Croatia’s Patron Saints; the House of Habsburg and the Idea of the Reich

Tom Sunic


St. George (engraving) by Albrecht Dürer

What follow is the English translation of my lecture given in the German language for the gentlemen of the Order of St. George, held on September 29, 2012 in the city of Varaždin, Croatia, under the patronage of the House of Habsburg and the crown prince Karl von Habsburg. The speech was subsequently published in the December 2012 issue of the Austrian literary monthly Die Aula.

*         *          *

The word ‘Reich’ (empire) and “the idea of the Reich” have become ugly ideas. In accordance with new politically correct language rules, these words trigger feelings of unease among German and Austrian politicians. If one were to push it further in a poignant manner, one might just as well dispose of the German language altogether. In the United States, but also in England, the word ‘Reich’ reminds many people of something sinister, something threatening, of the proverbial Hitler — and of the Third Reich. Yet the idea of a Reich has a thousand-year long history and one encounters this word in the Weimar Republic and in post-war Western Germany. In fact one could say that the EU bears also some traits of the Holy Roman (German Reich) Empire, or at least should have had them in the first place.

The idea of the Reich is also a question of identity. For a long time this idea was — in a figurative sense — a patron saint of Central Europeans. The word ‘identity’ or the “imperial idea”, however, is not appropriate for deeper social analyses, since these words are ambiguous and may convey distorted meanings.

Advertisement

In Central Europe of yesteryear, during the time of the Danube Monarchy and within the Holy Roman Empire, every city, every village, every estate had its respective patron saint who provided each peasant, each citizen, each knight with prowess and power. In today’s Europe the patron saints are no longer the saints like St. George, or St. Michael, or St. Isidore, but soccer players, filmmakers, Hollywood stars — or the European Central Bank speculators. This was aptly predicted, one hundred years ago, by Oswald Spengler, namely that the rootless citizens of Europe would strive for “second religiousness” (Der Untergang des Abendlandes,  p. 941) (The Decline of the West). Now, instead of the old identities new patron saints or “idols” must be worshiped.  Spengler adds: “To this corresponds in today’s Euro-American world the occult and theosophical swindle, the American Christian Science, the mendacious lounge bar Buddhism, the religious arts and crafts.”

One encounters such “second religiousness” or “substitute patron saints” everywhere in Europe today. Our new patron saints are the reflection of a mindset that comes from America and manifests itself in a particular political moralizing  and fancy feel-good talks. The American political class and their eager imitators in the EU posture today as new patron saints for a new kind of the world improvement.

The idea of the Reich as an Opportunity

The revival of the imperial idea is the best solution for all European nations today. It can be a good remedy against both roolness globalism and chauvinism. In Eastern Europe the interethnic situation continues to be tense. Here are some examples:

  • The national identity of a Polish nationalist, who may otherwise agree on all issues with his counterpart from Germany, such as their common criticism of globalism or their anticommunism and anti-capitalism, is often rooted in his anti-German feelings.
  • One third of Hungarians—more than 2 million people—reside in Slovakia, Serbia and Romania; their national identity is often framed by their rejection of their neighbors.
  • Despite an apparent peace between Serbs and Croats, these similar and neighboring peoples have two completely different historical narratives and two completely mutually hostile victimhoods. In short, Serbs and Croats, despite their astonishing similarity display two radically and mutually exclusive identities. For a Croatian nationalist, it is difficult to become “a good Croat” without first describing himself as a “good anti-Serb”.

After the collapse of the Habsburg Empire in 1918, the imperial idea came to an end. But the era of eternal peace did not materialize. Quite the contrary. Without the Habsburgs, the course of the 20th century soon shifted into fifth gear. The year 1945 was a biological disaster for the Croatian people, but also for countless German-born Croatian citizens who had settled in this area during the reign of Emperor Leopold and the Empress Maria Theresa. Here we are facing time and again a timeless yet useless subjunctive question: What would have happened had the monarchy not collapsed? What would Prince Eugene of Savoy say regarding the present situation inside the gates of Vienna?

The St. George’s Order inherited the legacy of the 14th-century crusaders who opposed the infidels who had pushed their way into Central Europe — of course, not to preach human rights or integration, but rather to impose on Europeans their own values and their own religion. At that time Saint George knights had no intention of acting as world improvers preaching multicultural diversity. Rather, they needed to defend themselves against the incoming Turkish threat. Had the Order of Saint George pontificated about pacifism, the city of Varaždin would look very different today. In a state of emergency, “to live means to kill” as the German writer Ernst Jünger  once wrote. Or, more aptly put, “a free man is a fighter”, as Nietzsche once wrote and as the Croatian volunteers demonstrated 20 years ago during their war of independence.

The Reich, the opposite of the Empire

The idea of the Reich has nothing in common with the idea of the empire, a notion which is to be found in the history of France and England.  And therefore the word ‘Reich’ remains untranslatable, just as its political application should not be confused with the English or the French word ‘empire’. Centralism had always played a major role in the development of the French “empire” — and later on during the birth of modern nationalism. This had never been the case with the Hapsburg Empire where multiethnic, supranational and federal currents had remained for centuries a guiding principle of the ruling elites.

The idea of the Reich excludes rabid nationalism and searches instead for its main goal in the diversity of its imperial peoples. In retrospect, one can see the disastrous legacy left by the nation- state, which has left us, over the last hundred years, devastating civil wars, false national myths, permanent territorial disputes, land grabbing and petty state particularism. In an ideal, yet feasible European future, the revival of the European Reich in Central Europe should be the only solution. This would enable the warring European nations, such as Serbs and Croats, Hungarians and Romanians, Slovaks and Czechs, Poles and Germans to retain their national and territorial sovereignty, to continue upholding their specific identity, and to best accomplish their spiritual endeavors.

But any revival of the idea of the Reich requires unconditionally a new hierarchy of values, values which stand in sharp contrast to today’s liberal values. In today’s egalitarian and economy-driven systems, where money rules and where the sameness of individuals and cultures plays the leading role, the idea of the Reich cannot take root. The Reich not only presupposes a geopolitical large space, but means first and foremost a spiritual and transcendental duty for all its citizens.

Otto von Habsburg was a big proponent of the idea of the Reich—but also of the EU. Yet he was also a strong critic of the EU. Many Eurocrats should learn something from him. Shortly before his death, the Crown Prince Otto von Habsburg made critical comments about the Eurocrats. In an interview given in the Bild daily newspaper, on June 27, 2007, he said: “Take for instance our bureaucratic language. This is a unique language that no one understands. No sane person can decipher a letter from an (EU) authority. From the Empress Maria Theresa comes the beautiful sentence: ‘A law is valid only when the last swineherd from Galicia understands it.’ ”

Instead of Galicia, one can substitute the word “Croatia”. It is no coincidence that at present time half-hearted Croatian diplomats speak not a single word of the German language, speaking instead with their Austrian or Hungarian countermarts in broken English. This is a long way from the Diplomatic Academy founded by Maria Theresa, not to mention the multilingual emperors and generals such as Charles V, Prince Eugene, and Otto von Habsburg. These people were genuine Europeans, in contrast to present day Brussels and Zagreb bureaucrats.

What does the idea of the Reich mean for the Croatian people today? Nothing. Many of them have no idea whatsoever about its meaning. In order to receive a good certificate for their politically correct behavior from the Euro-commissars, present day Croatian politicians must bend over backwards in order to keep their public discourse in line. They use empty words and phrases, such as ‘globalism’, ‘multiculturalism’, ‘European-Atlantic integration’, ‘transparency’, or “free market democracy” — without knowing what these words stand for. In any case most Croatian politicians are contaminated by communism. Shortly before the collapse of Yugoslavia they had raved about the eternity of Titoism. Now they pontificate about the eternity of the EU and liberal democracy. A new form of mimicry, a new form of mental terror has arisen, very similar to the mimicry in the former Yugoslavia, only this time couched in different words.
The EU: the replica of Yugoslavia

The EU Commissars have found good company among the Croatian post-communists. But they were already good friends during the Tito era when Tito was hailed by many Western opinion makers and politicians as the great patron saint of the Yugoslav peoples. Both sides today, be it in the East or in the West, harp on the preservation of the EU because this supranational apparatus greatly resembles ex-Yugoslavia and is apparently slated to cover best the common “un-politics”, especially in the realm of the “transfer union.” Yes, indeed the Germans and the proverbial “Michels” (self-derisory name for the German people. N.B) must pay and pay forever!

The break-up of Yugoslavia and the ensuing war in the Balkans, as well as the rise of extreme nationalism, were a logical consequence of the absence of the idea of the Reich. A state miscarriage, dubbed Yugoslavia, was for 50 years financially kept afloat by the liberal West and also upheld and secured by the communist terror at home. Similar to their predecessors, the current Croatian elites have inherited a solid pedigree from the communist period. Despite their ultra-liberal phraseology they can barely hide their communist convictions. Their rootless morphology, although wrapped this time in diverse modalities, can daily be observed in Croatia.

The Reich of those times, i.e. from the 15th until the 19th century, and its peripheral peoples like Croatians, was not a fun place where one went skinny dipping on some Croatian beach and drank oneself to death 24 hours a day. The entire space stretching from Carinthia to Macedonia was a horror place where one had to exercise military talent in order to survive. Reich citizens in Carinthia described the Turkish hordes which had almost made it to the Alps and nearly reached Venice with the words “runners and fire-setters“ (Renner und Brenner). Incidentally, it would be a wise idea for actual German diplomats based in Zagreb to engage as patron saints in the excavations of the German-Austrian Wehrmacht soldiers. Thy were murdered by the Communists in Yugoslavia in the summer 1945 with their bones still lying behind the hotel “Imperijal” in the town of Rab, on the Croatian island of Rab.

But the idea of the Reich in Central Europe cannot be revived as long as the whole of Europe continues to feed itself spiritually and psychologically on the communist and liberal heritage. Despite the collapse of communism across Eastern and Central  Europe, it is still impossible to bring a single former Yugoslav Commissar to justice. Not a single old Communist in today’s Croatia has been brought to justice for his participation in the crimes against the Croatian people.

*    *    *

In conclusion, one can say that the idea of the Reich offers the best solution for the mutually hostile European nations. Moreover, it is also the best way to preserve their identity. Throughout its history the imperial idea of the St. George knights was never fueled by chauvinism or multiculturalism, or for that matter self- hating motives, which are now common among the political class in Europe.

From the point of view of international law,Croatiahas achieved little with its independence. The country is mentally ill and semi-sovereign, so that 20 years after its declaration of independence, as well as 16 years after the war, one must raise the question what did the Croats actually achieve with their independence.Croatia’s sovereignty is exercised no longer in Belgrade, but in Brussels and in Washington.

There are many parallels among Germany, Austria and Croatia. Geographically Croatia— all the way eastwards to Transylvania — is part and parcel of the Danube basin, which has been fully permeated by the Central European spirit. It is above all the idea of the Reich that has kept the Croats alive until today. In the eyes of Croats,Austria and Germany are not only the most important European countries, but the embodiment of Europe altogether. Granted, small in-between-European nations, like Croats or Slovaks will never play a decisive role in high politics. Whatever happens in Berlin or Vienna will have its effects only on the following day in Croatia. And this has always been the case in Croatia’s history.

For Croats, Serbs, Germans, Hungarians, Romanians, Slovaks and other Central Europeans, the only path to their sovereignty lies in their rejection of petty nationalism, as well as in their throwing off of abstract globalism. The goal for all Croats and all Central Europeans should be their common assertion of the idea of the Reich.

Dr. Tom Sunic (www.tomsunic.com) is former professor of political science and a Board member of the American Third Position Party. He is the author of Homo americanus: Child of the Postmodern Age (2007).

Share:
  • Print
  • Digg
  • Facebook
  • Twitter

171 Comments to "Croatia’s Patron Saints; the House of Habsburg and the Idea of the Reich"

  1. Wayne Young's Gravatar Wayne Young
    December 31, 2012 - 8:56 am | Permalink

    The German word “Reich” comes from the same root as the English word “rich”. What Reich means in this context is really “sovereign economic unit”. So it could be a farm, like the ancient Greek, Germanic and Celtic farms which also were, in those days, kingdoms. In Scotland, there were landless lords of the sea, meaning sovereign economic units based on fishing or sea trade. To have a Reich, or kingdom, you needed to be sovereign and have some kind of way to provide for yourself. And that was what all those Reichs (kingdoms, duchies, etc) were. The country of Sweden contracts its Swedish name, “Sverige” from “Svea Rike”, meaning Swedish Reich. In other words, there is nothing mysterious or magic about the expression “Reich”.

    But what Tom Sunic is talking about is more of an empire, spanish, french and british style. Despite him denying it in the text.

    It seems to me that TS really yearns back to the “good old days” of the Habsburg K.u.K, Königtum und Kaisertum (Kingdom and Empire). Despite all the undeniable qualities of the house of Habsburg, they constitute only a few brains. The beauty of democracy is that many brains, no matter how “untalented” (I’m looking at you, Fender), will inevitably come up with more solutions than a few will. Alas, the unfortunate fact is that a majority of people seem to be intellectually lazy to an amazing degree, which produces the same results as when you’re stupid, therefore they’re more than happy to let someone “take care” of them. Just like prostitutes do. IQ has nothing to do with economic prosperity, at least so says Mensa, whose members range from homeless bums to professors.

    Assuming that an emperor is always wise and just, a Reich would perhaps be a good idea. But what if the emperor isn’t? Open up your history books and read up on the emperors of Austria and Germany before and during WW1, and you will realize that this Reich is not a very good idea. It is sometimes quite contrary, a very, very, bad idea. That may be why it is abandoned everywhere. Even in Japan, the last formal empire in the World, the emperor is powerless.

    Even without an emperor, an empire is a sick puppy. Just look at the empire called USA. The present question is not when will this empire build a colony on Mars, but rather when will it crumble. Just play with the idea that the USA would invade and conquer Mexico. Would that be something good?

    Leave empires be. The best solution is to let the peoples of the world live in nation-states, like enlarged families. Also, there is no “white” nation. And should other races suddenly disappear from the face of the Earth, rest assured that the remaining white race would very soon partition itself into warring and quarreling fractions, like Poles and Germans, Swedes and Danes, or Croats and Serbs.

  2. Will Fredericks's Gravatar Will Fredericks
    December 24, 2012 - 1:49 pm | Permalink

    @Fr. John+:

    Interesting blog, Fr. John. I wonder how well you know that better known Orthodox cleric, especially to our sensibilities, <a href="Brother Nathaneal

    The Serbs are Orthodox, the Croats RC. And the Bosnians/Albanians are merely the Muslim crows looking to feast on the carcasses left over, after these two destroy each other, every half-century or so. It also needs to be reminded that the Croats sided with the NAZIS, while the Serbs sided with the ALLIES. Now, who’s our friend, and who’s our enemy? Or don’t Ustashe ‘crimes against humanity’ (both then, and now!) matter to Sunic, or y’all ?

    Croats or Serbs, RC or Orthodox, (or for that matter Nazis or Allies)freundor fiend? I do appreciate your religious perspective, but on Nationalist forums bring in old balkan/eastern europe internicine ethnic blood feuds seldom leads to good. Time to bury the hatchet.

  3. John IX Neologos's Gravatar John IX Neologos
    December 23, 2012 - 1:53 am | Permalink

    “We know that G_d is on our side, for we have told Him so.”

  4. December 21, 2012 - 8:21 am | Permalink

    Most of the commenting on this article, is seemingly nothing but statisticians lobbing their own personal tennis balls back and forth (between other statisticians): Nazi/Soviet, Russian/German, Slav/Teuton, Reich/Kingdom, Jew/Christian, etc..

    What I wonder that no one seemed to bring up, is that the religious element between RC Croats (enshrined in Sunic’s paean to Croat barbarism from before WWI onwards in this article) and the clearly premeditated religious insult in the Serbian nation’s demolition recently, at the hands of an Adulterous “Bubba” President, and two ‘hidden’ Jews, [Albright, Kanne/Clark]
    is not mentioned at all. It was Clinton et al. that launched their NATO offensive (what a descriptive word!) on Orthodox GOOD FRIDAY- clearly, the Jews’ wanted to ‘stick it to the Orthodox’ while the West/Catholic nations, didn’t get the ‘date fixing’ from the Deicides, for their carnage against the Orthodox nation of Serbia.

    The Serbs are Orthodox, the Croats RC. And the Bosnians/Albanians are merely the Muslim crows looking to feast on the carcasses left over, after these two destroy each other, every half-century or so. It also needs to be reminded that the Croats sided with the NAZIS, while the Serbs sided with the ALLIES. Now, who’s our friend, and who’s our enemy? Or don’t Ustashe ‘crimes against humanity’ (both then, and now!) matter to Sunic, or y’all ?

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_War_II_persecution_of_Serbs

    Notions of a ‘Holy Roman Empire’ are moot to the Serbs- for Holy Orthodoxy historically (and, I think, correctly) views Catholi-schism as nothing more than the Whore of Babylon, sleeping with whatever Western European country promises more $$$. For that is what whores do….

    I found Sunic’s article insulting in the extreme, primarily because it both tacitly ignores the other 4/5ths of Christendom, as well as all of history, in that his speech to a nation complicit in genocide of Serbs, also presumes to assume that the Western paradigms about ‘Holy,’ ‘Roman,’ and ‘Empire’ belong… to them alone!

    Orthodoxy- the East- Byzantium (which includes Russia in this discussion) has a far better case for their own justification in this arena- for Orthodoxy believes that THEY are the only ‘ROMAN Empire’, and that their “Reich” is the real one, that DID last 1000 years (from roughly 476- when Augustine wrote City of God, about Western Rome’s dissolution, to 1453, when Byzantium [Constantinople] fell to the Turks).

    All of this blather about what does ‘Reich’ mean, and who/what were Communists in Soviet Russia, could be easily solved, if you merely looked at Orthodox hagiography of the period, or read Solzhenitsyn’s Two hundred Years Together- except that, short of the Barnes Review condensation authored by John de Nugent, no American/British publisher will touch it, ‘for fear of the jews.’

    The west cannot claim either ‘holy’ or ‘roman,’ due to the C of R’s defection from Orthodoxy, over a millennium ago. And the simple answer to the Nat Soc. slogan, ‘Ein Reich, Ein Fuehrer’ is merely to re-assert the claims of Christian Europe once more, apart from the babel-like EU (please!) which is needed even more, in an increasingly satanic era of bastard mulattoes as rulers of racial revenge in the USA, and Turks overrunning all of Europe.

    ‘Ein Reich’- Christendom, for Europe, by Europe, found in Europe’s peoples, alone.
    ‘Ein Fuehrer’- Christ, the incarnate Son of the Living God.
    ‘Ein Vaterland’ – Our historic lands; Serbia for the Serbs, Croatia for the Croats, Germany for the Germans, and Russia for the Russians, and America for English-speaking protestants, as it was designed to be.

    (For the record, I am an Orthodox cleric, who was raised RC, and have no slav ancestors. I’m actually a Celt, so I don’t ‘have a racial dog in this race’- other than that of truth.)

  5. Will Fredericks's Gravatar Will Fredericks
    December 21, 2012 - 1:55 am | Permalink

    @The Admiral On Horseback:

    I would actually mind if Fender or other NS types walked over cliffs… They are racial comrades after all, and racially conscious ones at that. I certainly wouldn’t wish the death of any White person for his beliefs.

    First let me assume you mean wouldn’t wish the death of any racial comrade/White person for his beliefs, otherwise you could be referring benignly to the likes of Morris Dees or Lavrentiy Beria. As the the NS types, they certainly don’t feel the same way about the other “racial comrades” at least here or at A3P. Linder is constantly saying the movement (i.e. his movement) can go forward until these other paleoconservatives (people like Buchanan, Jerod Taylor, Samuel Francis, anybody else who isn’t a NSer, is destroyed in career and political sense. (Check the VNN link, it isn’t working right now as I write this)

    I also don’t think Fender wishes others to walk over cliffs for him.

    I don’t know about him, but certainly the NS leaders basically seem to be saying that. They’re path is steadfast on refusing to allow or support any possibility of effective – nonviolent change. In fact any way but their way

    I’m not sure how serious he is about the mass suicide of all Germans, or how much he would advocate such opinions if he were in a situation like Germans in 1945. I personally don’t take these kinds of opinions too seriously, but even if you take them seriously, they are just opinions, which could change.

    I take the sentiments pretty seriously, just because they are what I’ve generally found to be dominant among NS types, which is one of ill will toward any group of people who do measure up to their imagined standard of what white activists should accomplish. The almost unimaginable sacrifices (at least by our standards today) that the German people made in support of Hitler ‘s quixotic path are of course deprecated. One can’t be of any use to the white activist movement overall as long as he carries such rigidly negative attitude toward others, and such an attitude is the dominant them of NSers as it defines itself today re: Linder and co. and sympathizers.

  6. The Admiral On Horseback's Gravatar The Admiral On Horseback
    December 20, 2012 - 1:43 pm | Permalink

    @Will Fredericks: I would actually mind if Fender or other NS types walked over cliffs… They are racial comrades after all, and racially conscious ones at that. I certainly wouldn’t wish the death of any White person for his beliefs.

    I also don’t think Fender wishes others to walk over cliffs for him. I’m not sure how serious he is about the mass suicide of all Germans, or how much he would advocate such opinions if he were in a situation like Germans in 1945. I personally don’t take these kinds of opinions too seriously, but even if you take them seriously, they are just opinions, which could change.

  7. Will Fredericks's Gravatar Will Fredericks
    December 19, 2012 - 11:27 am | Permalink

    @Rupert:

    What is the NSM?

    National Socialist Movement (Broadly speaking, I think there also was a group with that name)

    Would you agree that Europe was murdered by the English?

    ? :S

  8. Rupert's Gravatar Rupert
    December 18, 2012 - 8:25 pm | Permalink

    @Will Fredericks:

    Would you agree that Europe was murdered by the English?

  9. Rupert's Gravatar Rupert
    December 18, 2012 - 8:22 pm | Permalink

    @Will Fredericks:

    What is the NSM?

  10. Will Fredericks's Gravatar Will Fredericks
    December 18, 2012 - 7:04 pm | Permalink

    @fender:

    Ideas – what ideas? Killing everyone who disagrees with you is hardly an idea,”

    Is that what you think NS Germany was about?

    Yes, that’s exactly what it was about, or at least where it evolved to under Bormann. That was the only policy it executed rationally and efficiently. That seems to be the “logical” result of its development over the years, what Hitler had allowed it to be reduced to under Bormann.

    In fairness to some of the early writers associated with National Socialism and even National Socialist leaders like Himmler, Goebbels, and Goering, that was not entirely their idea. The early writers and their coherent ideas whom the NSDAP paid passing deference early on, like Moeller and Othmar Spann, were eased out by Himmer and co. Himmler and Co were in turn eased out by Bormann. Leaving killing as the NSDAP’s only principle.

    The principle that seems to have retained by its successor organizations and figures.

    Politics is just a speech-skin on the killing you see in the animal world. The real thing is killing in order to assert dominance. That’s the bloody bottom line that is disguised in all the talk about democracy and rights.
    Alex Linder: VNN Forum

    “Third Reich nostalgizers are typically no better at military science than political science, re: the typical conclusions that blame Hitler”

    It’s one of the few things I agree with mainstream historians on when it comes to WWII.

    Some agree, some disagree.

    “Odd, for a movement that so exults the twin themes of fuhrerprinzip and military greatness, that there is so often the willingness to call the fuhrer a military idiot.”

    Waiting until June to invade the USSR, wasting airplanes in pointlessly terror-bombing England, and not getting his Panzer divisions to Normandy fast enough were colossal disasters.

    I thought everyone knew why the invasion was delayed until June, that was because of the diversion of the Yugoslavian war. The Battle of Britain was perfectly sound, it was just too difficult to pull off. What happened at Normandy was the result of superior Allied intelligence.

    “Great conquerors and empire builders like the Mongols and Romans have always excelled in this key component – turning conquered enemies into useful and usually valuable and functioning parts of the empire. In this regard the Germans were utterly irresponsible and primitive.”

    The Germans didn’t have time for empire building. When they conquered a territory they had to move on to get the ultimate goal, which was the USSR. It was a race against time.

    When the Romans invaded Northern Europe all they faced were small, disorganized tribes. There was no power in Europe to match them, so when they conquered territory they could easily devote time and resources to maintaining their presence there.

    WWII was different. It was Germany vs. the USSR with a lot of little countries in between. The Germans couldn’t afford to waste time devoting troops and resources into building up conquered territories, not while Stalin was throwing together the biggest army the world had ever seen.

    Race against time? It was a problem the Germans created because they could not efficiently manage their empire. If they had been able to, time would have been on their side, not the Soviets. And remember the beating the “biggest army the world had ever seen” took at the hands of Finland. It’s a complicated subject for sure, but you’re oriented wrong.

    “They managed to turn even the most sheep-like of subjects like the Czechs into fierce resistance fighters.”

    The Czechs certainly aren’t sheep. In fact that’s why I included them in my posts about Central Europe being the best hope for the continent in general.

    They were sheep early on in WWII. There was no Czech resistance – until they managed to provoke the Germans into the massacre at Lidice.

    As to their being the best hope of Central Europe today – you really are grasping at straws. LOL

    “The ubermenschen ideology (actually more of just an attitude) of the Third Reich squandered all its potential sources of delivery and left it all to the Army to rescue it from its follies – something the Army was just not humanely capable of doing.”

    The ubermenschen idea had nothing to do with how the German army waged war.

    You’ve broken away from the mainstream historians in saying that, or for that matter the NSM, then and now.

  11. Trenchant's Gravatar Trenchant
    December 17, 2012 - 1:31 am | Permalink

    @The Admiral On Horseback: It would be interesting to have some articles on the gypsies, too, as they seem to be a carbon copy of the Jews’ social order, albeit at the low end of the threat continuum.

  12. Razvan's Gravatar Razvan
    December 16, 2012 - 4:29 pm | Permalink

    @mari:
    Why Germans attacked Poland? This is a huge question. I don’t know so much about the history of the region. Maybe someone can explain these.

    My humble opinion is that it might have to do with the simple question of “who was there at first?” The Germans, the western Slavs, the denationalized Baltics. The lebensraum principle of NSDAP didn’t solve the issue but seemed arbitrary and unjust. It’s a two thousands years history, proud peoples and some jews to exploit the inevitable animosities.

    Now depends on how wise these peoples will be to overcome the history and the jewish intrigue. Anyway, whitewashing the Habsburgs is not the right thing to do. At least until the connection between the dynasty and the Rothschilds is not completely understood.

  13. Sir Tristram's Gravatar Sir Tristram
    December 16, 2012 - 3:11 pm | Permalink

    @Alice Teller: “Lee in the Mountains” is probably the best conjuration of the Man Against Time that we have in the United States. Davidson was perhaps even more prophetic than Calhoun. There are many gems in the cavern of his imagination. He wrote another one that resets the score called “Fiddler Dow.” You’ll have to check that one out some time. Cheers and Merry Christmas.

  14. fender's Gravatar fender
    December 16, 2012 - 2:05 pm | Permalink

    @Will Fredericks:

    “Ideas – what ideas? Killing everyone who disagrees with you is hardly an idea,”

    Is that what you think NS Germany was about?

    “Third Reich nostalgizers are typically no better at military science than political science, re: the typical conclusions that blame Hitler”

    It’s one of the few things I agree with mainstream historians on when it comes to WWII.

    “Odd, for a movement that so exults the twin themes of fuhrerprinzip and military greatness, that there is so often the willingness to call the fuhrer a military idiot.”

    Waiting until June to invade the USSR, wasting airplanes in pointlessly terror-bombing England, and not getting his Panzer divisions to Normandy fast enough were colossal disasters.

    “Great conquerors and empire builders like the Mongols and Romans have always excelled in this key component – turning conquered enemies into useful and usually valuable and functioning parts of the empire. In this regard the Germans were utterly irresponsible and primitive.”

    The Germans didn’t have time for empire building. When they conquered a territory they had to move on to get the ultimate goal, which was the USSR. It was a race against time.

    When the Romans invaded Northern Europe all they faced were small, disorganized tribes. There was no power in Europe to match them, so when they conquered territory they could easily devote time and resources to maintaining their presence there.

    WWII was different. It was Germany vs. the USSR with a lot of little countries in between. The Germans couldn’t afford to waste time devoting troops and resources into building up conquered territories, not while Stalin was throwing together the biggest army the world had ever seen.

    “They managed to turn even the most sheep-like of subjects like the Czechs into fierce resistance fighters.”

    The Czechs certainly aren’t sheep. In fact that’s why I included them in my posts about Central Europe being the best hope for the continent in general.

    “The ubermenschen ideology (actually more of just an attitude) of the Third Reich squandered all its potential sources of delivery and left it all to the Army to rescue it from its follies – something the Army was just not humanely capable of doing.”

    The ubermenschen idea had nothing to do with how the German army waged war.

  15. Lombard's Gravatar Lombard
    December 16, 2012 - 2:04 pm | Permalink

    @Jason Speaks:
    I agree on White countries definitely but Europe is a different beast. Right now, there is less than 10% immigrants and already the issue is on a knife edge. Even the ZOG-bot leaders have been forced to concede that it’s a problem. Blood and soil is still a strong concept no matter how many Jews scream out. The Muslim numbers are interesting but there is a clear identity separation maintained. The main difference is that there is very little self-justified hatred toward the host populations just because they have white skin or anything like the problem you see in America.

    Anyway, my only real point is that whites can do far more in terms of actual media creation for the cause and Jews can do little to stop it.

  16. The Admiral On Horseback's Gravatar The Admiral On Horseback
    December 16, 2012 - 11:33 am | Permalink

    @Jason Speaks: Hungary doesn’t need new non-Whites. Our fertility rates are incredibly low, but fortunately there’s a 10% non-White minority called Gypsies (they were probably around 1% just after WW2), who are fruitful and multiplying at a very fast rate, probably in a few decades they will be a third or more of the population. Same thing for Slovakia. I don’t know much about Romania or the Czech Republic in that respect, but the situation is probably similar to that. In Poland there are less Gypsies, but I’m sure they’ll come up with a Final Solution to the Polish Question very soon.

  17. The Admiral On Horseback's Gravatar The Admiral On Horseback
    December 16, 2012 - 11:28 am | Permalink

    @Lombard:

    The more precise definition for the enemy agenda is Anti-white American.

    Then why are they pressing for more Arab and African immigration into Norway or Sweden? Why are they attacking anti-immigrant Finnish and Greek parties as “neo-N*zi”? (Which already answers the question which comes up here and there whether Greeks are or are not Whites. Well, the enemy thinks they are.)

  18. Will Fredericks's Gravatar Will Fredericks
    December 16, 2012 - 9:55 am | Permalink

    @Jason Speaks:

    I’ve noticed that NS and AH types are often mystics of one variety or the other. They rather resent things like rational calculation, being quite proud of their willingness to walk off a cliff to certain death, with no reward for them or their people, just to show they would do it. Actually, there seems to be the spirit of wanting the whole enterprise to fail, which speaks to the nihilism you mentioned.

    I really wouldn’t mind their walking off cliffs, but in practice it seems tohey rather expect other people to walk off cliffs for them. LOL

  19. Jason Speaks's Gravatar Jason Speaks
    December 16, 2012 - 8:19 am | Permalink

    @Lombard:

    Oh and your mantra only has legitimacy for Europeans. The more precise definition for the enemy agenda is Anti-white American. Most international Asians, Africans, Arabs, South Americans have a healthy respect for Europe’s accomplishments and their people. The problem for ‘colonial’ whites is far more difficult since America has encouraged ‘rootlessness’ and ‘atomization’ for so long.

    But it is every single White country that is being pressured to take in massive non-White immigrants and forced to assimilate with them, not just some. Some projections show Europe as half Muslim in less than 50 years. And America will less than half White in just 25 years. The majority of immigrants to Australia are non-White.

    Pressure is always present for Russia and Eastern Europe to take non-Whites. Canada has already taken huge numbers – to the point that parts of Canada no longer look like Canada.

    So this is effecting all Whites everywhere. It is a systemic, targeted push to flood ALL and ONLY White countries with non-Whites, force assimilation, and destroy the White societies.

    If every single Black African country was being flooded and forced to assimilate with non-Africans to the point where there would not be one single majority Black African country on earth in 50 years, EVERYONE would call it genocide. The anti-Mantra pro-Whites are amazingly dense on this point.

  20. The Admiral On Horseback's Gravatar The Admiral On Horseback
    December 16, 2012 - 6:16 am | Permalink

    @fender: I haven’t seen the movie, but I suspect that here you have a very strong point.

  21. The Admiral On Horseback's Gravatar The Admiral On Horseback
    December 16, 2012 - 6:11 am | Permalink

    @fender: No, the Germans didn’t act out of vengeance, at least that was not the bulk of their cruelty towards Soviet POWs. It might come as a surprise to you but the German military was among the most disciplined in the world. Yes, when German soldiers stumbled upon mutilated corpses of their own comrades, they often acted with outrage, but these cases were far and few between. The most obvious reason for this is that the Soviets captured very few German soldiers, especially compared to the huge masses of Soviet soldiers surrendering to the Germans. Even if German soldiers killed one Soviet POW for every German POW (hardly likely, since not all German POWs were found by their comrades, and even when found, sometimes they didn’t have Soviet POWs at hand to retaliate, and even when they had, sometimes they simply beat them up but didn’t kill them), at least 95% of Soviet POWs should have reached POW camps, which they in fact did.

    Anything that happened in the POW camps was a question of cold calculated policy (or the lack of it), and not of some soldiers acting from understandable outrage.

    Since many scholars agree the Soviet Union was on the verge of collapse in late summer or early fall of 1942, the question arises whether it was a wise thing to stiffen up the resolve of Soviet soldiers by continuing a policy which in fact led to the death and suffering of very large numbers of them, and which in turn boosted the morale of their still fighting comrades, who in fact kept fighting for a leader they wasn’t exactly enthusiastic about. Was it worth it? Was it at the very least a mistake?

  22. Trenchant's Gravatar Trenchant
    December 16, 2012 - 5:19 am | Permalink

    @Will Fredericks: Therein lies the problem of all socialisms. When there exist no genuine money prices, all coherent economic allocation is impossible. To the extent that the prices are dictated by the State, resources get allocated by political priorities and low order priorities (das Volk!) go wanting.

    Folks got to eat margarine and ersatz coffee so autobahns could go up. Volkswagen they were not.

  23. Lombard's Gravatar Lombard
    December 16, 2012 - 5:01 am | Permalink

    @Jason Speaks:
    Of course AJ isn’t pro-white but that’s my point. He has a method for herding your target audience and nobody is prepared to learn from it. Do you know how many self-made amateur documentaries are made in the alternative/conspiracy sphere every year? Compare this to the pro-white crowd who thinks that bombarding message boards and comment sections is some noble pursuit.

    The fact that you couldn’t take any racial pride/joy in those films I mentioned leads me to believe that your conception of pro-white is simply anything that antagonizes blacks/latinos/jews. You and Fender to seem to think a good white film is some ‘reverse Inglorious Basterds’ where White Men just run around massacring non-whites. I’m afraid the non-white world isn’t as sensitive as you think.

    Recently on this website, a film called ‘Flight’ was considered anti-white because Denzel Washington played a pilot!!!! Compare this to LotR which most of the world enjoys, despite it being a story about Whites fighting off the brown horde. Now imagine a film where Blacks and Natives team up, using their voodoo and spears to launch a reconquista of the world and put all whitey back in their little corner. Now that’s Anti-White!!

    Oh and your mantra only has legitimacy for Europeans. The more precise definition for the enemy agenda is Anti-white American. Most international Asians, Africans, Arabs, South Americans have a healthy respect for Europe’s accomplishments and their people. The problem for ‘colonial’ whites is far more difficult since America has encouraged ‘rootlessness’ and ‘atomization’ for so long.

  24. Jason Speaks's Gravatar Jason Speaks
    December 16, 2012 - 2:17 am | Permalink

    @Will Fredericks:

    I’ve noticed that NS and AH types are often mystics of one variety or the other. They rather resent things like rational calculation, being quite proud of their willingness to walk off a cliff to certain death, with no reward for them or their people, just to show they would do it. Actually, there seems to be the spirit of wanting the whole enterprise to fail, which speaks to the nihilism you mentioned.

  25. Jason Speaks's Gravatar Jason Speaks
    December 16, 2012 - 12:37 am | Permalink

    @Lombard:

    Alex Jones isn’t pro-White, any more than Rush Limbaugh. Having a large White audience doesn’t make you pro-White. Rush had an exclusively White audience, yet he spent the last 20 years telling people that mass immigration was a good thing.

    Imposing terminology, which is one thing the Mantra tactics do, is powerful. I’ve noticed that the people who don’t get the Mantra, look at it very superficially. As if it were merely a strategy of posting a message repeatedly. However, mainstreaming a term like ‘anti-White’ can be more powerful than several books on the topic. Neologisms always signal a cultural shift (does using a polysyllabic term like ‘neologism’ make it sound more credible?). When people hear a new term, or phrase, they are forced to stop and ask what it means. It represents a new concept, integrating a new set of concretes that they have never considered before.

    Even a new term for something old can be a harbinger of a cultural change. Remember when the phrase “gay” was being mainstreamed? Before that they had always been homosexuals or “queers”. Imposing new terminology, an aggressive act, almost always changes the way people view things (there can be exceptions).

    In the case of the phrase “anti-White”, it wakes people up, often for the first time in their lives that someone could even be against White people. It’s a bit like the origin of the term “anti-Semite”. That term hasn’t always been around either. It was invented sometime in the 1860s. It was a tool used by Jews to stigmatize their opponents (or whoever they wanted to marginalize). So to this day, when someone says something critical of Jews or Israel, the first thing many people think is, “oh he’s anti-Semitic”.

    In this case, the term ‘anti-White’ is quite legitimate. We have comedians joking about the mass killings of Whites on TV. We have restrictions against ONLY one group of people organizing politically – Whites. We have ONLY one type of country targeted for mass immigration – White. We have ONLY one people whose history is categorically condemned as evil in every school – Whites. I’m not going to make the full argument, but you get the point that anti-White is a legitimate term.

    And so the Mantra goes through on a very high level and hits all the major points of how Whites and ONLY Whites are targeted for destruction, how every time someone claims to be “anti-racist”, that is really just a codeword for being anti-White. I’m not going to go through the whole thing, to explain it all in detail, because it would require chapters.

    Suffice it to say, it’s a wee bit more sophisticated then its critics seem to fathom.

  26. Will Fredericks's Gravatar Will Fredericks
    December 15, 2012 - 9:50 pm | Permalink

    @Jason Speaks:

    Today’s Germans are cowards, the offspring of the weaker Germans who preferred to endure the shame of denazification rather than do the honorable thing and take their own lives.

    That is extremely harsh. The world would be better off and Germans more “honorable” if they had committed mass suicide? You can’t meant that

    I’m sure you’re joking, when you say “you can’t mean that”. Nihlists always mean what they say, unless its something well thought out or just nice. But you can definitely feel the love. Pretty soon all this nihlist love for the white race will be turned on the white race, the same way Hitler turned on the Germans at the last (the reason there isn’t much widespread sympathy for Hitler, and so much hostility toward his sympathizers today, in Germany)

    In a way its a pity. Though. If you could just take that phrase from that stupid 60′s hippy song “let there be peace on earth, and let it begin with me”, substitute “mass suicide” for “peace” and give to to the present day NSM like VNN and SF and their sympathizers, they might for once do their race some good.

    A better strategy (albeit difficult) would have been for them to surrender a couple years earlier when it was obvious they couldn’t win, and keep more Germans alive.

    I.e., the strategy of Project Valkyrie, i.e. Colonel Claus von Stauffenberg and company. If people really wanted to trouble the establishment, they’d look to people like them instead of psychopathic idiots like the NSM.

  27. Will Fredericks's Gravatar Will Fredericks
    December 15, 2012 - 9:24 pm | Permalink

    @fender: @fender:

    The mistakes the National Socialists made during WWII were tactical mistakes, not philosophical ones. Their cultural, racial, and aesthetic ideas were mostly sound. I say mostly because all mass ideologies have their shortcomings.

    Ideas – what ideas? Killing everyone who disagrees with you is hardly an idea, its just a primitive, negrified instinct,(maybe why I have always been aware of a significant undercurrent of sympathy for Hitler among blacks. Call it the Idi Amin syndrome. ) The “mistake” Hayek points to “to regard National Socialism as a mere revolt against reason, an irrational movement without intellectual background” (http://national-socialist-worldview.blogspot.com/2012/03/brute-force-and-idea.html )is in fact proper.

    All mass ideologies have shortcomings? Maybe Hitler and Stalin, and Mao, in Hell, will conduct a joint defense “Hey, nobody’s perfect” LOL

    We can condemn the N*zis for not being nice enough to the conquered peoples, but what difference would it have made? The success or failure of the war depended solely on the German army and its ability to win battles.

    Third Reich nostalgizers are typically no better at military science than political science, re: the typical conclusions that blame Hitler

    Unfortunately Hitler, while a genius as a domestic leader, was a piss-poor commander.

    Odd, for a movement that so exults the twin themes of fuhrerprinzip and military greatness, that there is so often the willingness to call the fuhrer a military idiot. And really on a limited scale he wasn’t. Kilzer is just one of the last of writers I’ve read who’ve pointed out Hitler’s military advice just was making the best out of a bad situation, and often did pretty good toward that end.

    The German army’s failures weren’t of execution or even of strategy, especially with the following caveat’s about strategy. They were fundamentally about a complete breakdown of the Third Reich regarding the two most critical things in modern warfare, resources and intelligence. Regarding intelligence, not many strategies will be successful if the enemy knows as much and as soon about your strategizing than your friends, as was the case with the Russians.

    Regarding resources, this is where the German model completely failed. By November 1941, they were practically an order of magnitude of greatness in superiority regarding their the Allies in resources, (even counting U.S. aid) if they could have properly counted and used all their material and human resources in occupied Europe at their disposal. Instead they managed to turn these resources into net liabilities overall, and primitive Russia _lacking 30 percent of its population to boot – actually outperformed the Third Reich in key areas like Tank and artillery production.

    Great conquerors and empire builders like the Mongols and Romans have always excelled in this key component – turning conquered enemies into useful and usually valuable and functioning parts of the empire. In this regard the Germans were utterly irresponsible and primitive. They managed to turn even the most sheep-like of subjects like the Czechs into fierce resistance fighters. The ubermenschen ideology (actually more of just an attitude) of the Third Reich squandered all its potential sources of delivery and left it all to the Army to rescue it from its follies – something the Army was just not humanely capable of doing.

  28. fender's Gravatar fender
    December 15, 2012 - 7:12 pm | Permalink

    @KT:

    Just read it. It’s wrong.

    “Tarantino’s Jewish characters are one-dimensional, inhuman monsters.”

    That’s not how Tarantino and the masses see it. They see the jewish characters as badass warriors who don’t give a damn about the rules of war, and are giving them evil Nawtzees what they deserve.

    “The Jewish Basterds are all as ugly as Der Sturmer cartoons. ”

    Of course, they’re played by jewish actors.

    “They have virtually no lines in the entire movie.”

    They don’t need any. Tarantino wants them to kill Germans and nothing more.

    “Hans Landa claims that he is effective at hunting Jews because he knows how they think. The meaning of this is made clear at the end of the film, when he turns out to be a traitor.”

    No, no, no. Tarantino is not insinuating that jewishness is linked to treason; he wouldn’t, he’s too stupid and philosemitic. What Tarantino is doing is showing just how lacking in morality the lead Nazi is; he doesn’t even support his own people.

    But this is where Lynch gets it most wrong:

    “All of this is in strong contrast to the portrayal of the Germans, even the German traitors. First of all, they are mostly quite good-looking and sexy. (As P. J. O’Rourke said: “Nobody has ever had a fantasy about being tied to a bed and sexually revished by someone dressed as a liberal.”) Second, they are dignified, charming, and polite with strangers; warm, playful, and fun-loving among friends. Even though the Germans are supposed to be the bad guys, they are the only people in the film with whom most white people can readily identify themselves. This means that white audiences can only feel revulsion at the sadistic Jews who murder them.”

    The Germans are protrayed as intelligent, handsome, and charming because Tarantino’s message is, “No matter how good the Germans are, no matter how much you like them, they need to get mercilessly butchered because they’re still evil.”

    When it comes to the ugly, nasty jewish characters, Tarantino’s message is the opposite: “It doesn’t matter how sadistic the jews are, they are the good guys and you have to support them no matter what.”

    Tarantino is forcing the audience to accept the massacre of Whites based on the semitic concept of morality. He’s forcing Whites to watch the best of their race get massacred because that, to him, is the epitome of goodness and justice. Tarantino is a spiritual jew. Whites are the ultimate evil, Jews are the ultimate good. That’s how he sees the world.

    “The symbolism and the message could not be clearer: Jews use movies and movie theaters as tools to destroy their enemies.”

    Yes, and QT sees that as a good thing, and he wants the audience to see it as a good thing.

    ” And since the white people in the audience can most readily identify with the Germans,”

    No, they won’t. Deracialized Whites will side with the jews.

    ” the message gets through: the Jewish movie business is a tool of hatred and vengeance directed against all white people.”

    And judaized Whites love it.

    “Why would Quentin Tarantino make a movie about World War II in which Germans are portrayed as attractive human beings, Americans are portrayed as sadistic buffoons, Englishmen are portrayed as effete wankers, and Jews are portrayed as cold-blooded, inhuman mass murderers?”

    Like I said earlier: to get Whites used to the idea that they deserve to be murdered no matter who they are, and that jews need to be worshipped and supported no matter how evil they are.

    “The fact that Quentin Tarantino could desecrate the holocaust, expose Hollywood’s agenda, and sell it back to Hollywood’s Jews is a testament to his twisted genius and their shallowness and moral imbecility.”

    That’s not how jews, hollywood, or liberal Whites see it. It’s not even how QT sees it. It’s a movie about jews murdering Whites, which is their favorite thing in the world to do. Trevor Lynch is making the mistake that so many WN’s make when reviewing pop art: seeing the film from his perspective as opposed to thinking of what the artist intended, and how the masses will interpret it.

  29. KT's Gravatar KT
    December 15, 2012 - 6:48 pm | Permalink

    @Fender… I refer you to the Occidental Quarterly, Aug. 25th 2009, and an article written by Trevor Lynch.

  30. Alice Teller's Gravatar Alice Teller
    December 15, 2012 - 6:40 pm | Permalink

    @Sir Tristram:
    As I watch and fume because the only man in Washington, under 80, who does not speak with an accent which offends the ear is Eric Cantor, you remind me of the lost voices of Lee in the Mountains! Ahh well, this is also the time of year to remember those who have gone. We are still here, the mist is still in the mountains and the Geminids were glorious last night!

    Thanks for the sweet reminder! Have a very Merry Christmas!

  31. fender's Gravatar fender
    December 15, 2012 - 6:38 pm | Permalink

    @The Admiral On Horseback:

    The USSR never signed the Geneva Convention. German soldiers who were captured by the reds would suffer indescribable tortures, such as being sodomized with rifles, being disembowled, having their genitals cut off, and other such acts of Asiatic cruelty. It doesn’t surprise me that the Germans reacted to this with horror and ended up being harsher towards soviet POWs than French, American, or British ones.

  32. The Admiral On Horseback's Gravatar The Admiral On Horseback
    December 15, 2012 - 6:01 pm | Permalink

    @fender: Many scholars have pointed out that the Soviet population didn’t quite believe their leaders’ propaganda about the bestiality of the Germans, until they could see them with their own eyes, or until refugees from German occupied lands told them. One of the reason the Soviet army didn’t disintegrate was how badly the Germans treated Soviet POWs. That was a very important motivation for the mass of Red Army soldiers. Stalin already lost over 40% of his population by mid-1942, according to many scholars there was a tipping point around then, when the Soviet state could have collapsed. Stalin’s threats to deserters etc. seemed less and less credible as he was losing vast territories. If only the majority of his soldiers didn’t deem him the lesser evil, he would never have survived.

  33. The Admiral On Horseback's Gravatar The Admiral On Horseback
    December 15, 2012 - 5:55 pm | Permalink

    @fender: Better or not, it was not practicable.

    Also, better, from which viewpoint? From an evolutionary viewpoint miscegenation is much better than total extinction.

    Of course much better samurai movies could be made from a story of mass suicide.

  34. fender's Gravatar fender
    December 15, 2012 - 5:39 pm | Permalink

    @Will Fredericks:

    The mistakes the National Socialists made during WWII were tactical mistakes, not philosophical ones. Their cultural, racial, and aesthetic ideas were mostly sound. I say mostly because all mass ideologies have their shortcomings.

    We can condemn the N*zis for not being nice enough to the conquered peoples, but what difference would it have made? The success or failure of the war depended solely on the German army and its ability to win battles. Unfortunately Hitler, while a genius as a domestic leader, was a piss-poor commander.

  35. fender's Gravatar fender
    December 15, 2012 - 5:12 pm | Permalink

    @The Admiral On Horseback:

    It’s better than mass miscegenation, which is what’s going to happen in Germany in the coming years.

  36. The Admiral On Horseback's Gravatar The Admiral On Horseback
    December 15, 2012 - 5:08 pm | Permalink

    @fender: Mass suicide by all Germans was not practicable. Life is unfortunately not a script from a samurai movie.

  37. fender's Gravatar fender
    December 15, 2012 - 5:04 pm | Permalink

    @Jason Speaks:

    “That is extremely harsh. The world would be better off and Germans more “honorable” if they had committed mass suicide?”

    Yes.

    “You can’t meant that. A better strategy (albeit difficult) would have been for them to surrender a couple years earlier when it was obvious they couldn’t win, and keep more Germans alive.”

    It wouldn’t have mattered, the Germans still would have been massacred by the millions via Eisenhower’s and Stalin’s death camps. The strong would have been killed off and the weak would have been kept alive to be slaves for the jew-led West and East.

  38. fender's Gravatar fender
    December 15, 2012 - 4:58 pm | Permalink

    @KT:

    “Examples of pro-white movies: Fight Club;”

    No.

    “Inglorious Basterds;”

    You must be trolling.

  39. Sir Tristram's Gravatar Sir Tristram
    December 15, 2012 - 4:46 pm | Permalink

    @Alice Teller: I always find something new in his writings. Yet in the end, I am always drawn ultimately towards the poetic statements of men like his mentor, Donald Davidson. To me, those more directly address the soul component of our people in a way that lectures and essays do not.

  40. Lombard's Gravatar Lombard
    December 15, 2012 - 11:16 am | Permalink

    @Jason Speak
    Alex Jones didn’t acquire 30 million listeners (mostly white conservatives) by posting mantras and weird satirical flash cartoons. He produced documentaries with vision and emotional pull.

    But really, why not just give us a synopsis of what a suitable ‘pro-white’ film would be for you today? I’d love to hear this.

    @Trenchant
    But wait, it’s not possible! Surely that film wouldn’t be allowed to exist in today’s Hollywood lol and of course, no way would some explicitly racial epic like Lord of the Rings be winning Oscars.

    I don’t think ‘conservative Americans’ understand that 99% of these Film makers are highly self-motivated, have sacrificed years to get into those positions, mostly self-funded and with little guarantees of success. Someone like Kevin Smith (not a fan by the way) maxxed out his credit cards to make the feature that got him into Hollywood… and here you have comfortable people with families, homes, cars, respectable 9-5 jobs lamenting that Directors aren’t bringing to life their private visions.

    They can’t even produce a 2 hour doco to get their vision across.

  41. Trenchant's Gravatar Trenchant
    December 15, 2012 - 5:56 am | Permalink

    @Lombard: Drive (2011): avowedly Jewish gangsters (crypsis no more?) with an axe to grind towards Italian anti-Semites, gentile hero, loser Latino.

  42. Jason Speaks's Gravatar Jason Speaks
    December 15, 2012 - 1:00 am | Permalink

    @Lombard:

    I wouldn’t say any of those movies were pro-White. Many may have reflected the culture of Whites, but they were not in any way explicitly pro-White. The last Hollywood movie to do that may have been Birth of a Nation almost 100 years ago.

    None of the movies you listed made a point of being pro-White, anymore than Shane was. Reflecting the values of Whites is not the same as a pro-White movie. I can name literally hundreds of movies with anti-White themes.

    So the Mantra “spam” seems to bother you. Because it’s working?

  43. buckle's Gravatar buckle
    December 14, 2012 - 3:32 pm | Permalink

    @Will Fredericks:

    Reasonable for whom? Poland? The alliance was a disaster and their country was wrecked by it. They are looking for more trouble by wanting the Americans to plant missiles there pointing at Moscow. Regardless of what one thinks of Putin and his “strategy” – this is a provocation.

    Czechoslovakia was not a viable state in 1938 and still isn’t which is why they divorced in 1993.

  44. Lombard's Gravatar Lombard
    December 14, 2012 - 3:05 pm | Permalink

    @Jason Speaks:
    “example of a pro-White movie be in your book?”
    Depends on what function you are looking for. There are numerous self-affirming white films made by those film-makers and others.
    eg. Robin Hood, Gladiator, PassionOTC, The Patriot, The Prestige, LOTR plus virtually every Space/Sci-fi/Medieval film which is the domain of the white man.

    So it seems the real problem is the volume of anti-white themes that come from Hollywood but this where Anglo/Capitalist/Libertarian/Free-Speechers have a real problem. They have no basis for restricting/banning films they don’t like. That’s what evil Catholics and National Socialists do. Do you see the conundrum?

    Now why haven’t any white groups produced an internet documentary on the relevant themes? It’s not that difficult. Copyright is no issue because you won’t need to sell it, just distribute. Look at Alex Jones’ ‘End Game’ for a good model and just work in the racial angles.

    The fact that whites can’t even take these simple productive steps is what we should be worried about.

  45. Alice Teller's Gravatar Alice Teller
    December 14, 2012 - 1:00 pm | Permalink

    @Sir Tristram:
    Thanks Tris, Looks like rereading Weaver goes to the head of my post Christmas list.

  46. KT's Gravatar KT
    December 14, 2012 - 8:55 am | Permalink

    Examples of pro-white movies: A Beautiful Mind; The Winslow Boy; Days of Heaven; Tree of Life; Lord of the Rings; Fight Club; Bedazzled (the original); Dean Spanley; Bonfire of the Vanities; Inglorious Basterds; Withnail& I; What’s Eating Gilber Grape

  47. Jason Speaks's Gravatar Jason Speaks
    December 14, 2012 - 4:32 am | Permalink

    @fender:

    Today’s Germans are cowards, the offspring of the weaker Germans who preferred to endure the shame of denazification rather than do the honorable thing and take their own lives

    That is extremely harsh. The world would be better off and Germans more “honorable” if they had committed mass suicide? You can’t meant that. A better strategy (albeit difficult) would have been for them to surrender a couple years earlier when it was obvious they couldn’t win, and keep more Germans alive.

    We aren’t on earth to “prove” ourselves to some Faith or Ideology.

  48. Jason Speaks's Gravatar Jason Speaks
    December 14, 2012 - 4:26 am | Permalink

    @Lombard:

    R.Scott, James Cameron, Christopher Nolan, Mel Gibson, Tim Burton, John Carpenter, Lars Von Trier with immense wealth and they also produce pro-white films every now and then.

    What would an example of a pro-White movie be in your book? I can’t think of one, unless you really, really stretch your imagination to the point of breaking.

    Those BUGS guys should be making him Life-time President because he just accomplished more for the ’cause’ then all that mantra-spam combined.

    Gee, thanks for the support. Hollywood, TV and the media in general have had an overwhelming anti-White bias for generations. That’s not even debatable on the Left.

  49. Lombard's Gravatar Lombard
    December 14, 2012 - 4:12 am | Permalink

    “It’s common knowledge that Jews control the major studios. ”

    Oh I agree they’re the dominant power and with everything else this website says regarding Hollywood but Whites have no major barrier at this point if they themselves want to produce pro-white films. It’s rather the cultural lack of interest in creating this art that is to blame.

    Let’s take the Italo-Catholic crew that is supposedly a part of the Jew system. Tarantino, Scorsese, Coppola. They consistently portray Jews as anti-civilizational, back-stabbing characters. Blacks are always savage and violent brutes. Italians (their own race) are criminals, thugs and corrupt… and generally, it’s the WASP/white characters who are the most ethical and often victims because of it.

    If we move to the major Anglo/Euro producers – you will find R.Scott, James Cameron, Christopher Nolan, Mel Gibson, Tim Burton, John Carpenter, Lars Von Trier with immense wealth and they also produce pro-white films every now and then.

    In an age where cheap horrors and internet documentaries can achieve world wide notoriety, there really is no excuse for why there are no ‘pro-white’ films being produced.

    Now back to Tarantino. Not only did he expose Jewish genocidal fantasies toward Aryans recently, he just got an A-List black actor to publicly reveal their own white genocidal fantasy. Those BUGS guys should be making him Life-time President because he just accomplished more for the ’cause’ then all that mantra-spam combined.

  50. Sir Tristram's Gravatar Sir Tristram
    December 14, 2012 - 3:45 am | Permalink

    @Alice Teller: Gladly, Alice. In my initial article with TOO, I went into the political thought of John Calhoun. Here is the excerpt where I covered “proper organism”:

    According to Calhoun, a constitutional republic depended principally upon the preservation of two key elements: “suffrage and proper organism combined.” This twofold core was then sustained upon the underlying principle of compromise between the original sovereign elements. Outside of the constituted authority, there was no internal coercive action. This was the way in which American “freedom” was originally understood. As a qualified citizen, one could speak one’s mind without fear of reprisal from the ruling authority.

    The “proper organism” component is where most people trip up in their understanding. Basically, “proper organism” referred to the complex mechanism and process of distributing power across several, often conflicting fronts, and subsequently winnowing out dissent or encouraging assent by emphasizing “concurrence” as the only way to prevent the government from a variety of potentially nefarious actions. This methodology inspired principled statesmanship rather than the vicious power-mongering and the corruption of character that we see in the political arena today.

    The end result of mixing suffrage with proper organism was, ideally, the “concurrent majority,” as opposed to the “numerical majority.” It was this tendency to devolve to the power of numbers in “pure democracies” that Calhoun and the Founders sought to avoid, perhaps stemming from their Aristotelian and Burkean legal heritage. Though glimpses of the concurrent majority have appeared previously, notably in Rome, Poland, Britain, and certain ancient German principalities, it was Calhoun who first developed it philosophically.

    We see the operation of the concurrent majority in such Anglo legacies as the jury system, where all jurors must concur in order to move forward. The conservative principle of the jury’s action is the desire to reach a plateau of common agreement. If they don’t choose to act concurrently (i.e., their deliberations are belabored by selfish or narrow concerns), a human life potentially teeters in the balance. They are inspired to agree rather than to disagree. This dynamic is also present in our bicameral legislative structures. One house is based on numerical force and the other on the fact that the states themselves represent distinct organs of fundamental equality (i.e., each state, no matter the size, only gets two seats in the Senate).

    The distinct organs of a body politic need to be recognized as distinct, interacting components of a functioning organism rather than as mere quantitative factors. For example, just because the brain directs cognitive functioning, we could hardly survive without a heart. Therefore, there is no possible computation in which the heart deserves to be affected negatively by the brain’s “appetite.” The underlying motive for the healthy operation of the various organs is a benign recognition of the necessity for the welfare of the whole system.

    Not only did “proper organism” refer to the separation of power between three branches as written or implicit in the Constitution, it also took into consideration the diverse interests that might compose the body politic — i.e., the states, the sections, the manufacturers, the agrarians, the merchants, the press, racial loyalties, civic organizations, and so on. These were various “organs” in a civilization.

    During Calhoun’s day, the states were the primary level of the formally recognized “proper organism.” However, these other secondary groupings involved powerful interests that brought considerable pressure to bear from different directions. Part of the thrill of the American experiment, involved the potentiality for the evolution of the organism, depending on what interests evolved into significant determining factors. Calhoun argued that the original founding generation perhaps would have done better to recognize the sections themselves also as primary organs that needed to be addressed by the Constitution. One of his suggestions included naming a president from each section as the nation filled out through westward expansion. These sectional presidents, then, acting together or nullifying each other, might succeed in further preventing the abuse of power. Unfortunately, this constitutional evolutionary process was perverted after the war into a teleological program that worked in favor of the victorious section’s ideology, destroying the states as the shield between the individual and the federal government in the name of equality and human rights.

    That’s a good intro to the concept. Calhoun covers it in a bit more detail in his ‘Disquisition on Government’ and the ‘Discourse on the Constitution of the United States.’ Both documents read like prophecy, especially when you understand that he wrote them a full 10 years before Civil War broke out.

    Essentially, “proper organism” refers to the process whereby a system is outfitted with an array of “organs” that affect each other in ways that cannot be reduced to numerical, quantitative values but instead involve qualitative elements that are actually sovereign in that their full free function is required for the system to work properly. The analogy to a body politic and the multifaceted interactivity between sections or organs deriving their energy from internal operations that may conflict (ie Agrarians vs Merchants) should be rather apparent.

    Hope that helps. I’m happy to field any further questions or discuss it in more depth.

    One point that may be confusing is the apparent dichotomy or contradiction between a political economy that is “democratic” in its rhetorical posture but simultaneously “imperial” in its spiritual orientation and inclination. This is a paradox that requires some study to get around. And this is why I encourage reading Calhoun side by side with a thinker like Julius Evola. Each provides a key to the other. Evola attacked Dante because Dante confused the two and saw the component of ghibelline regality purely in territorial rather than spiritual terms. But a thinker like Richard Weaver consistently nails it or, I should say, gets it right, with his love of the populist South tempered by his medieval Traditionalist hankerings. In The Southern Tradition at Bay, he delves into the compound phenomenon of the yeoman/aristocratic South.

  51. Will Fredericks's Gravatar Will Fredericks
    December 13, 2012 - 9:35 pm | Permalink

    @fender:

    @mari

    “Why exactly did Germany invade Poland? ”

    Poland’s jewish leadership was stirring up sh1t between Germany and Poland. If the Poles had done what was necessary and kicked their jews out the country, Poland could have just been a staging ground for the invasion of the USSR.

    More NS fantasy.

    @Facio Libre:

    “Germany lording over Europe?? No, I don’t think so..”

    I don’t either. Today’s Germans are cowards, the offspring of the weaker Germans who preferred to endure the shame of denazification rather than do the honorable thing and take their own lives. But there ARE other countries in Central Europe.

    You mean Switzerland and Lichtenstein?(Remember, you must exclude the Slavic ones). Maybe if you’re desperate you can try to reel in Hungary and Austria, but I doubt they really meet your criteria either. LOL

    “So you’re saying Slav’s and Westerners are practically the same today, just for different reasons? Practically what’s the difference?”

    No, I’m saying that Slavs and westerners are psychologically different, but their WEAKNESSES are leading to the same fate. Kind of like how two different people can take different routes to the same destination.

    So you’re saying we get to the same end, but somehow you think the western path, and the western weaknesses, are better? Plus le change

    “The Nazi atrocities served the aims of and for that matter may have been secretly ordered by the Bolsheviks anyway, by Stalin via Bormann.”

    What? When the Germans rolled into town they could barely restrain the Poles from beating the leaving hell out of the jews themselves. Same thing in Ukraine and probably half a dozen other countries.

    Then they treated the greeters like dogs. The krauts sure know how to pour cold water on a warm welcome.

    But actually relates to my previous point. National Socialist and German theory really was not clear on how treatment of the occupied territories, even including Hitler himself. Kilzer shows how Bormann took the lead in pushing the harshest possible policy towards the occupied territories, overriding the initial objections and cautionary nature of even Hitler himself. Clearly it played into the hands of Stalin; it was a better recruiting tool for the Red Army and partisans than Stalin’s henchman could ever have dreamed up in a thousand years.

    Clearly Bormann was a disaster. Kilzer takes it a step further and suggests Bormann was an active Soviet agents and a number of other Third Reich figures actually were pro-Soviet. This exclaims their racial and other policies rather well.

    So its interesting. we have a situation where a lot of not only Nazi policies but the theories which grew out of efforts to invent an apologia for them actually were founded basically on Soviet strategy, and basically, then and now, still serve Soviet aims.

    Just seems to be a part of the basic weakness of National Socialist ideology and doctrine, compared to Stalinism. It is based so much on inconsistencies, half-truths, and lies, (conspiracy theories, intrigues, the whole nine yards) that adherents seem to start to feel an attraction to a more consistent and principled ideology of lies, conspiracy theories and intrigues. (Whether coming from the KGB or the the FBI and ADL/SPLC) A constant theme of National Socialism oriented culture. We can even see it replicating itself today in forums like the Phora.

    National Socialist sympathizers are probably the most deceptive and self deceptive when they blame western weakness for communism, and claim they exercise a principled and effective anti-communist effort. In truth, if the western policies have often favored Communism over National Socialism, it is because National Socialist policies and doctrine, i.e. their weaknesses consistently give western policy makers little choice, or at least no good choices.

  52. Will Fredericks's Gravatar Will Fredericks
    December 13, 2012 - 4:58 pm | Permalink

    @michael colhaze:

    As to your link to SOVIET CONSPIRACY, I doubt you have read the whole article. If you have, I doubt you know who owns ELSEVIERS. If you do, I doubt you know know who Taras Kuzio is. If you do, you probably believe everything.

    Yes I know who Elsevier is. They are one of the largest, if not the largest, publisher of scientific and other academic literature in the world. From Wilkipedia.

    Elsevier B.V. (Dutch pronunciation: [ˈɛlzəvir]) is a publishing company which publishes medical and scientific literature. It is a part of the Reed Elsevier group. Based in Amsterdam, the company has operations in the United Kingdom, USA, and elsewhere.

    Leading products include journals such as The Lancet and Cell, books such as Gray’s Anatomy, the ScienceDirect collection of electronic journals, the Trends and Current Opinion series of journals, and the online citation database Scopus. Its free researcher collaboration tool, 2collab, launched in 2007, was discontinued in 2011.

    Elsevier publishes 250,000 articles a year in 2,000 journals.[1] Its archives contain seven million publications. Total yearly downloads amount to 240 million.[2] The company is currently being boycotted by academics who object to its business model, which includes “paywalls” and (in their opinion) excessively high subscription charges.

    In 2010, Elsevier reported a profit margin of 36% on revenues of $3.2 billion.[3] Elsevier accounts for 28% of the revenues of the Reed Elsevier group (₤1.5b of 5.4 billions in 2006). In operating profits, it represents a bigger fraction of 44% (₤395 of 880 millions).[4] Adjusted operating profits rose by 10% from 2005 to 2006.[5]
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elsevier

    Regarding who owns Elsevier I don’t know, but I suspect you are insinuating that it is some Jews, and that therefore its entire output, or at least those articles you don’t like, can be dismissed as Jewish directed propaganda. Correct me if I’m wrong. It sounds to me like you are drifting into the Hadding Scott mode, i.e. anything about WWII that goes against the Third Reich is to be dismissed as “Allied Propaganda”.

    Having read and liked your articles without knowing that much about you or your credibility, I am disappointed that your personal standards for truth seem to be so low.

    As to Taras Kuzio, a google search on him reveals what seems to be a very capable (and yes, gentile) scholar. http://www.taraskuzio.net/ and http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Taras_Kuzio. I admit I don’t know him personally, but
    his article certainly seemed to have some fairly extensive acquaintance with some of the basic facts in Eastern Europe. Something that I often find missing in some, if not most, of the Putinophilic articles and comments I find, in paleo/WN even more than elsewhere.

    We know that you can’t discount conspiracy theories lightly, but by the same token, conspiracy theories should always be invoked with caution. This is simply because they are such a convenient way for the slow and/or lazy to explain away facts which are inconvenient, and as such, are a standard red flag used to identify inferior to grossly inferior thinking. As such, over use of such is typically one of the most standard and easy ways of our enemies to discredit us.

  53. Marcus's Gravatar Marcus
    December 13, 2012 - 4:39 pm | Permalink

    @Will, true, but I was talking about becoming a formal junior ally, like Hungary and Romania’s relationship with Germany or Mongolia’s with the USSR, possibly in exhange for territorial concessions. It might have seemed humiliating, but it’s not like the Brits or the Fench considered them equals either. That said, I doubt either neighbor would have attacked if Pilsudski had lived longer, he was widely respected throughout Europe.

  54. Facio Libre's Gravatar Facio Libre
    December 13, 2012 - 3:49 pm | Permalink

    Tom Sunic wants this link posted but couldn’t do so.

    That’s because it is a virus.

  55. Facio Libre's Gravatar Facio Libre
    December 13, 2012 - 3:44 pm | Permalink

    @Marcus

    “The Poles were dumb to not seek an alliance with either Germany or the USSR, even at the cost of territory: both of these giant neighbors had legitimate territorial claims (Poles were only ca 2/3 of the total population in the interwar state).”

    Rubbish! Poland had and has every right to protect its territorial integrity no matter what. Germany lost territory as a result of losing WW2. They got a taste of their own medicine. What happened to Germany after the war was what they did to their smaller and weaker neighbors historically.. They got what they deserved. Furthermore, Poland lost more territory to the Soviets after the war as to what they got from Germany. Also, lets keep in mind that it was the Soviets who redrew the map of Europe after the war with the Allie’s acquiescence. Germany had no legitimate claims on Polish territory and shouldn’t have invaded Poland in the first place. Nazi Germany wasn’t fighting Jews or fighting for the White race, people, interests, etc. That is a lie. Nazis were fighting for a German empire – “the Reich.” So if you were White and not German that didn’t include you.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Irp1686.png

  56. December 13, 2012 - 1:58 pm | Permalink

    PS. Great article, Tom. But I’ve said that already.

  57. December 13, 2012 - 1:56 pm | Permalink

    @ Will Fredericks

    As to your link to SOVIET CONSPIRACY, I doubt you have read the whole article. If you have, I doubt you know who owns ELSEVIERS. If you do, I doubt you know know who Taras Kuzio is. If you do, you probably believe everything.

  58. Tom Sunic's Gravatar Tom Sunic
    December 13, 2012 - 1:13 pm | Permalink

    at: Kevin, Marcus and Will.
    Thanks Kevin for posting the above link — same piece of mine in Polish. Posted by friends- prominent Polish nationalists. I also agree with Will. We must avoid divisions. Hence the reason for studying more recent history. Not pc hagiography. Tom

  59. Alice Teller's Gravatar Alice Teller
    December 13, 2012 - 12:44 pm | Permalink

    @Sir Tristram: I am not familiar with the phrase “Proper Organism”. Would you please explain it?

  60. Lombard's Gravatar Lombard
    December 13, 2012 - 12:14 pm | Permalink

    @Jason Speaks:
    Sorry but pro-Whites tend to embarrass themselves when it comes to speaking on the film industry. It’s never been easier with technology to produce a film and expecting the Weinstein bros. to cater to whites is worse than a negro complaining that there aren’t enough blacks on TV.

    It’s funny that the demonized Tarrantino made the most anti-semitic film possible in Hollywood (see the Counter-Currents review on Inglorious Basterds) featuring depraved, degenerate, duplicitous Jews contrasted with moral, upright, civil German Nazis. Tarrantino, the classic loser living in his mum’s basement, who made his first film with a budget of a million dollars.

    I agree there should be a topic on Hollywood because this is clearly one area, where Jews really aren’t the problem.

  61. Sir Tristram's Gravatar Sir Tristram
    December 13, 2012 - 11:57 am | Permalink

    @fender: Yes, but it should involve a “soft power” or “spiral will” technique for this day and age. If you cannot grant this, then you allow for the same aberration that has doomed the current version of the American experiment to failure, namely, that those with a notion of how things should be (no matter how naive or malicious) combined with the firepower to bring their paradigm into effect, feel unencumbered about FORCING their vision on the rest of us. So, there are two primary considerations that will prevent that from happening again: 1 – the danger of concentrating political power into one unitary source and 2 – the knowledge that racial considerations are legitimate factors in human affairs. Suffrage and Proper Organism were the primary ingredients of our ideal vision. And, of course, the memory that the original conserving principle of all high civilizations, including the initial American Anglo-Saxon design, is COMPROMISE not CONQUEST. This is what the Southern political experience offers to the rest of the world: By inspiration through example, it is possible (we must insist), to erect a foundation based on Truth. The ends do not justify the means. And if you want to be loved, the answer is to be more lovable. As Calhoun once observed, “War may make us great, but peace only, will make us both great and free.”

  62. Will Fredericks's Gravatar Will Fredericks
    December 13, 2012 - 11:33 am | Permalink

    @buckle:

    There is an argument that AH was provoked. The March 1939 war guarantee offered to Poland by the British government did not help.

    If there’s an argument let’s hear it. The March 1939 guarantee (which Buchanan rather densely chooses to attack also, spending political capital on Hitler even though today’s Nazi’s all hate him no matter what) was quite reasonable IMO given that Hitler had just violated the Munich agreement and occupied most of the rest of Czechoslovakia. Hitler’s pre-war policy was indefensibly stupid. That’s why so many of his generals even at this early stage were plotting to get rid of him.

  63. Will Fredericks's Gravatar Will Fredericks
    December 13, 2012 - 11:22 am | Permalink

    @Marcus:

    The Poles were dumb to not seek an alliance with either Germany or the USSR, even at the cost of territory: both of these giant neighbors had legitimate territorial claims (Poles were only ca 2/3 of the total population in the interwar state).

    No doubt, Polish policy was dumb, such as toward the minorities, like the Ukrainians, whom they treated in some ways like the Germans later treated them. But they did sign an alliance with Germany in the mid 30′s, a 10 year non-aggression pact, which Hitler tore up when he started demanding the return of much of the Polish corridor. (violating the Munich pact again also). Read your history books guys.

  64. Marcus's Gravatar Marcus
    December 13, 2012 - 10:12 am | Permalink

    The Poles were dumb to not seek an alliance with either Germany or the USSR, even at the cost of territory: both of these giant neighbors had legitimate territorial claims (Poles were only ca 2/3 of the total population in the interwar state). Instead they placated neither and placed their trust in an anemic West that was in no position to help. Of course this doesn’t justify the destruction and oppression wrought by the Nazis and Soviets, but they foolishly put national pride before geopolitical reality.

  65. December 13, 2012 - 8:20 am | Permalink

    Is this link still working? Tom

  66. Facio Libre's Gravatar Facio Libre
    December 13, 2012 - 7:56 am | Permalink

    Slavs (excluding Russia perhaps) do not lack ambition. They lack power.. The reason for that is that they were usually on the receiving end of the stick.. During the three partitions, Poland was invaded by three powers simultaneously, and had no allies at the time. During Second World War Poland was invaded by both Stalin and Hitler. I do not believe that Hitler cared at all about White people in general. All he wanted was more territory for the Germans. He wanted Polish territory and that meant killing off a lot of Poles. That is why Germans and Russians had an agreement. Call it genocide if you will. I wonder how many other countries in Europe would be able to withstand an attack by countries the size of Russia, Germany, (Austria-Hungarian Empire) or Prussia at the same time??

    Poland’s territorial integrity is non-negotiable. Any talk about Germany expending to the east will end in another WW. An alternative to European Union is Europe of Nations.

  67. buckle's Gravatar buckle
    December 13, 2012 - 1:41 am | Permalink

    @mari:

    There is an argument that AH was provoked. The March 1939 war guarantee offered to Poland by the British government did not help. The non-aggression pact between Germany and Russia of August that year is so staggeringly complex in scope and implication, that it defies coherent analysis.

  68. fender's Gravatar fender
    December 13, 2012 - 12:56 am | Permalink

    @mari:

    “Why exactly did Germany invade Poland? ”

    Poland’s jewish leadership was stirring up sh1t between Germany and Poland. If the Poles had done what was necessary and kicked their jews out the country, Poland could have just been a staging ground for the invasion of the USSR.

    @Facio Libre:

    “Germany lording over Europe?? No, I don’t think so..”

    I don’t either. Today’s Germans are cowards, the offspring of the weaker Germans who preferred to endure the shame of denazification rather than do the honorable thing and take their own lives. But there ARE other countries in Central Europe.

    “So you’re saying Slav’s and Westerners are practically the same today, just for different reasons? Practically what’s the difference?”

    No, I’m saying that Slavs and westerners are psychologically different, but their WEAKNESSES are leading to the same fate. Kind of like how two different people can take different routes to the same destination.

    “Atrocities under the bolsheviks before the war? There was no such thing. ”

    During, not before. Sorry.

    “The Nazi atrocities served the aims of and for that matter may have been secretly ordered by the Bolsheviks anyway, by Stalin via Bormann.”

    What? When the Germans rolled into town they could barely restrain the Poles from beating the leaving hell out of the jews themselves. Same thing in Ukraine and probably half a dozen other countries.

  69. Jason Speaks's Gravatar Jason Speaks
    December 13, 2012 - 12:50 am | Permalink

    Off topic but I want to mention in regards to soon to be released anti-White movie Django. I would like this talking point to be used if you talk to someone about it in person or onine:

    So Weinstein and others produced this movie … about something that happened 150 years ago … gee, I wonder if they will do a movie about Israeli atrocities going on TODAY? No, of course not, and we all know why.

  70. Will Fredericks's Gravatar Will Fredericks
    December 12, 2012 - 11:57 pm | Permalink

    @fender:

    It was a war. You can’t expect a conquered nation to be treated like an ally. The Poles killed Germans, and they paid for it. After being massacred by jew bolsheviks during the Soviet occupation they should have welcomed the Germans with wine and kisses, as they were in Ukraine.

    I have nothing against Poles but their constant whining about N*zism pisses me off, especially seeing as how they suffered far worse atrocities under the bolsheviks before AND after the war. They don’t seem to want to acknowledge this.

    Atrocities under the bolsheviks before the war? There was no such thing. Both you and Mari seem to need to do a little basic remedial history study. As to the Ukrainians that welcomed the Germans, their leaders like Ambrose quickly were betrayed and realized how untrustworthy the Nazi’s were as allies. Much faster learners than you.

    You have a lot of chutzpah telling Mari off about the necessity of the brutal German occupation. As to the Bolshevik, atrocities 1) they existed but weren’t far worse, and 2) The Nazi atrocities served the aims of and for that matter may have been secretly ordered by the Bolsheviks anyway, by Stalin via Bormann. Nazi sympathizers are in no position to argue Nazism was/is better than or served/serves as any sort of protection against Bolshevism. Nazi leaders and sympathizers seem to have some odd habit, from then up until today, of genuflecting in front of Bolshevik leaders, personalities, and habits, and serving their ends.

  71. Will Fredericks's Gravatar Will Fredericks
    December 12, 2012 - 11:38 pm | Permalink

    @fender:

    Self-government doesn’t necessarily mean democracy, it simply means not letting the rulers exploit and tample over the people. Slavs, or at least Eastern Slavs, have a very Asiatic tendency to let themselves be ruled by anyone, no matter how brutal they are.

    I understand, and even am tempted to share, your diffidence about democracy, but practically, especially to an American mind, how you can have “self-government” without functioning democratic like institutions is still problematic, though no doubt we have to do better than we are now.

    As to brutality, Hitler certainly was brutal himself, and unlike the Bolsheviks. The Slavs certainly seem at times to have adopted an especially high amount of this Asiatic trait, but I wonder if it isn’t just their historical and geographical position, which so exposed them to brutality and required them to adapt to it.

    Joseph Conrad once said that the key psychological trait of Russians is resignation, but I think this goes for Eastern Slavs in general. I’ve observed and even felt this psychological tendency myself: a general sense of fatalism and hopelessness, a lack of abmition, a distrust of greatness. Very characteristic of the Slavic race.

    Of course, our fellow Westerners have also become submissive, but that’s due to misplaced moral fanaticism which says it’s “good” to give away our countries and futures to non-Whites. It’s not the fatalism of Slavs, although it leads to the same conclusion: the destruction of our race and civilization.

    So you’re saying Slav’s and Westerners are practically the same today, just for different reasons? Practically what’s the difference?

  72. Facio Libre's Gravatar Facio Libre
    December 12, 2012 - 11:25 pm | Permalink

    @mari

    Germans and Poles were fighting time immemorial for territory.. absent the Jew or anyone else, Germany and Poles were always at each others throats.. During the WWII Poland was invaded by both Commie Soviets and Nazi Germans..

  73. Facio Libre's Gravatar Facio Libre
    December 12, 2012 - 11:19 pm | Permalink

    @fender

    Poles have three enemies.. Russians, Germans, and Jews. Not necessarily all in that order.

    Poles and Germans fought many times in history.. way before WWII even happened. Furthermore, the saying “the enemy of my enemy is not necessarily my friend,” I’d say, is truer for Poland than any other country in the world. Your suggestion that we should all bow down before Germany is a non starter for Poles.

    Germany lording over Europe?? No, I don’t think so.. You’ll have to come back with a better formula if you want White unity. I don’t mind Germans excersising their power to push for White interests, but they need to stay within their borders and forget about the “Reich” or their imagined “lebensraum” to the East. Unless they are ready to go for round three..

  74. mari's Gravatar mari
    December 12, 2012 - 10:47 pm | Permalink

    Fender

    Why exactly did Germany invade Poland? The jews are always going on about eeeviiiil Polish facists invading Ukraine during the 1920′s, but i always assumed the Poles would steer clear of annoying Germany.

    As far as the great nazi crusace against the jew commie russians goes, could not the Germans forged an anti russian alliance with the Poles?

  75. mari's Gravatar mari
    December 12, 2012 - 10:44 pm | Permalink

    Dixie

    According to the 2010 census the total population is 311, 592,000 with 58.9 catholics. Isn’t that only about 12 percent?
    It seems a low figure for catholics but that is what the census says.

    Exactly what do you mean by Austrian Hungarian German Holy Roman Empire miscegnation? Czech or Bohemian and German? Hungarian and Austrian? Palatine and Croat? Slovak and Slovene? Remember, this topic is about Europe, not S. America.

  76. mari's Gravatar mari
    December 12, 2012 - 10:22 pm | Permalink

    Athanasius

    Didn’t trotsky spend a couple years rampaging around south eastern Russia massacring entire towns? I think he had trains full of troops and weapons and just drove to different towns and sent his mostly jew troops to murder everyone they could find. One reason all those armenians, tatars, crimeans etc hate the russian leadership.

  77. Trenchant's Gravatar Trenchant
    December 12, 2012 - 10:22 pm | Permalink

    @mari: Heathcliffe is variously “as dark as if he belonged to the devil”, “white as the wall behind him”, “gypsy brat.”

    Poetic license? Brontë must be turning in her grave.

  78. ATBOTL's Gravatar ATBOTL
    December 12, 2012 - 9:22 pm | Permalink

    That figure for low IQ is based on a very small data set and is considered suspect. If I recall, it was just one study each for Serbia and Croatia compared to many studies most countries included. Keep in mind Tito probably wasn’t real big on allowing IQ research, being a commie and all, and since then, well… let’s just say some things happened that kinda got in the way of research(if ya know what I mean).

    Seriously, it’s highly unlikely that Croat/Serb IQ is radically lower than surrounding populations, many of whom were also subject to genocidal purges by commies and others.

    Track down the reference in Vanhanen…see what the studies were.

  79. fender's Gravatar fender
    December 12, 2012 - 9:11 pm | Permalink

    @mari:

    It was a war. You can’t expect a conquered nation to be treated like an ally. The Poles killed Germans, and they paid for it. After being massacred by jew bolsheviks during the Soviet occupation they should have welcomed the Germans with wine and kisses, as they were in Ukraine.

    I have nothing against Poles but their constant whining about N*zism pisses me off, especially seeing as how they suffered far worse atrocities under the bolsheviks before AND after the war. They don’t seem to want to acknowledge this.

  80. fender's Gravatar fender
    December 12, 2012 - 9:07 pm | Permalink

    @Will Fredericks:

    Self-government doesn’t necessarily mean democracy, it simply means not letting the rulers exploit and tample over the people. Slavs, or at least Eastern Slavs, have a very Asiatic tendency to let themselves be ruled by anyone, no matter how brutal they are.

    Joseph Conrad once said that the key psychological trait of Russians is resignation, but I think this goes for Eastern Slavs in general. I’ve observed and even felt this psychological tendency myself: a general sense of fatalism and hopelessness, a lack of abmition, a distrust of greatness. Very characteristic of the Slavic race.

    Of course, our fellow Westerners have also become submissive, but that’s due to misplaced moral fanaticism which says it’s “good” to give away our countries and futures to non-Whites. It’s not the fatalism of Slavs, although it leads to the same conclusion: the destruction of our race and civilization.

  81. mari's Gravatar mari
    December 12, 2012 - 9:02 pm | Permalink

    The latest version of Wuthering Heights was made in England and is now being released in art houses in the United States. The writer director is a woman. Guess what? The Heathcliffe character, Kathy’s soulmate is black.

  82. December 12, 2012 - 8:53 pm | Permalink

    Reich means REALM, the geographical demarcation of a People, or folk, not empire as the article starts out and later contradicts itself. This discussion brings to ming Imperium Europa and the notion that ethnic peoples belong in the lands associated with them first and foremost.

  83. realist's Gravatar realist
    December 12, 2012 - 8:31 pm | Permalink

    Dixie

    White English pioneers in America created brown, tan, gold and lemon colored africans here in America. Jesse Jackson has african features but his skin is a very pale yellow. Notice Pres Obama, Eric Holder and very black American you hav ever seen.

    Really Dixie, how can you write of miscenegation in S. America while totally ignoring african/ White miscenegation in N. America? Ever heard of the mulegeons of the south?
    DNA has shown they are the descendants of White British slave women and african slave men.

    At least the Spanish and Portuguese did not enslave their working class women, bring them to the new world and throw their White women to the indians and blacks.

    Nor did the Spanish and Portuguese clear entire portions of their countries of peasants and workers as the English and scots nobility did to clear the land of peasants to raise sheep.

    Those who were cleared out of Britian in favor of sheep and the confistication of common land by the aristos and gentry
    were dumped in the western part of the southern colonies to fight the indians. The coastal planter men were defended by not only the men, but the women and children of the British peasants and working class cleared out of Britian for sheep and dumped in Piedmont and other frontier areas to keep the coast save for the slave owners who imported the black plague of the USA, africans.

  84. Trenchant's Gravatar Trenchant
    December 12, 2012 - 7:43 pm | Permalink

    @mari: As always, your comments are a good read.

  85. Taras's Gravatar Taras
    December 12, 2012 - 6:53 pm | Permalink

    @fender:
    I am a Slav and I take offense to your remark that Slavs are “lesser peoples.” We have been attacked the most, oppressed the most, murdered en masse the most, and that is why we are the most merciless whites on the face of the Earth in battle. Learn more about our history before making divisive remarks like that.

    Taras

  86. mari's Gravatar mari
    December 12, 2012 - 6:03 pm | Permalink

    At various times in the past 1200 years Ukraine down to the black sea, Lithuainia, Estonia and big chunks of Germany such as Silesia and Russia were part of the kingdom of Poland.

    Then the gentry and aristocrats invited the khazars in and turned the country over to them. Know why Poland was divided between Russia, Austria and Prussia? For a couple centuries the tax collecting was all done by Jews. They were not reasonably paid civil servants. They were crooked corrupt goverment contractors. The jews kept most of the money. By the time partition came, the Kingdom of Poland had no diplomatic service to negotiate and no national army to fight Russia, Prussia and Austria. The jew tax collectors had kept all the goverment revenue. No money to pay and army or send anyone to the discussions.

  87. mari's Gravatar mari
    December 12, 2012 - 5:48 pm | Permalink

    Fender

    The Germans only occupied the western half of Poland during WW2. Russia occupied the eastern half. Here’s a few things I remember about the German occupation.

    an 800 calorie a day diet for men in physical labor, 600 calorie a day for women, children retired people, men in sedentary occupatins. The educational plan was to abolish all
    schools and set up special schools for Poles that would ony go to 4th grade. No Pole would be educated further.

    German farmers would be resettled in Poland. The German peasant farmers and sharecroppers would be upgraded to the status of an English gentry farmer in his mansion. The Poles from whom the farms were confisticated would be relegated to a status between a medieval serf and those roman slaves on the great latifundium. Sort of hereditary serfdom for life. Maybe they could not be sold as chattel property, I don’t know.

    That was the plan for the majority of Poles. Another thing, the Protestants on this site might not like this, but the RC Polish church was a major cultural, nationalist and linguistic leader. For centuries the church defended Poles against the crooked jews who ran the towns and managed the agricultural estates, monopolized alcohol, timber and other businesses and if they were managers of farm estates had the power of not just physical punishment but execution over the Polish tenant farmers.

    The situation in Poland for centuries was that the wealthy and powerful Poles gave the ordinary Poles to the Jews to exploit.
    The Church, not the goverment nor local elites was the sole defense of the ordinary Pole from the 400 percent money lender, estate manager etc.

    One of the first things the Germans did on their conquest of Poland during Sept 1939 was to capture every Catholic priest they could find. This was pre arranged, the German priest hunters knew where to find them. In October and November1939, 5 thousand Catholic priests were murdered in a town called Auschwitz. Catholic, protestant, eastern orthodox, muslim, hindu buddihist, shinto when the clergy is the sole protector of the ordinary people against the jew money lenders and protector of the culture and nation, I don’t see how anyone can admire what the Germans did in Poland.

    Try living on 800 calories a day while your wife and kids try to subsist on 600 calories a day. How would you like being told that as soon as things settled down your farm or business would be confisticated you and your family would become a slave/serf to the new German owners.

    But most, most of all to anyone who admires the Nazi German goverment under Hitler, the Germans lost and al lof central and eastern europe was conquered by Russian jew communists. The Russians murdered millions between 1945 and 1950 so as to eliminate any opposition.

    How can you admire such a loser as Hitler?

  88. Will Fredericks's Gravatar Will Fredericks
    December 12, 2012 - 5:46 pm | Permalink

    @fender:

    “And Fender calls Russians stupid and incapable of self-government”

    My comment went towards Slavs in general actually, but believe me, I’d love them to prove me wrong.

    Well first my point was that self government doesn’t seem to be doing especially well anywhere these days, we pots shouldn’t be to quick to call the kettle black. Even among paleos and WN’s yessiree.

    In fact, I’m not exactly sure when “capable of self-government” became such a requirement for racial greatness. Hitler in Mein Kampf said self government was just a deception, even for Germans. And give the Slavs, and yes the Russians, credit. If they did help to imposed communism on themselves, (even with a lot of outsider “help”) they also managed to throw it off, almost completely by themselves. (I just can’t see Americans ever doing something similar) If they fumbled the recovery from communism that was do in large part to lack of competent help from us that the reformers expected, along with subversion from the same forces that BTW are doing us in also.

    If you will look back on my comments on my two “Revolutionary Conservatism” threads, I will note that I do think the Germans at one time were certainly capable of exercising competent leadership in the east. The Ukrainians viewed the treaty of Brest-Litovsk with great relief, even if the Germans did plunder the country for WWI food supplies. But that was the Second Reich. not the Third Reich. Any group of Nazi’s I’ve seen, then or now, are arguably not much better for entrusting a country or people to than a bunch of niggers or Jews. That’s why there nationalism is so in retreat these days, it can’t shed the Nazi stench. Before one start telling others how to run their houses he needs to get his own in order.

  89. fender's Gravatar fender
    December 12, 2012 - 5:17 pm | Permalink

    @mari:

    One of the main aspects of Greek tragedy is that the heroes fight losing battles and end up getting massacred in the end. That’s what makes them tragic, but it’s also what makes them heroes. Have this in mind when thinking about the outcome of WW2.

  90. mari's Gravatar mari
    December 12, 2012 - 5:03 pm | Permalink

    Dixie

    Yes the Spanish and Portuguese did mix with the indians. But at least the indians were natives and the Spanish and Portuguese were invaders.

    Our own English spent 200 hundred years bringing the most primitive and least able to be civilized people on earth to America. And there was as much race mixing of Whites and blacks here in English protestant America as there was in Latin America and with much, much worse results.

    Are you aware of what the Southern Baptists are up to lately?
    They adopt Haitian babies, spend their own money and vacation time in Haiti rebuilding that sewer of the Americas and totally ignore the disadvantaged Whites of the south.

    I woke up about 5 am recently and turned on the TV. There was a blondish White man with a southern accent surrounded
    by “adorable” african toddlers. He was raising money both to support these kids and bring them to America for adoption.
    It was sponsored by the Church of God.

    Next was an ad about Southern Christians sending care packages to Israel to help al those poor, poor pitiful israeli elderly who desperately need food, blacnkets etc.

    I’m not a believer but I admire all branches of christianity ecause it is my heritage but really.

  91. mari's Gravatar mari
    December 12, 2012 - 4:53 pm | Permalink

    Stalin did not purge because they were jews but because jews dominated the communist party and goverment. It was a power struggle and Stalin came out the winner. The reason so many Jews were killed during the purge and treason trials is that the majority of the party was jews.

    Look at it this way not all party and goverment workers were jews but all jews were high up in the party and goverment. Any communist struggle would be mostly jews on both sides.
    Weren’t all 3 of Stalin’s wives jews? The purges were communist party jews killing each other.

    Think of it in American affirmative action or no White Man need apply terms. Think of 2 news stories about the same event.

    First story numerous bombs went off at 5/30 am in the city bus parking lot as more than one hundred bus drivers were starting their shift. 40 drivers are dead, 30 wounded, 15 of them seriously.

    Second story numerous bombs went off at 5/30 am in the city bus parking lot as more than one hundred black men and women were starting their shift. 40 blacks are dead, 30 wounded, 15 of them seriously.

    Just as almost all blacks who actually work in this country are goverment workers, so in Russia almost all jews were party memebers and high ranking goverment people.

    I always thought that Rabbi Kahane crusade of bringing poor persecuted russian jews to America as political and religious refugees was just a scam to bring a lot of russian spies and sleeper agents into the country.

    Secondary purpose was the fundraising of what I call the “professional jews” that is jews who make a living extorting money from other jews by claiming that the next holofraud is right around the corner if a city puts up a Christmas tree or that somewhere in the world there are some jews who need to be rescued by giving billions to Foxman and the rest of the extortionist crew.

  92. mari's Gravatar mari
    December 12, 2012 - 4:36 pm | Permalink

    Fender

    Whatever good WW2 Germans did and whatever good the goverment of Germany did to alleviate the effects of the depression during the 1930′s and no matter how much people admire Hitler and the German goverment program;

    the fact remains that GERMANY LOST WW2 AND AND AND
    GAVE CENTRAL AND EASTERN EUROPE TO THE JEW COMMIE RUSSIANS.

    Whatever good was done by Germany 1933 to 1945 was totally overwhelmed by the fact that Germany lost the war against Russia and turned over central and eastern europe to
    Russia and Russia almost destroyed those countries.

    Look up Czech achievements in technology and manufacturing for the last thousand years. Makes the English industrial revolution look like a cottage industry.
    Look up Austrian Slovak Czech etc coal, salt, iron and silver mining for the last 4 thousand years.

    Hitler and the ww2 Germans destroyed central Europe by turning it over to the russian jew communists. That’s the fact and Germany did as much damage to central and eastern Europe as the Russians and muslims combined in a thousand years. And of course half of Germany went under Russian control.

    “Don’t listen to what people say, watch what they do”

  93. Felix's Gravatar Felix
    December 12, 2012 - 2:07 pm | Permalink

    @Karlfried:

    Intelligent Americans…Intelligent as opposed to those only schooled for however long but intelligent… also have no difficulty with the word “Reich”.

  94. Alice Teller's Gravatar Alice Teller
    December 12, 2012 - 9:00 am | Permalink

    @dc:
    It is good to hear from you. I hope you are feeling well. We have missed your voice lately.

  95. dc's Gravatar dc
    December 12, 2012 - 6:34 am | Permalink

    @fender:

    My dear “fender”, Your comments are wonderfully acute and accurate. It is to be hoped that more will follow your example.

    Speaking as one who is as fluent in German as anyone not raised in the language, I must say that Tom has made an interesting, if trivial, point. And Tom might register the fact that in an English speaking group, one does better to use the educated vernacular, rather than make appeals to mystical rubbish.

  96. Marcus's Gravatar Marcus
    December 11, 2012 - 11:20 pm | Permalink

    @Tom Sunic, they respected Pilsudski, but the Nazis had very, very low opinions of the Poles as a whole (“frightful material” underneath a “thin Germanic layer” in Hitler’s words) as well as the Russians and other “lower nations led (formerly) by Germanic organizers.” But the Czechs were generally not treated poorly and many German officers admired the sturdiness of the Slovak troops. So perhaps Nazi hostility was focused more on the eastern Slavs due to their being viewed as more “Asiatic” and barbarous.

  97. mari's Gravatar mari
    December 11, 2012 - 11:11 pm | Permalink

    Hapsburgs are still around and trying to come back. They are active in a European council of Princes. Here is a summary of what they have been up to.

    Otto von Habsburg (1912-) = Regina von Sachsen-Meinigen (1925- )
    ||
    Monika (1954-) – Michaela (1954-) – Andrea (1955-) – Gabriela (1956-)
    Walburga (1958-) – Karl (1961-) – Gyorgy (1964-)

    The eldest son and heir of the dynasty is Karl (Karl’s website), who lives in Austria and has served in the Austrian army and was a member of the European Parliament, like his father, from 1996-1999. He has worked hard to keep the family in the public limelight, even hosting a popular television game show. He works quietly to change the Austrian laws of 1919 that forbid the Habsburgs from holding any political office and has often been mentioned as a possible Chancellor of the Austrian Republic. At this time he is the Generaldirektor of the UNPO (United Nations and Peoples organization). In 1993 Karl married Francesca Thyssen-Bornemisza who is well known in European high society. They currently have three children (Ferdinand’s website).

    Georg (Gyorgy), in keeping with the old Habsburg tradition of connecting family members to distinct parts of the Empire, lives in Hungary (Georg’s website). As with Karl, he has taken a dynamic, public presence and revived the fame of the Habsburg family name. He is an executive for MTM-SBS TV, director of MTM Communications and is a Hungarian special ambassador to lobby for EEU membership for Hungary. He is married to Duchess Eilika von Oldenburg and they have two children.

    Monika is married to the Duke of San Angelo, has four children and lives in Balaguer, Spain.

    Michaela, Monika’s twin sister, has married Eric Allen d’Antin and Hubert Graf von Kageneck, has three children and lives in Florida.

    Andrea is married to Eugen von Neipperg, has five children and lives in Schwaigern, Germany.

    Gabriella is married to Christian Meister, has three children and lives in Germany.

    Walburga is married to Archibald Douglas, has one son and lives in Sweden.

    My sister married an Englishman 30 years ago. They spent 15 years living in 4 European countries. They consider Germany far, far above every other country including of course the USA where they now live. France comes second. England comes last in their opinion.

    What my sister has most of all against the USA is the White privilege *#%* her daughters were indoctrinated with from nursery school on in very expensive private schools. Like ok ms feminazi marxist teacher, who do you think pays your salary and provides you with intelligent, civilized well behaved kids to teach?

    My Mother retired at 62 and got a job teaching in the American International school in Vienna. She and my Father have only lived in Austria and America, but they too consider Austria heaven on earth compared to America. And my parents are race liberals who like blacks mostly because they have lived all their lives in a 0 percent black 99 percent suburb far from the city. Of course I and my siblings who have experienced blacks have completely different views.

    English brother in law, like all English had been totally indoctrinated with liberal propaganda that blacks were just little misunderstood angels and any problems were caused by evil Whitey.

    Then Sperry Rand transferred them from that paradise of Frankfurt au main Germany to hell on earth Philladelphia and within a few months his opinion of blacks totally changed.

    They sent the children to private schools because of their experience with Philadelphia blacks. They easily afforded the tuition, but, they would have borrowed from his parents, worked 2 jobs, done anything to get the money for the private schools.

    My sister and her husband have many English friends who have worked and lived in Germany for years at a time. They all consider Germany the ideal country in which to live.

    And why did all these British have to go to Germany to work? Because the English absolutely will not hire even the most brilliant STEM and medic grads to work in England. The English companies and goverment prefer Indians with phony degrees, anything but an Englishman.

    I think that about 70 percent of Nobel science, engineering, math, computers prizes have gone to EnglishMEN. With nothing but Indians with their fake degrees and inability to innovate working in STEM jobs
    I wonder how soon it will be that no English get nobel prizes in science and math.

    A wonderful way to get to Germany and Austria if you don’t have children is as an English teacher. The German goal is for every German to speak American style English fluently. Many actually most German companies have mandatory English classes for their hundreds of thousands of employees.

    American banks like employees who speak foreign languages. But well they give employees foreign language classes on company time paid for by the company. Certainly not due to our cannibal style of capitalism.

    But German banks and most companies offer language classes to their employees.

    Living in Los Angeles and surrounded by bowling ball on stump hispanic and other ugly people, I notice that Germans are absolutely beautiful. There are a lot of Poles in Germany and they are even better looking. And N. European White looking, not Armenian/Persian/Arab looking.

    My son was 16 when we celebrated the liberation of Poland by going to Warsaw for some of the ceremonies.
    He was bowled over by the Polish Goddesses. Years later, he never says Polish women, just Polish Goddesses.

    There are problems in Germany, mainly lecherous disgusting Turks who are actually worse about sexual harassement than American blacks in that many American blacks do not bother women, but virtually all Turks bother women. They love to sneak up behind you and grab some flesh and twist as hard as possible. It hurts and leaves a bruise which is the turk’s way of displaying their opinion of Germany and the taxpayers who support them.

    Then there are the American black soldiers and their savage spouses and spawn. But at least the society is German, the best around and the goverment workers are Germans, not affirmative action trash brought here from every 9th world sewer and our own ghettoes.

    if you are young and don’t have children, try being an English teacher in Germany or Austria. You ‘ll like it and might manage a green card marriage.

    Poland was wonderful until 1940 when the Russians invaded. But 60 years of living under the communist jew system has made the formerly honest Poles pretty crooked and corrupt. They might come back. They might not. Wasn’t it Scholityzn who believed that Russia would never recover from 70 years of commie jew destruction?

  98. fender's Gravatar fender
    December 11, 2012 - 11:05 pm | Permalink

    @Will Fredericks:

    “And Fender calls Russians stupid and incapable of self-government”

    My comment went towards Slavs in general actually, but believe me, I’d love them to prove me wrong.

  99. Marcus's Gravatar Marcus
    December 11, 2012 - 11:02 pm | Permalink

    Putin seems like Stalin in that he is a political survivor above all, he’ll do whatever it takes to stay on top, whether that means siding with or against Jewish interests. He won’t encourage overt antisemitism (they even banned “fascist parties iirc) for fear of economic repurcussions, but he has to realize that the main threat to his survival is from the Jewish/globalist conglomerates that are funding all the “revolutions” as well as NATO/EU expansion.

  100. Will Fredericks's Gravatar Will Fredericks
    December 11, 2012 - 10:34 pm | Permalink

    @fender:

    Another thing: Russians are NOT jew-wise. Everything to them is some kind of imperialist, Western/American conspiracy against them; NEVER a jewish conspiracy. They’re proud of how they defeated big bad evil “fascism” in WW2. They’re an unintelligent people with a nihilistic bent.

    I found this interesting commentary on political culture in eastern Ukraine, which is linguistically and culturally quite close to Russia, (even in their political party, the Party of Regions, basically a branch of Putin and United Russia.

    Ukrainian Nationalism

    ……………………………….

    Negative voting mobilizes voters against ‘nationalists’, ‘American lackeys’ and ‘orangists’ equating Our Ukraine and Yushchenko with Nazism. The Party of Regions and Yanukovych are portrayed as the
    defenders of Eastern Ukrainians against ‘nationalists’ (see Kuzio, 2011).
    Campaigns against ‘Ukrainian nationalism’ sought to reduce the popularity of Yushchenko and Our Ukraine in Russophone Eastern and Southern Ukraine by encouraging negative voting against them in favor of Yanukovych and the Party of Regions
    (see earlier). Our Ukraine was depicted as ‘Nashist,’ a play on Nasha Ukrayina (Our Ukraine) to confuse voters with ‘Nazi.’

    During Our Ukraine’s October 31, 2003 congress in the city of Donetsk it was inundated with billboards showing Yushchenko giving a Nazi salute. During the elections in Luhansk oblast local television showed Yushchenko marching alongside Nazi
    symbols and an advert was aired on all 24 cable channels in the oblast ending with words of foreboding: ‘Let us do the right
    choice!. Nashism will not prevail!’ (Ukrayinska Pravda, November 8, 2004).
    An internal leaked memorandum from the Yanukovych campaign laid out instructions to its election staff to portray
    Yushchenko in the media as linked to ‘nationalist, oligarch and extremist circles’ who are ‘one team of thieves’ (Ukrayinska
    Pravda, November 8, 2004). Yanukovych’s representative in the US, Alex Kiselev, attempted to turn Jewish-American groups
    against Yushchenko by portraying him as anti-Semitic and supported by the Ukrainian diaspora which had an alleged record of
    Nazi collaborationism in WorldWar II (www.washingtonjewishweek.com, October 28, 2004, Krawchenko, 2004). The degree to
    which this ‘Nazi’ hysteria had been built up against Yushchenko could be seen in the words of a petrified pensioner who was
    adamant that, ‘If Yushchenko wins, the Nazis will return. I was in the west of Ukraine recently and saw columns of foreign troops,
    fascists. If war comes, I will fight until the last cartridge’ (Barnett, 2004). Such insinuations were most prevalent in Donetsk and
    Crimea, two strongholds of the Yanukovych campaign,where underlying Soviet culture remains deeply entrenched. ……………………..

    Soviet conspiracy theories and political culture in Ukraine:
    Understanding Viktor Yanukovych and the Party of Regions

    I second your observations. People who talk of neo-Soviet politicians as allies of nationalists are living in a fantasy world.

  101. Will Fredericks's Gravatar Will Fredericks
    December 11, 2012 - 9:49 pm | Permalink

    @Athanasius:

    Anyway, how deep did this purge of Jews go? I don’t know. Was the “doctors plot” real and evidence of Stalin’s intent to truly purge Jews? Again, it’s hard to say. Nevertheless, what is clear is that while the Jews conned the rest of the world into believing that they were oppressed in the USSR (Jackson-Vanik), they maintained dominance over elite educations, the media, and management of production. That is how we ended up with the oligarchs who were perfectly placed to liquidate the state assets that they managed when the USSR collapsed.

    You seem to be on the right track here. There’s a lot of discussion here, but oddly (except its typical)
    most of the other comments, typically Stalino/Putinophilic, seem unaware of the fact that this own website published “200 Years Together”, which addresses these questions. Stalin (and even for that matter Putin) as great Russian nationalists? You’d think nationalists would have learned something from the WWII Rooseveltians who called him “Uncle Joe”.

    And Fender calls Russians stupid and incapable of self-government

  102. fender's Gravatar fender
    December 11, 2012 - 8:50 pm | Permalink

    @Marcus:

    “aren’t Russians usually considered extremely “xenophobic”? ”

    Only by pig-ignorant leftists who see “xenophobia” in every White nation. Heck they probably see xenophobia in Sweden too. Russia is actually one of the most multicultural of the “White” nations.

    @protorenaissance:

    “In a contest of both ignorant and most arrogant statements ever pecked onto this blog you just won,fender.”

    I try.

    “Have you really never heard of Kingdom of Poland,the Russian Empire,”

    Yes I have, but the Russian empire was headed by a lot of ethnic Germans. Also, neither of those kingdoms had the legacy of the French, English, Germans, Romans, Greeks, or even the Spanish.

    “Kingdom of Hungary and so forth..?”

    Hungarians aren’t Slavic.

    ” How many centuries of triumphant self-determination your bantustan can boast?”

    Americans? We can boast of maybe about 100 years’ worth of self-determination.

    @Sanjay:

    “by that logic, Jews should rule over Europe.”

    The difference being that jews rule Europe with the intention of genociding its people, while a White-ruled Europe would make us great again.

  103. fender's Gravatar fender
    December 11, 2012 - 8:42 pm | Permalink

    @Athanasius:

    ” I consider myself fairly knowledgeable about Russian/Soviet history, but even to me, the exact dynamics of the rise of Stalin vis-a-vis the Jews is a bit unclear.”

    Actually it’s very clear. Stalin liquidated the jews who were a threat to him and protected the jews who were loyal to him. Their ethnicity was never a factor for him. Stalin was merely an ignorant Georgian peasant and his knowledge of racial and cultural matters was probably almost nonexistant.

    “Having said that, during WWII, Stalin allowed Russian nationalism to re-emerge in the USSR”

    Yes, so he could galvanize Russians into sacrificing their lives to defeat the people (the Nazis) who were trying to save Europe. See how nationalism can be a bad thing? If the Russians had any sense they would have revolted against Stalin during the German invasion and allied with Hitler.

    “–it is the reason why Russians have an emotional attachment to their victory in WWII to this day.”

    Like I said: they’re a stupid people.

    “Moreover, during the show trials, Stalin did eliminate much of the highest Bolshevik elite (Jewish Kamenev, Zinoviev–using Russian Bukharin and Jewish Yagoda, and he got rid of Bukharin and Yagoda in 1938). He replaced them largely with Caucasians (Beria, Orzhonikidze, Mikoyan) and other people of sympathetic backgrounds (Molotov (Russian), Malenkov (Bulgarian)).”

    He eliminated them for their political views and their perceived threat to Stalin’s power; that quite a few jews ended up getting the “wetwork” treatment is not a testament to Stalin’s antisemitism, but a testament to the power jews had in the USSR.

  104. Hapax's Gravatar Hapax
    December 11, 2012 - 8:00 pm | Permalink

    The German adjective reich means “rich”, while the noun Reich means, well, a Reich or “kingdom”. These two meanings are etymologically connected – reich referred to individual wealth while Reich was the Commonwealth, so to speak. So in fact no-one needs to feel any zio-guilt over using the word Reich to express our ideal of a White Europe run for the benefit of White Europeans – as opposed to a Brown Europe run for the benefit of Khazar Banksters.

    The “fear factor” of the word Reich is also fairly high – anything that causes opponents of White Europe to break out in a cold sweat is useful (bit like that ol’ Aryan classic the swastika…)

    “The Reich not only presupposes a geopolitical large space, but means first and foremost a spiritual and transcendental duty for all its citizens” – I believe it is precisely this spiritual dimension that is hard to find in the USSRA and the EUSSR nowadays, except for perhaps within the Christian Identity movement and within Islam, since these, at least, bother resisting the Banksters to some extent.

    Earlier “Reichs” – such as the Holy Roman Empire – presupposed the overarching presence of the Papacy, under whose guidance the Christian nations of Europe were supposed to be kept on the straight and narrow. That straight and narrow also included obeying Papal edicts on Usury and the Jewish Menace, and realizing that the will of nations was subordinate to the Divine Will. Such sensible guidance is notable by its absence nowadays.

    European nationalist movements need to realize that the Banksters – i.e. the Jews – have been amazingly successful at pitting Europeans against Europeans, Christians against Christians, Christians against Muslims, nations against nations – precisely because our leaders have fallen for the fiat currency banking scam time after time – and the temptation to borrow fiat currency from the Banksters to finance wars is just too great. And the one time in the 20th century that we saw a serious attempt to resist (I mean naturally the 3rd Commonwealth – sorry, Reich), the Banksters were able to turn to the USSR, the UK and the USA to destroy Free Europe. But I am not sure who is going to help the Banksters this time when America and Europe finally lose patience and turn against them.

  105. December 11, 2012 - 7:56 pm | Permalink

    @fender:
    by that logic, Jews should rule over Europe.

    According to Darwin, “it’s not the strongest or the most intelligent species that survives, but the ones most responsive, adaptable to change.

    Whites have to adapt to changes and come out stronger from the current crisis.

  106. Trenchant's Gravatar Trenchant
    December 11, 2012 - 7:31 pm | Permalink

    @Athanasius: Let’s not forget that the central planning model with its thicket of rules and regulations created a parallel underground economy with real market prices. No prize for guessing who dominated that market.

  107. protorenaissance's Gravatar protorenaissance
    December 11, 2012 - 7:28 pm | Permalink

    @fender: “… Slavs have never shown themselves capable of self-determination anyway” In a contest of both ignorant and most arrogant statements ever pecked onto this blog you just won,fender.Have you really never heard of Kingdom of Poland,the Russian Empire,Kingdom of Hungary and so forth..? How many centuries of triumphant self-determination your bantustan can boast?

  108. Athanasius's Gravatar Athanasius
    December 11, 2012 - 7:18 pm | Permalink

    @Bobby: Trotsky might have been better for all of us–if he really believed what he said. He probably would have overplayed their hand and forced the Western countries to intervene (Jacob Schiff and the Rothschilds or no).

    You are correct in noting that Trotsky was just as brutal as Stalin (though perhaps a bit less capricious at times). Trotsky was popular among Western leftists who could no longer deny Stalin’s crimes. His rehabilitation in ‘mainstream’ thought is merely an attempt to elevate multicultural marxism to unquestionable dogma once and for all.

  109. Bobby's Gravatar Bobby
    December 11, 2012 - 7:08 pm | Permalink

    @Athanasius: It just kills me. The left never stops lying and waffeling. A new book is coming out about Comrade Trotsky, and will explain that he has been “misunderstood”,etc. I wonder if the Ukranians for example, “misunderstood” comrade Trotsky?

  110. Athanasius's Gravatar Athanasius
    December 11, 2012 - 6:54 pm | Permalink

    @Marcus: Stalin would never have won the battle with Trotsky without Kamenev and Zinoviev’s support.

  111. Athanasius's Gravatar Athanasius
    December 11, 2012 - 6:53 pm | Permalink

    @fender: I consider myself fairly knowledgeable about Russian/Soviet history, but even to me, the exact dynamics of the rise of Stalin vis-a-vis the Jews is a bit unclear. If you look at the USSR in the 1917-1939 period, it is anti-traditionalist, multicultural (see for example, the infamous movie “Circus” about an American woman who sleeps with a negro and then comes to the USSR where she and her mulatto offspring are accepted), and, though officially accepting Stalin’s “Socialism in one country” over Trotsky’s global revolution, nevertheless working to undermine western countries (Potsdam was a natural extension of this).

    Having said that, during WWII, Stalin allowed Russian nationalism to re-emerge in the USSR–an undercurrent that was with it until its collapse (despite Khruschev’s backpedalling ). For example, the number of Orthodox churches in Russia declined from 20,000+ in 1917 to less than 500 in the 1930s. During the war, the number increased to 8,000+ (and back down 2,000 when Khruschev took power). Stalin allowed the election of a new Russian Patriarch (after a nearly 20-year vacancy), which had great symbolic value for the Russian people–as the predominant people of the USSR. After the Bolshevik privations of the 20′s and 30′s, Stalin’s “Russian” policy was wildly successful–it is the reason why Russians have an emotional attachment to their victory in WWII to this day.

    Moreover, during the show trials, Stalin did eliminate much of the highest Bolshevik elite (Jewish Kamenev, Zinoviev–using Russian Bukharin and Jewish Yagoda, and he got rid of Bukharin and Yagoda in 1938). He replaced them largely with Caucasians (Beria, Orzhonikidze, Mikoyan) and other people of sympathetic backgrounds (Molotov (Russian), Malenkov (Bulgarian)).

    Anyway, how deep did this purge of Jews go? I don’t know. Was the “doctors plot” real and evidence of Stalin’s intent to truly purge Jews? Again, it’s hard to say. Nevertheless, what is clear is that while the Jews conned the rest of the world into believing that they were oppressed in the USSR (Jackson-Vanik), they maintained dominance over elite educations, the media, and management of production. That is how we ended up with the oligarchs who were perfectly placed to liquidate the state assets that they managed when the USSR collapsed.

  112. Marcus's Gravatar Marcus
    December 11, 2012 - 6:52 pm | Permalink

    @fender, aren’t Russians usually considered extremely “xenophobic”? It makes sense given their history. For example see the youtube video “from russia with hate.” Also I don’t think Stalin was a philosemite at all, his struggle with Trotsky was basically a gentile vs Jew conflict, however he wasn’t a devoted antisemite either, basically an opportunist.

  113. fender's Gravatar fender
    December 11, 2012 - 6:28 pm | Permalink

    @fender:

    Hit the “post comment” button before I finished.

    “To some extent yes, but at the same time, the USSR never did anything to”

    fix its internal problems and promote what was best for ethnic Russians: namely, rebuilding the aristocracy that the jews exterminated decades earlier. And of course, no Soviet politicians made any attempt to explain to the world that the west was jew-run.

    “The fact that the jews massacred Russians and Ukrainians by the billions, ”

    Meant millions, obviously… but massacring billions, i.e. the Samson Option, is another quintissentially jewish dream.

  114. fender's Gravatar fender
    December 11, 2012 - 6:24 pm | Permalink

    @Donar van Holland:

    “To understand Russia, you need to acknowledge that 1917 was a Jewish-Bolshevik revolution,”

    I think everyone here understands that. “Revolution” isn’t the right word: takeover is.

    ” but that after WW II Stalin destroyed the Jewish power in the Communist Party (probably the Jews murdered him for that).”

    No he didn’t, they just moved to israel. Stalin was a philosemite.

    “Anyway, the Soviet-Union, for all its crimes, became a great anti-Jewish power. This caused the anti-Russian stance of the Jews and therefore of the US during the Cold War.”

    To some extent yes, but at the same time, the USSR never did anything to

    “After the Soviet-Union had finally disintegrated, the Jews tried to take over Russia. They had almost succeeded under their puppet Yeltsin. But Putin prevented this, and even put some of them in jail.”

    Putin prevented nothing. Do some research as to who owns everything in Russia and you’ll find a greasy jew behind everything. Same in Ukraine. The fact that the jews massacred Russians and Ukrainians by the billions, and they still let them live in their lands, is proof that they are too weak and incompetent to do anything.

    “As you know, Putin is a former KGB-officer. People from the KGB were elite people, selected for intelligence and rigorously trained. How does that compare to politicians in the west? And the KGB did not look kindly on Jews. Putin may be an autocrat, but as he is competent I rather endorse that.”

    What makes you think Putin is jew-wise? Just recently they opened a “jewish museum of tolerance” (LOL! after the jews massacred millions) in Moscow.

    “So indeed, the Jews are very unhappy that there is a major nuclear power that is not under their control. That is why Putin is vilified in western media.”

    Putin isn’t villified. He’s not villified because they know he’s on their side.

    Put aside rhetoric and look at the facts: jews own everything in Russia. Putin has done nothing to stop Muslim immigration into his land, and he’s flat-out said that ethnic nationalism is stupid. No one in the Russian government is doing anything about the hypermortality the country is experiencing.

    Another thing: Russians are NOT jew-wise. Everything to them is some kind of imperialist, Western/American conspiracy against them; NEVER a jewish conspiracy. They’re proud of how they defeated big bad evil “fascism” in WW2. They’re an unintelligent people with a nihilistic bent.

  115. Trenchant's Gravatar Trenchant
    December 11, 2012 - 6:19 pm | Permalink

    @Trudie: Thanks for offering me opportunity to tout Hoppe’s Democracy: The God that Failed:
    http://is.gd/N07ani

  116. Bobby's Gravatar Bobby
    December 11, 2012 - 5:59 pm | Permalink

    @Tom Sunic: Dr. Sunic, I am so greatfull that you qualified yourself by saying that the, “whole palaver about Germans vs. Slavs is greatly exaggerated by the post WW11 liberal education and propaganda.” Yes, sir, absolutely. I have said this ad infinitum to where even I’m tired of saying it, ” no one can possibly exaggerate the damage done to the Western World by the left, before and after WW11.

  117. December 11, 2012 - 5:50 pm | Permalink

    @Will Fredericks:
    Leon Degrelle would disagree with you.

  118. Will Fredericks's Gravatar Will Fredericks
    December 11, 2012 - 5:36 pm | Permalink

    @Karlfried: @Karlfried:

    In Germany, the word „Reich“ has sunshine in the word .
    It comes from the heart. It is much more than “state” and it is different from “empire”.
    It includes the area of the middleeuropean peoples which are seen as a common body.

    It does not matter, where the capital city is. — If we look at Croatia: In their fight for freedom in the early 1990s the German government and foreigen minister at a very early time gave diplomatic support, without calculating wether this is good or not. It was a feeling that the Croats are “our” people. I think that the Croats see it the same way.

    The word “Reich” also is in our religious writings. Our best known prayer “Vaterunser” (Our Father) ends with the words: „Denn dein ist das Reich und die Kraft und die Herrlichkeit in Ewigkeit“ (For thine is the kingdom, and the power,
    and the glory, for ever.) So when we say the prayer, the first lines go forward normally, but when there is “denn dein ist das Reich” the last 1000 years of the historic Reich come to the heart together with the religious meaning.

    Maybe somebody sees the word Reich in a non-positive context. Then we think that this person has listened to long to anti-German Hollywood-Propaganda.
    I do not say that my look at the world is true. I say it is the way that we Germans see the world, maybe somehow exaggerated to our advantage, but it is our way.

    Your point about the positive meaning of the word “Reich” in German is well taken, but so are the comments of others about the negative connotations of the word to others. Like many other things associated with Nazism, practically we must regard the term today as not capable of rehabilitation. The challenge is that there are still many things associated with the term and its conceptuality which really are needed. I commented on the use of this term previously.

    Moeller’s political theories make up an organic whole, the cultural, historical, and political aspects of which are clearly independent. All his speculations led back to the idea of the Third Reich, his central theme. ,,It was a myth as powerful and appealing as the classless society of Karl Marx and the genera strike of George Sorel. Indeed Moeller’s scheme has been called a “political religion”. At least it presented the rudiments of faith, a new faith, and transcended reason. Moeller for once made German conservatism exciting”

    The Conservative Revolution Then and Now: Junger and the European New Right

    An interesting thing Klemperer notes on Moeller’s use of the term “Third Reich” is that the term itself is deeply rooted in Germanic mythology. As such it is untranslatable, as Tom Sunic notes. The interesting thing is that Moeller himself, in spite of the term’s special meaning in German, still considered alternate terminology including terms like “The Third Way” or “The Third Position”. They were intended to denote, among other things, the special position of his movement – between left and right, east and west, parliamentary democracy vs. absolute dictatorship, etc. I think the naming of our party, putting it in the “Third Positionist” group of parties, reflects this, although in view of the lack of understanding regarding this term in America there is some reticence about explaining it. Eventually though people do need to understand what we stand for, even if the inevitable slanders and false comparisons will take place. We do need to understand ourselves though what we stand for. To this purpose I appreciate Tom Sunic’s article here.

  119. Donar van Holland's Gravatar Donar van Holland
    December 11, 2012 - 4:41 pm | Permalink

    @fender: To understand Russia, you need to acknowledge that 1917 was a Jewish-Bolshevik revolution, but that after WW II Stalin destroyed the Jewish power in the Communist Party (probably the Jews murdered him for that). Anyway, the Soviet-Union, for all its crimes, became a great anti-Jewish power. This caused the anti-Russian stance of the Jews and therefore of the US during the Cold War.

    After the Soviet-Union had finally disintegrated, the Jews tried to take over Russia. They had almost succeeded under their puppet Yeltsin. But Putin prevented this, and even put some of them in jail.

    As you know, Putin is a former KGB-officer. People from the KGB were elite people, selected for intelligence and rigorously trained. How does that compare to politicians in the west? And the KGB did not look kindly on Jews. Putin may be an autocrat, but as he is competent I rather endorse that.

    So indeed, the Jews are very unhappy that there is a major nuclear power that is not under their control. That is why Putin is vilified in western media.

    As for your IQ figures: even if they are reliable, they only give an average for a population. If a people fosters a non-liberal nation, where the true elite holds power, the high IQ people will be the leaders (not the dumb winners of beauty contests that are the western politicians). And if they also have a drive for Tradition, their intelligence will be augmented by the wisdom of their ancestors.

    Therefore, I have quite some respect for someone who is from the KGB elite and an ardent Orthodox Christian, such as the president of Russia Mr. Putin.

  120. Will Fredericks's Gravatar Will Fredericks
    December 11, 2012 - 4:30 pm | Permalink

    @Curmudgeon:

    The attack on the eastern front was more to do with stopping the Soviets from taking over Europe than territorial ambitions.

    We had an interesting discussion on this over on the Phora, re Suvorov’s Icebraker, which also involves many of my observations about Kilzer’s book, Hitler’s Traitor on Bormann and the Third Reich.

    There were many Poles, Ukrainians, and other groups that willingly joined the German militatry in hope of defeating the Soviet communists. They were betrayed by the west in Operation Keelhaul, and other such actions requested by “Uncle Joe”.

    Leaders like Stepan Bandera were betrayed by Hitler as well. Bandera spent most of the war in a German prison camp for declaring and independent Ukraine. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ukrainian_collaborationism_with_the_Axis_powers).

  121. Marcus's Gravatar Marcus
    December 11, 2012 - 4:30 pm | Permalink

    @Will Fredericks, I agree, there was definitely an admiration for Soviet methods by many Nazi leaders. It seems like Hitler himself was very hands off in eastern affairs (as with all areas other than military strategy), which allowed ambitious and ruthless bureaucrats like Koch to carve out their own brutal fiefdoms. I think he was simply cold & indifferent personally. Rosenberg gave him the (correct) impression of Soviet weakness but he totally neglected the recommended way to exploit it. Poor Rosenberg is the hapless victim in all this, he understood the situation but was no match politically for such ruthless players as Goring, Himmler, Goebbels, and Bormann

  122. Tom Sunic's Gravatar Tom Sunic
    December 11, 2012 - 4:16 pm | Permalink

    Regarding lower IQ of East Europeans and “Slavs” – it is unfortunately and to a large extent true. I’d refer you to my previous piece in TOO, “The Dysgenics of a Communist Killing Field: the Croat Bleiburg,” where I talk about the slaughter of the entire Croat middle class by the Yu Communists in 1945. Tatu Vanhanen, John Glad ( who is of Croat origin) also write on the subject of “aristocide” i.e. communist dysgenics . R. Lynn also revised later some of his figures. (We both discussed this topic extensively here).
    To some extent lower IQ in Russia and EE – is the result of serial communist massacres, 1945-50. BTW, the whole palaver about Germans vs. Slavs is greatly exaggerated by the posit WWII liberal education and propaganda. Many NSDP leaders were of “Slavic” origin, Arthur Seyss -Inquart — the highest IQ at the “Nuremberg measurement” ( IQ 145) was also of Czech origin ( Inquart also goes by the name “Zajtich”). General Lothar von Rendulic, a high NSDAP official was of Croat origin, head of German intelligence in the Balkans in 1943, etc., etc. This is another topic which needs to be discusses soberly. Let us look at the facts — not Hollywood fiction of the proverbial “Nazi persecution of Slavs.”

  123. Will Fredericks's Gravatar Will Fredericks
    December 11, 2012 - 4:06 pm | Permalink

    @Curmudgeon:

    The mis-information continues. While the NSDAP may have had some unkind things to say about Slavs, including Poles, the treatment of them was not as advertized. The NSDAP made its territorial ambitions well known – pre-Versaille borders.

    You tend to be a hardliner Curmudgeon, but this just isn’t true. Once the invasion started, the goal of the Third Reich was clear – there was going to be no competing power west of the Urals – rather basically just an extension of the Reich to there. With the resultant status of the existing inhabitants, which would now be resident aliens, rather tenuous.

    The attack on the eastern front was more to do with stopping the Soviets from taking over Europe than territorial ambitions.We had an interesting discussion on the over on the Phora, re Suvorov’s Icebraker, which also involves many of my observations about Kilzer’s book, Hitler’s Traitor on Bormann and the Tird Reich

    There were many Poles, Ukrainians, and other groups that willingly joined the German militatry in hope of defeating the Soviet communists. They were betrayed by the west in Operation Keelhaul, and other such actions requested by “Uncle Joe”. Leaders like Stepan Bandera were betrayed by Hitler as well. Bandera spent most of the war in a German prison camp for declaring and independent Ukraine. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ukrainian_collaborationism_with_the_Axis_powers)

  124. Pierre de Craon's Gravatar Pierre de Craon
    December 11, 2012 - 3:57 pm | Permalink

    @buckle: Unfair! Mr. Sunic, whatever his accomplishments, isn’t Heracles!

    You may have noticed that, on another thread, Bobby asked me whether I would be good enough to translate one of her comments into English. I begged off with a joke. Bobby doubtless was aware that I considered it a labor beyond my abilities, but he is too genteel a man to have called me on it.
    ________________________________________
    While this article probably has more immediate relevance and resonance for the Europeans among us (I’ll let you decide for yourself, buckle, how precisely “Euro” you feel today) than for me and my fellow Yanks, bred as we are to antinomianism and to a relentlessly instilled loathing of subordination, nature’s least deniable characteristic, it has for at least one reason risen to the top of my list of December’s best: threads graced by thoughtful comments from Hooper, Mr. van Holland, Trudie, Sir Tristram, and Karlfried aren’t so plentiful as to be taken for granted.

  125. Pierre de Craon's Gravatar Pierre de Craon
    December 11, 2012 - 3:37 pm | Permalink

    @Karlfried:

    I am very glad that I am allowed to write on this very good blog of Kevin McDonald and that I am accepted by other commenters.

    It is not a matter merely of acceptance, Karlfried. I am one of many here who look forward to reading your comments. I have profited from every one of them.

  126. Will Fredericks's Gravatar Will Fredericks
    December 11, 2012 - 3:24 pm | Permalink

    @Marcus:

    I hope you were being facetious, the Nazi leadership had no interest in bringing stability to Eastern Europe, other than the stability enslavement brings. Of course there were exceptions, like Alfred Rosenberg (raised in the old Russian Empire), who lobbied for better treatment of easterners, but the views expressed by Himmler, Bormann, Hitler, etc. were largely the ones put into practice.

    One singular example of this split acknowledged by mainstream sources was the dissension between Rosenberg and Koch over the treatment of easterners, in particular the Ukraine. Rosenberg of course was in favor of working with Ukrainians, giving them limited self rule, while Koch of course was in favor of ruling these territories by “the knaut”. History of course records that this dispute went to Hitler, who ruled in favor of Koch.

    Louis Kilzer who in his book “Hitler’s Traitor” basically blames Martin Bormann for the loss of the war, makes the spectacular assertion that Bormann was a Soviet agent, and in this capacity was responsible for not only for the enormous intelligence leaks of “Werther” but also a number of other policies that benefited the Soviets enormously. One of these policies was of course the harsh German policy toward the occupied territories, which worked to the enormous benefit to the Soviets. Koch of course was a Bormann protege, and the whole harsh line he took came directly from Bormann, who managed to convince Hitler of this.

    It is an interesting speculation that so many policies we associate with Nazism ; the holocaust and harsh treatment toward Slavs, might originate ultimately not with the Germans but with Stalin and the Soviets. It really is a little pursued aspect of Nazism which deserves more investigation, although it understandably is not a popular line of inquiry.

  127. Marcus's Gravatar Marcus
    December 11, 2012 - 2:28 pm | Permalink

    @Fender, Maybe, but IMO they were doing ok before the Mongol invasions. Even the Russian empire was making giant strides before WW1, Nicholas II just wasn’t up to the task of navigating through those awful years. Also the French could have said something very similar about how reorganizing the quarreling German states into the puppet Confederation of Rhine was for their own good.

  128. Bobby's Gravatar Bobby
    December 11, 2012 - 2:26 pm | Permalink

    @Vladimir: I have NEVER, subscribed to Slavs being inferior. One of my great loves, was trying to master the game of chess. In my experience studying the history of the game, I was amazed at how many great Slavic players and champions there were. Dr. Alexander Alekine, was a world chess champion, one of the greatest players of all time, and he was Slavic. The former Yugoslavia had and has now in its former territories, many great players of the game, both Serbs and Croations.
    Furthermore, it is estimated that many of the great Prussians of the past and Germans of the present have 40percent Slavic mixture. I have often wished, that this nonsense and tension between these cultures would end, for the benefit of a renewed caucasian Europe. Many people are always predicting that China will be the power of the future and overtake greater Europe. I’m not sure of this, but if our people don’t wake up, it’s a very real possibility. Of course the U.S. won’t like this, but unfortunately the U.S. is in decline, and most every poster here knows damn well why.

  129. Sandman's Gravatar Sandman
    December 11, 2012 - 2:15 pm | Permalink

    “Today is a happy day, pig. The emperor has graciously deemed to award me the Iron Cross 1st Class. I expect to see my face in these boots. (Thankyou my Emperor)…Aren’t you glad you admitted your inferiority,pig?”

  130. fender's Gravatar fender
    December 11, 2012 - 1:43 pm | Permalink

    @Marcus:

    Yes, Slavs would technically be “oppressed” under the Reich; Hitler wanted to shut down Kiev university, for example, as he saw no need for the locals to be educated. However that’s far preferable to being exterminated like they were under the jews from 1917 and on. Furthermore, Slavs have never shown themselves capable of self-determination anyway, and I say this as someone who is mostly Slavic myself.

  131. December 11, 2012 - 1:41 pm | Permalink

    @Curmudgeon:
    I should have added that the US troops invading Normandy were met with opposition from the local French Normans who had become prosperous under German “control”.

  132. fender's Gravatar fender
    December 11, 2012 - 1:40 pm | Permalink

    @Vladimir:

    http://sq.4mg.com/NationIQ.htm

    Serbia isn’t listed there, I had to find it separately, but it makes sense that their national IQ would be nearly identical to Croatia’s.

  133. December 11, 2012 - 1:39 pm | Permalink

    @Marcus:
    The mis-information continues. While the NSDAP may have had some unkind things to say about Slavs, including Poles, the treatment of them was not as advertized. The NSDAP made its territorial ambitions well known – pre-Versaille borders. The attack on the eastern front was more to do with stopping the Soviets from taking over Europe than territorial ambitions. There were many Poles, Ukrainians, and other groups that willingly joined the German militatry in hope of defeating the Soviet communists.
    They were betrayed by the west in Operation Keelhaul, and other such actions requested by “Uncle Joe”.

  134. Vladimir's Gravatar Vladimir
    December 11, 2012 - 1:04 pm | Permalink

    @fender?

    Can you please show where you pulled those IQ figures from please?

  135. fender's Gravatar fender
    December 11, 2012 - 12:51 pm | Permalink

    @Donar van Holland:

    “The role of Russia I view as rather positive too. Putin is not a white nationalist, but he has defeated most of the Jewish-liberal attacks on his nation. And he is Jew-wise, as an ex-KGB officer.”

    He absolutely is not. Russia is completely jew-run, every bit as much as the US is: they own all the media, banks, and energy companies there. They just hide behind the scenes more than they do here. Do you actually think the jews would allow a nation that has as many nukes as Russia has to be free from jewish control?

    “There are some countries that offer more hope: Slovakia, Croatia, Serbia, and especially Hungary.”

    Hungary and Slovakia maybe (99 and 96 average national IQ, respectively), but Serbia and Croatia are two of the lowest-IQ nations in Europe (about 90 for both).

    “Furthermore, Italy may be corrupt, but they do have a strong Fascist movement. So has France, by the way.”

    France has far too many negroes in it. They’re done for. As for Italy I was shocked to see that they have an average IQ of 102. Is that right? No offense to any Italians here but I always found them to be a somewhat dim-witted people. If they can pull a nationalist movement together, and if their IQ is as high as it says, then maybe they can be successful.

  136. Karlfried's Gravatar Karlfried
    December 11, 2012 - 12:38 pm | Permalink

    To Tom Sunic and the other commenters.
    I am very glad that I am allowed to write on this very good blog of Kevin McDonald and that I am accepted by other commenters. Thank you those who did write positive answers, namely Tom Sunic himself and European. I thank those who did write other comments also. We need a free exchange of thoughts. That helps very much.
    I think that the common aim of the survival of our race will need the best and most powerful efforts and tools and instruments that we have or can develop. Also I think that we will need a multitude of efforts, some very clever, some very easy (easy to understand and easy to use), and to be used in big numbers. We should use the different abilities of the white peoples as an advantage, we should make the best use of it. The German way of seeing the world will be helpfull, the Italian way also, other ways also. Together we will succeed. See for example: “Va pensiero”. Please hear it some times. Guiseppe Verdi did pack the Italian wish for a better world in a single song and melody and it has become a present to the whole world. That music takes the heart into a high feeling. That song is a highlight of European culture and it is a weapon in the fight for our survival also.

  137. Sir Tristram's Gravatar Sir Tristram
    December 11, 2012 - 12:29 pm | Permalink

    Though it may not seem obvious to many now, especially in Europe, the key to unlock the sceptre, is in Red State America.

  138. Sir Tristram's Gravatar Sir Tristram
    December 11, 2012 - 12:25 pm | Permalink

    Excellent article, Tom. I would also like to add Evola’s perspective on this topic and suggest that, within the United States, these ideas are highly resonant with the Southern Cavalier tradition…

    According to the Ghibelline theology, the Empire was an institution of supernatural origin and character, like the Church…It had its own sacred nature, just as, during the Middle Ages, the dignity of the Kings themselves had an almost priestly nature…On this basis, the Ghibelline emperors – who were the representatives of a universal and supernational idea, embodying a lex animata in terris [a living law on earth] – opposed the hegemonic claims of the clergy.

    -Julius Evola, from Men Among the Ruins

    The ideal of the empire reemerged one more time in the Ghibelline Middle Ages with the same metahistorical content, that is, as a supernatural universal institution created by Providence as a remedium contra infirmitatem peccati in order to straighten the fallen human nature and direct people to eternal salvation. This ideal was for all practical purposes paralyzed both by the Church and by historical circumstances, which precluded its comprehension as well as its effective realization according to its higher meaning. Dante, for instance, from a traditional point of view was correct in claiming for the empire the same origins and supernatural destiny of the Church. He was also correct in talking about the emperor as one who, “owning everything and no longer wishing for anything else,” is free of concupiscence, and who can therefore allow peace and justice to reign and thus strengthen the active life of his subjects; after the original sin, this life can no longer resist the seductions of cupiditas unless a higher power controls it and directs it.

    Although he expressed traditionally correct views about the empire, Dante Alighieri was unable to carry these ideas beyond the political and material plane. In Dante’s view, the emperor’s “perfect possession” is not an inner possession, typical of “those who are” but it is rather a territorial possession. Also, the cupiditas that he abhors is not the root of an unregenerated life tied to the law of becoming and lived out in a naturalistic state, but rather the cupiditas of the princes competing for power and riches. Again, according to him, “peace” is that of the “world,” which constitutes the anticipation of a different order beyond that of the empire and of a contemplative life in an ascetical Christian sense.

    Tradition lives on, however, although only in faint echoes. With the Hohenstaufen dynasty Tradition had a last bright flicker; eventually the empires would be replaced by “imperialisms” and the state would be understood only as a temporal, national, particularistic, social, and plebeian organization(28).

    …The Guelph(Gregorian-Thomist) view is the expression of an emasculated spirituality to which a temporal power is superimposed from the outside in order to strengthen it and render it efficient; this view eventually replaced the synthesis of spirituality and power, of regal supernaturality and centrality typical of the pure traditional idea. The Thomist worldview attempted to correct such an absurdity by conceiving a certain continuity between state and Church and by seeing in the state a “providential” institution. According to this view, the state cannot act beyond a certain limit; the Church takes over beyond that limit as an eminently and directly supernatural institution by perfecting the overall sociopolitical order and by actualizing the goal that excedit proportionem naturalis facultatis humanae. While this view is not too far off from traditional truth, it unfortunately encounters, in the order of ideas to which it belongs, an insurmountable difficulty represented by the essential difference in the types of relationship with the divine that are proper to regality and to priesthood respectively. In order for a real continuity, rather than a hiatus, to exist between the two successive degrees of a unitary organization (Scholasticism identified them with state and Church), it would have been necessary for the Church to embody in the supernatural order the same spirit that the imperium, strictly speaking, embodied on the material plane; this spirit is what I have called “spiritual virility.” The “religious” view typical of Christianity, however, did not allow for anything of this sort; from Pope Gelasius I onward the Church’s claim was that since Christ had come, nobody could be king and priest at the same time. Despite her hierocratic claims, the Church does not embody the virile (solar) pole of the spirit, but the feminine(lunar) pole. She may lay claim to the key but not the scepter. Because of her role as mediatrix of the divine conceived theistically, and because of her view of spirituality as “contemplative life” essentially different from “active life” (not even Dante was able to go beyond this opposition), the Church cannot represent the best integration of all particular organizations – that is to say, she cannot represent the pinnacle of a great, homogenous ordinatio ad unum capable of encompassing both the peak and the essence of the “providential” design that is foreshadowed, according tot he abovementioned view, in single organic and hierarchical political unities.

    If a body is free only when it obeys its soul – and not a heterogeneous soul – than we must give credit to Frederick II’s claim, according to which the states that recognize the authority of the Empire are free, while those states that submit to the Church, which represents another spirituality, are the real slaves(78).

    -Julius Evola, Revolt Against the Modern World

  139. The Goy Chevalier's Gravatar The Goy Chevalier
    December 11, 2012 - 11:23 am | Permalink

    I just want to throw this quote in here so it’s recorded somewhere in the vortex…

    The world-wide organization of Poale-Zionism, the Poale-Zion “International,” so to say, is the symbol of national and social unity of the workers of Jewry in all countries. It is the practical demonstration to the world that nationality is stronger than and distinct from State; it shows the essential unity of fate and aim of the Jewish Socialists. Through it every organization of Paole-Zioniosm is part and parcel of the world-wide Jewish movement for freedom. The international Poale-Zion Confederation is the living expression of National Socialism or Socialistic Nationalism, which has been finally recognized as the only true conception of Socialism.

    The Aims of Jewish Labor. Memorandum to the Socialist Labor Democracy of the World by the Jewish Socialist Labor Party, Poale-Zion of America, p. 17 (New York City, 1918).

  140. Marcus's Gravatar Marcus
    December 11, 2012 - 10:53 am | Permalink

    @fender, I hope you were being facetious, the Nazi leadership had no interest in bringing stability to Eastern Europe, other than the stability enslavement brings. Of course there were exceptions, like Alfred Rosenberg (raised in the old Russian Empire), who lobbied for better treatment of easterners, but the views expressed by Himmler, Bormann, Hitler, etc. were largely the ones put into practice.

  141. daniel's Gravatar daniel
    December 11, 2012 - 10:44 am | Permalink

    I’m glad that this thread has made it clear that the call for the “undoing of ‘petty’ nationalisms” is exactly as I had suspected – an attempt to lull neighboring European countries into unpreparedness for defense against imperialism and aggression by a renewed “reich.”

    Let’s fight World War 2 again, and keep fighting it (in stead of banding in cooperation against non-Europeans): great idea.

  142. Facio Libre's Gravatar Facio Libre
    December 11, 2012 - 8:59 am | Permalink

    @Tom Sunic

    “But first we need the de- demonization of German culture, the German language– and German modern historiography.”

    Good luck with that Tom! Hell will freeze over first before Germany is allowed to lord over Europe. Not only will Germany be resisted by all the smaller nations, but countries such as Russia and U.S.A. will prevent this from taking place, through a nuclear holocaust if necessary. No one in Central/East Europe wants to be Germany’s pet. Well, except maybe for the Croats.

  143. December 11, 2012 - 8:58 am | Permalink

    Trudie: I agree. Otto von Habsburg was a man able to overcome those petty xenophobic tribal sentiments that are still strong among Central European peoples – always at the expense of the Other. I can see a certain advantage in the ethnic- racial-cultural cohesion of the European Americans—provided they can vote the right people into office.

  144. Vladimir's Gravatar Vladimir
    December 11, 2012 - 8:56 am | Permalink

    @Bobby

    Of course Slavs are white, Mr Sunic himself is a Slav. However I don’t subscribe to this Nazi idea that Slavs are inferior Europeans, we’re just awful with politics and government. You wouldn’t say that the Italians are inferior because they are corrupt.

    Interesting article though, Sunic is right, Croats and Serbs are the same, the hatred is rooted in the Schism between the eastern and western churches. Christianity has done a lot if damage in Europe.

  145. December 11, 2012 - 8:44 am | Permalink

    To Karlfried. I agree. But first we need the de- demonization of German culture, the German language– and German modern historiography. Tom.

  146. European's Gravatar European
    December 11, 2012 - 8:05 am | Permalink

    @Karlfried:

    Very well stated Karlfried. Germans do think of “Reich” from the spiritual to the earthly, it is more then the individual, it is an us, a people bound together by a spiritual, thousand and more years, and going historicaly over long political developements, changes and experiences to the present. It gives Jews enough reason to attack Germans, Christianity, or anything that would give strength and power to a people, destroy it, rob it, dilute, perverse the meanings and values, to weaken them thru guilt or financially. You name it, they go full force into a social structure of a people to gain a foothold over them, Christianity included, or whomever they wish to destroy or annialate. “Reich” has depth to Germans, it is organic. Beware of the war that is being waged against individuals to destroy the bonds of us, spiritualy, as well as ethnic and political. Their goal is to bring all Europeans to their knees to the chosen ones. They have not realized the choseness of those who choose Life, and life’s natural and holy values. They will reap seven fold for our distruction. It is not their victimhood to be mourned, a perversion, it is cause and effect and their “inability” to understand and respect life outside of their own.
    Karlfried, keep your name in takt, your comment was appreciated. Thanks.

  147. Donar van Holland's Gravatar Donar van Holland
    December 11, 2012 - 7:11 am | Permalink

    @fender: Well, you are probably right that an resurgence of European power is not likely to come from Britain, France or Scandinavia. But Germany is not much better, despite some – heavily persecuted – groups in the east. There are some countries that offer more hope: Slovakia, Croatia, Serbia, and especially Hungary. The role of Russia I view as rather positive too. Putin is not a white nationalist, but he has defeated most of the Jewish-liberal attacks on his nation. And he is Jew-wise, as an ex-KGB officer. Furthermore, Italy may be corrupt, but they do have a strong Fascist movement. So has France, by the way. I would have preferred a Europe under German leadership, but that is simply a lost chance. Maybe there will be a second chance for an important German role when Europe already has been saved. But for now I do not see Germany take the lead. In fact, as much as this may irritate you, I think that Russia is a far more likely candidate.

  148. Lombard's Gravatar Lombard
    December 11, 2012 - 5:53 am | Permalink

    The positive aspect of the EU is that it lays down some framework for a strong Europe. If another Napoleon can arise (without the philo-judaism) then there may be hope. Nationalism in a way, has never been stronger. Now that no-one is allowed to openly talk of Jews, Muslims, other minorities etc Most Europeans have reverse sublimated their feelings to hate each other even more. This is similar to the USA ‘kwans who are too cowardly to attack Jewish power so they resort to blaming some other white institution with no sense of the self-infliction.

    It’s hard to believe anything will arrest the tide in America. There’s nowhere left to run; no New World to conquer a few primitive savages, profit off the vast resources, the geography, cut loose from your mother country and prosper.

  149. Facio Libre's Gravatar Facio Libre
    December 11, 2012 - 2:00 am | Permalink

    @fender

    Regardless of your opinion, it’s not gonna fly in Poland. What you’re suggesting is WWIII.

  150. fender's Gravatar fender
    December 11, 2012 - 12:33 am | Permalink

    @Facio Libre:

    “Sure, Germany is a strong and influential power in Europe but there is no way in hell Polish nationalists or any other Poles will accept German dominating role in Europe. I have a feeling that many other Europeans feel the same.”

    The tribe and their minions will exploit this kind of nationalism to rally nations against the hegemon. It doesn’t matter what the weaker nations think. They’d be better off under German rule anyway because they can’t run themselves. Look at how corrupt and dysfunctional nations like Ukraine and Russia are.

    As brutal as it was, the German occupation of nations like Poland and the suppression of their leadership during WW2 was absolutely necessary to maintain stability in Europe. Any nation not under German rule was ripe for exploitation by the US/UK/Jews.

  151. Facio Libre's Gravatar Facio Libre
    December 10, 2012 - 11:29 pm | Permalink

    King Jan III Sobieski** (correct spelling)

  152. Trudie's Gravatar Trudie
    December 10, 2012 - 10:40 pm | Permalink

    Dr. Sunic:
    Thank you for this remarkable essay. I would like to have heard your lecture.
    If we look to our European past, Westerners flourished in monarchies, not democracies for almost two thousand years – from the Edict of Milan in 313, in which the Emperor Constantine declared Christianity the state religion, until the fall of the House of Habsburg and the Treaty of Versailles in 1918. As the contemporary economist, HH Hoppe writes about monarchy, “as the result of widely diverse human talents, in every society of any degree of complexity a few individuals quickly acquire the status of an elite. Owing to superior achievements of wealth, wisdom, bravery or a combination thereof, some individuals come to possess ‘natural authority” and their opinions and judgments enjoy widespread respect. Moreover, because of selective mating and marriage and the laws of civil and genetic inheritance, positions of natural authority are more likely than not passed on within a few noble families. .. these families (possess) long-established records of superior achievements , farsightedness and exemplary personal conduct.” “Democracy has succeeded…in the ultimate destruction of the natural elites. ” (now) the fortunes of the great families have dissipated, and their tradition of culture and economic independence, intellectual farsightedness, and moral and spiritual leadership has been forgotten.”

    Hear the last tribute to Otto von Habsburg, Requiem Mass in Vienna, July, 2011

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vYmU2yRY7xk&feature=related
    Kaiserhymne (Emperor’s Hymn)

    Gott erhalte, Gott beschütze
    Unsern Kaiser, unser Land!
    Mächtig durch des Glaubens Stütze,
    Führt er uns mit weiser Hand!
    Laßt uns seiner Väter Krone
    Schirmen wider jeden Feind!
    Innig bleibt mit Habsburgs Throne
    Österreichs Geschick vereint

    God save, God protect
    Our Emperor, Our Country!
    Powerful support through faith,
    He leads us with a wise hand!
    Let the Crown of his Fathers
    shield against any foe!
    Austria’s Destiny remains
    intimately united with the Habsburg throne.

    As crown prince, Otto von Habsburg’s realm comprised modern-day Austria, Hungary, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Croatia, the Czech Republic, Slovakia, Slovenia, and parts of Italy, Montenegro, Poland, Romania, Serbia and Ukraine. The Habsburgs ruled and reigned for almost 700 years. They were and are among the true elite of Europe in intellect, breeding, and bearing.
    Otto von Habsburg spoke German, Hungarian, Croatian, English, Spanish, French and Latin fluently. In 1935, he graduated with a PhD degree in Political and Social Sciences from the University of Louvain in Belgium. He wrote 40 books in German, Hungarian, French and Spanish. He was a devout Catholic.

    Celebrant at the Requiem Mass is Christoph Cardinal Count von Schönborn, also of a central European noble family.
    Watch the complete funeral with representatives from the entire former Reich:

  153. Facio Libre's Gravatar Facio Libre
    December 10, 2012 - 10:39 pm | Permalink

    The Muslim hordes were stopped at the gates of Vienna by the Polish king Sobiewski. Just saying..

  154. Facio Libre's Gravatar Facio Libre
    December 10, 2012 - 10:37 pm | Permalink

    Nothing unifies Poles towards resistance like the Germans at the helm..

  155. Marcus's Gravatar Marcus
    December 10, 2012 - 10:31 pm | Permalink

    Great article, I always admired the Habsburgs, and how they fostered a great artistic flowering while opening up the New World and defending Europe in Spain and the Balkans. Chales V has always been one of my favorite European leaders and the 16th century one of the greatest epochs in continental history. Too bad they became weak dynastically and outmoded in their strategic thinking (especially in Spain).

  156. Facio Libre's Gravatar Facio Libre
    December 10, 2012 - 10:25 pm | Permalink

    I’m not sure about any other European country, but as far as Poland is concerned, the word Reich, or any other German term for that matter, is not going to pass for acceptance at any level, nor for any reason. If we are striving for European (White) unity, it will have to center around something else completely. For example, Europe of Nations, as opposed to European Union, has a much better ring to it to people in this region. Sure, Germany is a strong and influential power in Europe but there is no way in hell Polish nationalists or any other Poles will accept German dominating role in Europe. I have a feeling that many other Europeans feel the same. It is what it is..

  157. fender's Gravatar fender
    December 10, 2012 - 10:13 pm | Permalink

    @Donar van Holland:

    I didn’t advocate for petty nationalism, I advocated for Central European imperialism. The fringes of Europe are all corrupt: the North (Sweden, Norway) is feminine and submissive, the West is absolutely suicidal (England, France), the East is dumb and incompetent (Russia, Ukraine) and the South is hopelessly corrupt (Italy, Greece).

    The heart of the Europe, however, seems to be holding out the best against the forces of dissolution. Switzerland, the last I heard, was considering a moratorium on immigration. The Jobbik party is making headway in Hungary. The Eastern parts of Germany are boiling over with nationalism. I haven’t heard of any serious problems with immigration in the Czech Republic and Slovakia.

    The muslim hordes were stopped at Vienna. I feel that if there’s ever going to be a resurgence of European imperialism, it’s going to come from that central region in Europe, not from the outskirts.

  158. Gregor's Gravatar Gregor
    December 10, 2012 - 10:06 pm | Permalink

    I’m going to break in on Tom’s excellent article and put out some “news”, off topic, but not …

    Here’s our own beloved Dr. MacDonald being interviewed recently. Enjoy!

    http://www.radiofreemississippi.org/audio/RFM-2012-12-10-KevinMacDonald.mp3

    Tom, thanks for your patience with my impertinence!

  159. buckle's Gravatar buckle
    December 10, 2012 - 9:41 pm | Permalink

    @dixie:

    I challenge Mr. Sunic to translate your latest contribution into German.

  160. Floda's Gravatar Floda
    December 10, 2012 - 9:26 pm | Permalink

    One thing is certain, the Euro was, is a disaster and European Nations will eventually return to their own currencies and let markets forces determine exchange rates. The mere thought of a dormant European aristocracy rising to eventual rule is preposterous. In time the EU apparatus will be de-fanged by referendums in most member states and a return to the ‘customs union’ which was the original common market ideal will come about.

    A steady rise of the far right in the troubled states, like Greece with Golden Dawn will put the brakes on immigration and Islam. Even the Dutch are planning that trouble making illegals to be forcibly housed in shipping containers in Ghettos well outside their cities. Personally I’d prefer they began shooting them but this is at least a start.

  161. Bobby's Gravatar Bobby
    December 10, 2012 - 8:45 pm | Permalink

    @Donar van Holland: I just can’t get it with the French thing fender brought up. The French are “lightweights” or something? And this thing with the Russians has always blown me away to. Not because the Russians as you say defeated the Germans. One might say that the Americans helped the Russians to defeat the Germans, yes. But to excluse the Russians and any Slavs seems misguided to me. What are millions upon millions of Russians, if not white? Don’t Slavic people seem white? They sure are. This elitism involving the different people who are clearly Caucasians, is something that cannot be afforded anylonger, considering our small numbers. It’s a divide and weaken thing, that totally facilitates the adversaries of all Caucasians.

  162. Donar van Holland's Gravatar Donar van Holland
    December 10, 2012 - 7:27 pm | Permalink

    @fender: Don’t be ridiculous. Remember Napoleon? Only the Russian winter could defeat the French. Besides, you have to admit that the Russians defeated the Germans in WO II. So, in your way of thinking, who were the stronger people? Who should rule?

    Your kind of petty nationalism has led to the two fratricidal wars in Europe that have lost us world domination. It is worse than stupid, it is high treason.

  163. thunk's Gravatar thunk
    December 10, 2012 - 6:05 pm | Permalink

    Brilliant article. I have copied and pasted the Durer etching of St. George for personal use. Thanks very much for the article and etching.

  164. Karlfried's Gravatar Karlfried
    December 10, 2012 - 6:02 pm | Permalink

    In Germany, the word „Reich“ has sunshine in the word .
    It comes from the heart. It is much more than “state” and it is different from “empire”.
    It includes the area of the middleeuropean peoples which are seen as a common body.
    It does not matter, where the capital city is. — If we look at Croatia: In their fight for freedom in the early 1990s the German government and foreigen minister at a very early time gave diplomatic support, without calculating wether this is good or not. It was a feeling that the Croats are “our” people. I think that the Croats see it the same way.

    The word “Reich” also is in our religious writings. Our best known prayer “Vaterunser” (Our Father) ends with the words: „Denn dein ist das Reich und die Kraft und die Herrlichkeit in Ewigkeit“ (For thine is the kingdom, and the power,
    and the glory, for ever.) So when we say the prayer, the first lines go forward normally, but when there is “denn dein ist das Reich” the last 1000 years of the historic Reich come to the heart together with the religious meaning.

    Maybe somebody sees the word Reich in a non-positive context. Then we think that this person has listened to long to anti-German Hollywood-Propaganda.
    I do not say that my look at the world is true. I say it is the way that we Germans see the world, maybe somehow exaggerated to our advantage, but it is our way.

  165. Tom's Gravatar Tom
    December 10, 2012 - 5:14 pm | Permalink

    It’s funny, but, you never hear St. George’s surname which was, Frankenstein! Seriously.

    The historical St. George (Frankenstein) was from Hesse in central Germany on the border of the Catholic-Protestant divide.

  166. fender's Gravatar fender
    December 10, 2012 - 4:43 pm | Permalink

    The best way forward is for the best to rule over the rest. This means the best Europeans, the central Europeans (Austrians, Germans, Czechs, Swiss), should rule over the rest (Slavs, Nordics, Mediterraneans, French) by force, if necessary.

    The simple truth about the majority of humanity is that without strong leadership it falls into nihilism and despair. Most people aren’t leaders, and if you can’t lead then you should devote yourself to someone who can. This is what the lesser European peoples (Slavs, French, Mediterraneans) need to do: swallow their pride and accept the fact that they are incapable of self-rule.

  167. Donar van Holland's Gravatar Donar van Holland
    December 10, 2012 - 3:01 pm | Permalink

    The petty nationalism that Tom Sunic deplores is the direct result of enlightenment ideas.

    If all humans are equal, there is no place for a divinely ordained king. This divine kingship used to be the source of legitimacy of state power. With the king gone, this legitimacy was then based on the “sovereign will of the people” instead.

    This implied that each distinct people should govern itself. Its sovereignty could never legitimately be given into the hands of someone who did not belong to this particular people.

    In previous times, it was possible for the Habsburgs to acquire a great empire through a clever marriage policy. It was said of them: “Bella gerant alii, tu felix Austria nube.” (let others wage wars, you lucky Austria marry). They inherited the lands lawfully, and were therefore seen by each and every of their peoples as their rightful monarch, even if the Habsburgs themselves were of German- and not of Hungarian or Croatian stock. It was the relationship of sovereignty of the King with each people that bound the Reich together.

    This model is probably the best way for the many peoples of Europe to unite. An emperor could be elected by the kings of the respective countries, the kings themselves by the aristocracy. The selection criteria should be extremely strict, of course. To be born in an aristocratic family, though required, should never be enough. And great merit should be rewarded with a title, so that the aristocracy renews itself constantly.

    The emperor and kings should have real power, with ministers and different councils with commoners in an
    advisory role.

    So here we find another reason why the idea equality must be absolutely defeated: in the name of peace for all European peoples.

  168. Hooper's Gravatar Hooper
    December 10, 2012 - 2:27 pm | Permalink

    Mr Sunic is on to some very interesting ideas. One thing that struck me in particular was how even that which ostensibly passes for nationalism these days fits neatly within the nation-state paradigm. Nation-state nationalism is, at best, a somewhat awkward attempt to implant a richer and fuller vision of a people’s existence together onto what is essentially an administrative frame.

    I am very curious about something that struck me in the heading to the piece: this lecture was given to the members of the Order of Saint George under the patronage of the House of Habsburg. Where do the descendants of the Habsburgs stand these days? Is there a remnant of the old world—albeit silenced, marginalized and reduced to various corners and fringes—that has, at least in what’s left of their long-since fractured worlds, maintained the values, order, and manners of the Old Europe? I am not talking about political movements or nationalists as much as I mean the old families (like the Habsburgs), the old aristocracy, the traditionalists… Are they lying in wait, cast off to the side and deprived of a voice—but with their inner bearings, or perhaps even just their instincts intact? Are they dormant or are they destroyed? In Russia, where I live, they were thoroughly and irrevocably destroyed and dispersed.

    This is a question about which I am very curious and I also think it significant. When the intellectual tide changes and the present ruling class finally discredits itself, it may be very important to have a class of people to look to. I wouldn’t discount them if they’re out there.

  169. dixie's Gravatar dixie
    December 10, 2012 - 11:50 am | Permalink

    @ “….After the collapse of the Habsburg Empire in 1918, the imperial idea came to an end…”

    No. We had family in that shakeup. And Roman catholicism had already conquered them for universalism and miscegenation (as in south/central america and everywhere else it was prevalent). Therefore, it was an EASY rollover (on a level) for communism, (pc, progressivism, etc.)

    The main shift is from (REAL) Ethno-Nationalism to whatever universalism, whether empire-christianity romanism OR any other form of Ideological “nation-hood”.

    Seen this way, it is clear that the emergent problems of U.S., after WWII, were due to the change NOT ONLY of the color of the population, but the Religious change (to near majority catholic)—as people from the old Spanish-Portuguese conquests were moved into the Northwest European Protestant nation of the U.S. (“for us and our posterity” their constitution had said).

    These newcomers brought their biases: heavy anti-anglo, anti-protestant, pro-race mixing, etc— as they had done in all their colonies. (Only in the catholic areas, like south and central America were the whites “assimilated” and as the U.S. came to have catholic leaders in positions of power, they insisted on the “Brazil-ification” of the u.s.)

    Just as catholic and brown came to go hand-in-hand, the rolling over for one universalism easily led to another (communism).

    Both represent Ideological nations, NOT true Ethno-Nationalism.

    In Ethno-Nationalism, Mr. Sunic would be much more inclined to speak for the many crimes in “Croatia.” To have an identity based very solidly in his ethno-religious background, to be clearer that he speaks only for himself in that position, and so on.

    Such is “Identity Politics.”

    Some say “white nationalism is just multi-cult for white people.” Beneath its surface then, one would find REAL ethno-national loyalties, those that are being denied, often in order to hide a Will to Power.

1 Trackback to "Croatia’s Patron Saints; the House of Habsburg and the Idea of the Reich"

  1. on December 10, 2012 at 12:50 pm

Comments are closed.