much more vividly than I did. Thank you.
* I do know
plenty
@daniel:
Here we go again with you saying “all Europeans” when what you really mean is Poland.
Some of the nations allied with Germany in World War II: Italy, Croatia, Slovakia, Bulgaria, Finland, Romania, Hungary. Poland certainly could have been on that list too.
It really wasn’t Hitler’s fault that the Poles were so blinded with overinflated national pride that they failed to realize that they must either ally with Germany or be overrun by the USSR, and chose an utterly useless alliance with Britain instead.
Anyway this is all a different question from national-socialism as a political doctrine. There was a “Polish Problem” under the Kaisers too. It’s really the German nation with whom you have a conflict, as your slip-up reference to World War I reveals. Clearly it would bother you if the Germans went back to being their pre-1914 selves just as much as if they went back to being their 1933-1945 selves. So let’s drop the pretense that all your complaining really has anything to do with national-socialism.
It’s apparent to me that the N-word for you is simply a tool to try to keep pre-1945 German nationalism in general from being viewed in other than an extremely negative light.
@Hadding Scott:
Oh my God! What you are saying simply is NOT true.
“Here we go again with you saying “all Europeans” when what you really mean is Poland.”
No, Hadding, I do not only care about Poland, Poles. I like all Europeans, including Germans!!!
Germany is a great nation but it lags far behind Anglo-American civilization in its regard for freedom. I’ve never found anything from Germany 1933-45 aiding me in understanding
us/them dichotomies as over and against the literature arising over centuries from within Anglo-American civilization.
@Alice Teller:
Yes, I very much agree with your comment.
@Alice Teller: Further, to this comment of yours–there are enduring dilemmas in any approach and patience is a big virtue in the obstetrics of insight.