Blog has moved, searching new blog...

Thursday, March 24, 2011

What Laura Wood Thinks

Two sensible questions may come to mind as you contemplate wading through the following text: Who is Laura Wood and why should I care what she thinks?

Beyond the blog posts linked below I don't know who Laura Wood is or why she thinks what she thinks. I understand that Wood and Lawrence Auster regard each other highly. I suspect that, as with Auster, Wood's readers include more than a few Whites who are more or less displeased with the anti-White regime but have yet to understand it in such terms.

Like Auster, Wood is a social critic who strikes a faux-White pose. Like Auster, Wood hosts earnest-sounding, carefully managed discussions of "liberalism". Jews are mentioned in these discussions, but only to ultimately minimize their role and excuse them. The most serious condemnations are directed at Whites.

A few days ago Wood made a series of blog posts along these lines. She began the first post, titled Rejecting the "White Nationalist" Label, by quoting Lawrence Auster:
White nationalists are material-racial reductionists who, like Nazis, treat race as the single all-determining factor of human existence, so that human beings are in effect automata controlled by their race. I treat race as one very important determining factor in human existence, along with many other factors. And I am not a material reductionist. Material/racial factors can be the controlling factors; for example, if you change a formerly all-white city into a half black city, certain effects will inevitably ensue. At the same time, material/racial factors are not the only factors, especially at the individual level. But the material/racial force of sheer numbers will overwhelm any individual exceptions.
Auster regards his most hated enemies as automata controlled by a spontaneous hate for jews and projects his own materialist, racialist, reductionist thinking onto them. He started off by commenting on the "asians in the library" controversy, quickly shifted into a critique of White nationalism, and then broadened the bashing to Whites in general, blaming us for imposing genocidal open borders and diversity on ourselves (his emphasis):
Once a white country through its immigration policy makes itself conspicuously nonwhite, the former, white identity of the country is seen as something wicked and disgusting, and the former white majority is seen as racist, particularly by members of that former majority. The very act of the country becoming conspicuously nonwhite and diverse results in the psychological imperative that everything must conform to the new, diverse identity of the country. If diversity is what we are and is good, then whiteness is bad. Thus any remnant, and any remaining expression, of the former white majority is seen as suspect and threatening. That's one of the ways in which mass nonwhite immigration is the path to national suicide. It turns the white population against itself.
Auster's analysis conveniently overlooks jewish culpability in opening the borders, changing the identity of the country, and making White identity something wicked and disgusting. Auster is aware of this jewish culpability. Roughly two years ago he wrote in response to a correspondent Boris S. in The BNP versus the rulers of the Dead Island:
You write:

"On the other hand, one may claim that Jewish leftists are seeking to harm non-Jews in order to advance an ethnocentric agenda. [This] view is anti-Semitic and false..."

But there's much evidence that it is true. Numerous Jewish spokesman have said, not just in recent times, but in past decades, that America's white Anglo-Saxon Christian majority is oppressive to Jews and other minorities, and even that it poses a potential threat of much worse oppression, and that the only way for the Jews to be safe in America is to reduce the percentage and power of the white Christian majority by means of diverse immigration. To seek to turn the historic non-Jewish white Christian majority of this country into a minority, out of the conviction that that majority is oppressive and malign, is certainly to seek to harm non-Jews.
In his current critique Auster also neglects to mention the jewish origins of the "diversity" template "minorities" use - loudly pathologizing and demonizing the White enemy for being insensitive to non-White interests. Auster attributes this template to "liberalism", and for it he blames Whites alone:
This radically changed national consciousness inaugurates the three character liberal "script" I've often spoken of. The first character in the script is the liberal white, who embodies the non-discriminatory virtue of the liberal regime. The second character is any white who is seen as non-liberal or merely insufficiently liberal. He represents the principle of evil which must be suppressed. The third character is the nonwhite Other, who is not a moral actor in the script but only a sacred object. His role is to be either "included" by the good, liberal white or "excluded" by the bad, non-liberal white. The moral conflict in the story is not between the whites and the nonwhite, it's between the "good," non-discriminatory white and the "evil," discriminatory white, fighting over how to treat the nonwhite Other.
As is often the case Auster's critique of "liberalism" sheds much light on his own motives and methods. In this case he starts by declaring White nationalists bad because they wish to exclude the jewish Other, and then later in the same conversation reveals that some part of his brain understands this behavior of his is a "script" which "liberal whites" act out.

In a comment at Laura Wood's blog Auster makes the jewish terms of his "liberal white script" objection to White nationalists more plain:
While I never described myself as one, I didn’t mind it when others called me one. But in more recent years I became aware that literally every blogger who identifies as a white nationalist is (a) a material racial reductionist who thinks that race determines everything; and (b) a serious anti-Semite or a fellow traveler with serious anti-Semites.
Setting aside the initial strawman portion, Wood emphatically agrees with Auster about the portion putting jewish interests first:
If it came down to choosing between citizenship in a white ethnostate which identified itself as proudly ”Jew-free” in its constitution and a nation that was suicidally multicultural, I would choose the latter.
When it comes down to choosing, Auster and Wood choose to oppose the rest of us who want a choice.

Like Auster, Wood laboriously selects and publishes only the comments she wishes to appear. After she truncated and mischaracterized my first comment at her blog (see the comments here) we had a brief exchange via email in which she confided that: "the reason why I dropped your comment was that we do not have enough in common". Fair enough. It's also fair then to say that the remarks Wood does publish do have enough in common with her thinking.

Wood continues her moderated discussion in The Problem with White Nationalism, cont., beginning with a lengthy comment from Boris S. (who may very well be the same person Auster responded to on his own blog two years ago):
The essential difference between the so-called "white nationalist" tribalism and the organization of Jews, which the "white nationalists" seek to emulate, is that the Jews point to a common four-thousand-year-old religion, with a shared culture, historical memory, and transcendental hopes. The "white nationalists," on the other hand, want to impose a totally new tribal organization, invented out of thin air, on a group that has never constituted--that is, never saw itself as--a single nation, people, or tribe. "Whites" are not, and never have been, a people, in the sense that one speaks of the "Jewish people."

Furthermore, no matter how much "white nationalists" deny their ideological affinity with Hitlerian National Socialism, the latter remains the only movement to have tried to reorganize the European nations into a single race-tribe, itself differentiated according to an internal racial hierarchy. The crippling blow to Western civilization, that may yet turn out to be a deathblow, which has been wrought by Nazism, does not seem to give much pause to the soi-disant "white nationalists" who claim to "defend Western civilization." One would like to know what that oft-invoked "Western civilization" means to such people. Does it refer to the individual freedoms granted by the Western democracies? Does it mean Western music, art, literature? The Western philosophical tradition? The Christian religion? One suspects it is merely a suitably noble-sounding call to arms, perhaps to be replaced by some other catch-phrase when its use has run out. To this, "white nationalists" would protest that, unlike Nazism, their movement does not promote violence and war. This objection cannot be taken seriously for two reasons. First, because the movement seeks to overturn the present political and social order, it is by nature revolutionary, and, like all revolutionary movements, it will one day face the necessity of the use of violence if it seriously hopes to achieve its goals. Second, because Western societies are not "racially homogenous" according to the understanding of the "white nationalists" themselves, their desired order will inevitably create classes of "racial aliens" who would resent their sudden status as outsiders and would have to be dealt with somehow. It is amusing to note that many "white nationalists" deny the revolutionary nature of their movement as they try to claim what they take to be the "prestigious" mantle of "true conservatism" or "reaction."

These are some of the nasty consequences of the "white nationalist" program. It is important to add that the ideology does not withstand theoretical criticism, because many of its claims about human history and human societies are basically incorrect. Racial tribalism as a mode of thought is alien to Western tradition, and has become widespread only in the late 19th century, when it could be based upon Darwinism and its naturalistic (or "zoological") view of man, and when masses of men disoriented by the fall of the feudal order and the havoc of industrial capitalism sought a new identity to give them meaning and a sense of belonging. It is true that the demographic changes now sweeping the Western world are in part made possible by what could be called "anti-racism" or "reverse racism," an essentially revolutionary attitude that denies to those nation-states it sees as "white" any right to defense against "non-white" invaders (and is also responsible for affirmative action). This attitude, which does not rise to the level of ideology (with the possible exception of a few revolutionary socialist groups that have attempted to articulate it), is a diseased reaction to the likewise diseased fit of racism which took hold of the West approximately from 1880 to 1950. But the demographic changes are also made possible by the shrinking of the world due to modern technology, and receive their impetus from technological and economic forces. In other words, what the racialists see as the preserved "racial purity" of Europe until the second half of the 20th century, is not the result of a nonexistent tradition of racial tribalism, but simply the expected absence of rapid change in the pre-industrial era. This brings us to another problem with the "white nationalist" ideology: what today we would call "ethnic mixing" has happened continuously for millennia between peoples who lived within accessible geographic distances. Thus, unless we deny the common origin of mankind (at which point we could no longer claim scientific backing or any connection with Western tradition) we cannot treat "the white race" as an objectively fixed entity.

The only good thing that can be said of "white nationalism" is that it gives comfort to some individuals who, in having been deprived of any adequate outlet for their creative energies and a stable community, have been among the unfortunate victims of modernity. But apart from the theoretical problems and the necessary violence and immorality that would flow from any attempt to implement "white nationalism" in America, the ideology, in its obsession with race and its beside-the-point pursuit of scientific justification, seems to have no answer to the problems any serious political thinker today would have to deal with, including the overwhelming role of technological and economic forces in constraining the freedom of modern man, the prevailing antihumanist ethos of Enlightened or bourgeois utilitarianism which holds human beings to be valuable only insofar as they happen to be "useful" (however this is to be defined, whether by the state or the "free market"), the related contempt for philosophy, religion, and contemplation, or the superficial scientism and "secular humanism" (a sort of cheap tribalism from which "white nationalism" differs only in the scope of the designated tribe) that dominate respectable discourse. Considering either the silence or the incredible shallowness of "white nationalism" on such matters, the movement seems to be rather one more symptom of the pathology.
As with Auster and Wood, Boris' argument is based on a personal conviction that White nationalism is bad for jews. As I tried to point out in the comment Wood truncated, this argument is beside the point. Whites are distinct from jews. White nationalism is premised on what is good for Whites, not what is good for jews. Auster and Wood both dodge this argument by treating jews and Whites as one inseparable "white", and do so even as they distinguish jews for special treatment.

Unlike Auster and Wood Boris doesn't pretend to sympathize with Whites. He doesn't pretend Whites and jews are one inseparable "white". He belittles White attempts to organize politically to debate and pursue our interests, and does so specifically in contrast with jews.

Wood published Boris's boorish comment and followed it with another:
Robert Gray writes:

It's ironic that the Jew-mongers would describe Auster as a "Jewish fifth columnist" when they themselves drive white Americans away from the cause with their incessant talk of Jews and Jewish influence. The typical white nationalist site, in its content, comments, and links, repels whites because we are not utterly obsessed with Jews and have no sympathy with neo-Nazism, Fascism, and Holocaust denial. I've tried to reason with those afflicted with Jew-mania, but reason and logic have no effect. They cannot see the damage they do. Indeed, I don't think they care. For their concern is proving that Jews are evil, rather than securing the interests of white people.
Auster describes himself a jewish fifth columnist, and Gray's demonizing of "jew-mongers" "afflicted with jew-mania" echoes Auster's "liberal white script". It is a blunt attempt to pathologize Whites who identify jewish sources of anti-White hostility. Gray's 17-point position statement, offered as advocacy of ostensibly "white ethnic interests", comprises four points distinguishing and advocating anti-"nazi"/jewish ethnic interests:
12. Nazi Germany was not good for the white race. It made war on European states and killed millions of white people. To claim that Hitler or the Nazis were "pro-white" is utterly absurd.

13. In World War II, the Nazi leadership deliberately attempted to kill all the Jews in Europe. They did this by the use of shootings, confinement, forced labor, random murder, death camps, and gas chambers. The number of Jews killed by the Nazis was on the order of millions. Had Nazi Germany won the war, they would probably have succeeded in killing all the Jews in the world.

14. White ethno-states should be democratic and libertarian. They should not be fascist or totalitarian states as, for example, Nazi Germany or the Soviet Union.

15. Jews are not the root of all evil. Jews do not force white people to act against their own self-interests. Whites undermine their ethnic interests of their own free will. In general, we should avoid talking about Jews and Jewish influence. Ultimately, it is counter-productive. And in any case, we should not advocate for the harm of Jews or the destruction of Israel.
Later in the exchange Wood permits Van Wijk to play down the danger posed by jews to Whites while playing up the danger posed by Whites who don't:
It is no secret that the majority of American Jews are leftists; so are a great many whites. Since leftist Jews are in most cases racially and culturally white, and since they are too few and pacifistic to pose a physical threat, they can be lumped in with white leftists as a whole and dealt with in the same manner. The problem with the Jew-haters is that they tend to ignore or play down the danger posed by demonstrably violent peoples. Solve the problem of Jewish influence, they say, and all other problems will solve themselves. Every time I’ve asked a Jew-hater what to do about Mestizos or Muslims, the response has been that they can be dealt with “in a straightforward manner.” No one but the Jews are on the Jew-hater’s radar, and Jews are (naturally) responsible for most of the evil in the world. For this reason, the proper response to the likes of Cesar “Himmler is my friend” Tort is to delete his emails and otherwise ignore him. Since Jewish influence looms large in the mind of the Jew-hater and can never be resolved while there is a single Jew in the land, to engage them is to be drawn into what Mark Richardson calls an “intellectual cul-de-sac.”
Wood's campaign against Whites who distinguish ourselves from jews continues in The Jew-Hater’s Radar, where she takes special note of Van Wijk's comment and permits Auster to perfect the last sentence:
Since in the minds of the Jew-haters the Jews are the ultimate cause of all the evils facing society, and since, therefore, none of those evils can be solved or even dealt with while there is a single Jew in the land, to engage the Jew-haters is to be drawn into what Mark Richardson calls an “intellectual cul-de-sac.”
Auster, Wood, Boris, Van Wijk, Gray and others who think and speak as they do, like Mark Richardson, make sweeping negative pronouncements about Whites just as easily as they do about "jew-haters". Behind their double-talk about "whites" and "liberalism" is an underlying hyper-awareness of jewish interests and a primal, uncompromising drive to defend them.

Amidst the other posts linked above Wood also wrote A Recommendation Retracted:
EARLIER THIS week, I recommended a new website Faith and Heritage. I regret my hasty enthusiasm for a new venture. Disappointingly, Faith and Heritage is beset with the same viral tendency that afflicts many sites that defend white heritage: anti-Semitism.
The passage Wood objected to was contained in a review of The Social Network from a Christian point of view:
Lacking the Christian sense of fair play and good sportsmanship (that even nominal, cultural Christians like the Winklevoss still largely possess, and reinforced through athletics), nursing resentments against our culture and people, the temptation to cheat is almost impossible for them to overcome. The lesson for Christians is simple: avoid dealings with Jews, for they are too risky.
Wood demonstrates here her willingness to condemn even a nominally White spiritual defense as pathological. Her "script", as Auster so helpfully described it, is that Whites (in this case Christians) who exclude the jewish Other are "bad".

Labels: , , ,

white

169 Comments:

Anonymous Anonymous said...

Even jew Mike Wallace corrects black Morgan Freeman for calling him white: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I3cGfrExozQ&feature=related

3/24/2011 06:32:00 PM  
Blogger Wheeler MacPherson said...

So very glad to see this post...

I've corresponded with Mrs. Wood myself, and found myself in bad odor with her after I criticized Jews in general and L. Auster in particular. I am pointedly ignored now when I write to her.

Mrs. Wood may very well become a Limbaugh figure to racially-aware white people, and the thought nauseates me. Any argument will be buttressed with "Well, just the other day, Laura Wood said..."

3/24/2011 07:31:00 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Ethnic groups normally have their names capitalized.

Do you deny that Jews are an ethnic group?

3/24/2011 07:57:00 PM  
Anonymous VA said...

Tanstaafl -I agree, I am glad you posted this response.
It was interesting to me that she retracted her recommendation of Faith&Heritage, based on something she perceived as 'anti-Semitic.' She has at least a couple of times quoted from and linked to Cambria Will Not Yield, which is I am sure politically incorrect from her point of view. I am a big admirer of CWNY, and though he does not focus on the Jewish issue, he does mention it.

I've read her blog sporadically but I have noted that the subject matter discussed and the points-of-view heard are contained strictly within certain limits.

I've had some readers recommend her to me but I noted that she has previously said she does not like to discuss race.
Her anti-secession, anti-Confederate sentiments also are a deterrent for me.

As you know I've been taken to task sometimes for not writing much about the Jewish angle but I do not censor the comments which bring it up. The special status awarded to Jews is sort of the prime example of how 'political correctness' works. It is the whole model and blueprint for the privileging of minority groups and the vilification of Whites, especially White Christians. I have come to believe that it is something that has to be acknowledged in examining how we got to where we are.
-VA

3/24/2011 08:28:00 PM  
Blogger Tanstaafl said...

"Ethnic groups normally have their names capitalized.

Do you deny that Jews are an ethnic group?
"

I consider jews a biopolitical grouping like Whites, blacks, latinos, or asians. I deliberately invert the popular convention whereby White is scrupulously not capitalized and the others are. It's one of several popular conventions I violate. I'm gratified you noticed.

I noted Wood's hyperbolic hangup about capitalization here. Just to reiterate... by way of excusing herself for truncating and mischaracterizing my first comment on her site Wood wrote:

"Notice how your hostility to Jews is so intense that you refuse to even capitalize the word “Jew” though you do capitalize the word “White.”"

What I noticed is that she identified the failure to capitalize a word as an indication of intense hostility. As bizarre as that is it only made me wonder why she is not incensed that White is regularly not capitalized, even by herself. When prodded about this in our email exchange she abandoned that argument and claimed it was actually my use of the term "jew-free" that made her feel intense hostility toward me.

3/24/2011 10:27:00 PM  
Blogger Tanstaafl said...

"The special status awarded to Jews is sort of the prime example of how 'political correctness' works. It is the whole model and blueprint for the privileging of minority groups and the vilification of Whites, especially White Christians."

Yes. Jews are the "minority" template. When jewish emancipation began "liberalism" was characterized by a high regard for nationalism, freedom of association, and freedom of speech. Today under jewish hegemony "liberalism" is characterized by a high regard for open borders, forced integration, and restrictions on speech.

"Political correctness" is the regime whereby Whites get the blame and jews get a pass (or credit).

3/24/2011 10:56:00 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

If it came down to choosing between citizenship in a white ethnostate which identified itself as proudly ”Jew-free” in its constitution and a nation that was suicidally multicultural, I would choose the latter.

Totally insane, a textbook example of just how successful the campaign to inject self-loathing into whites has been. She would choose the total extermination of her own people rather than have Jews suffer the inconvenience of not living with whites. And that's all it would be, of course, the inconvenience of a lower income. That's all these wars on race come down to - preventing the parasites who live off us from being separated from the white teat. It's the new slavery. As someone responded to this general subject on another site:

That said: blacks and Jews have a lot in common. Both groups need whites more than whites need them. Both groups do a lot of harm to whites. Both groups are far better off around us than apart from us. Both groups point to us as their big bad villain, yet follow us wherever we go. And both groups wail like banshees at the notion that whites have a right to live apart from them. We're the best thing to ever happen to either group, yet we take constant abuse from both, and both freak out at the idea of ever being separated from such villains. Both groups advance and support a zeitgeist in which their ethnocentrisms (and ethnostates!) are fine, even praiseworthy, while our ethnocentrism is an unadulterated evil."

3/25/2011 12:09:00 AM  
Blogger Tanstaafl said...

Van Wijk wrote:

"The problem with the Jew-haters is that they tend to ignore or play down the danger posed by demonstrably violent peoples. Solve the problem of Jewish influence, they say, and all other problems will solve themselves. Every time I’ve asked a Jew-hater what to do about Mestizos or Muslims, the response has been that they can be dealt with “in a straightforward manner.” No one but the Jews are on the Jew-hater’s radar, and Jews are (naturally) responsible for most of the evil in the world."

People like Van Wijk, so dedicated to demonizing "jew-haters", tend to play up the danger posed by demonstrably violent people, people who are only permitted to live amongst us by an anti-White/pro-jew regime in which "minorities" (first and foremost jews) are protected from "hate" (discrimination, exclusion, profiling, deportation). People like Van Wijk are against protecting anybody, except jews. What gets their juices really flowing are "jew-haters" - anybody they feel jews need to be protected from. That's what stirs them to use their most emotional and hyperbolic language. They don't get so upset about "white"-haters. Most can't even trouble themselves to capitalize White.

3/25/2011 09:12:00 AM  
Blogger Tanstaafl said...

"Totally insane, a textbook example of just how successful the campaign to inject self-loathing into whites has been."

If she's White. If she isn't then she's a textbook example of the campaign to inject self-loathing.

I'd like to hear more about Wood from those who are familiar with her postures. Things like VA had to say.

3/25/2011 09:24:00 AM  
Anonymous Hail said...

Put your money down on Boris S. being of Jewish ethnic origin. A few quotes from Boris S.

Exhibit A:
"...[The] diseased fit of racism which took hold of the West approximately from 1880 to 1950."

Exhibit B:
"The essential difference between [White Racialism] and the organization of Jews, which the "white nationalists" seek to emulate, is that the Jews point to a common four-thousand-year-old religion, with a shared culture, historical memory, and transcendental hopes. ..."Whites" are not, and never have been, a people, in the sense that one speaks of the "Jewish people."

Exhibit C:
"...one may claim that Jewish leftists are seeking to harm non-Jews in order to advance an ethnocentric agenda. [This] view is anti-Semitic and false..."

Translation:
A. European-racial interests are illegitimate, ipso-facto, and not only illegitimate, but evil and "diseased".

B. Jewish "voelkisch" interests are a legitimate cause, and White-racialist concerns are totally illegitimate in comparison. (See 'A').

C. Any pointing out of Jews acting on behalf of their own legitimate interests (see 'B'), that can be seen as critical, is evil and stupid and "wrong"!

Synthesis: [Boris' thinking in sum] Racial-Semites of the Jewish religion have very important interests; Racial-Europeans of the Christian religion have none. The latter are not allowed to point out that Racial-Semites of the Jewish religion have interests, unless it is to gush praise upon them.

This is as clear a case of bad-faith arguing as you'll see.

3/25/2011 09:42:00 AM  
Anonymous Hail said...

Fifty dollars to one says the Thinking Housewife would not prominently publish a "European-Christian version" of Boris' screed.

Something along these lines:
"Jews have no legitimate interests, and are not a real people, because... [...] ...European-Christians, OTOH, have important and valid interests because... [...] ...Jewish criticisms of Europeans are "wrong" and foolishly-evil, because [...]".

3/25/2011 09:45:00 AM  
Anonymous Hail said...

Re Anon-#1, great video!

--"Mike Wallace"**: Black history month...
-- Freeman: Ridiculous.
--"Wallace": Why?
-- Freeman: What do you do with yours? What do you do with White History Month?
--"Wallace": [Scoffs, pauses], Well...
-- Freeman: Come on, come on...
--"Wallace": Well, uhh, [pauses], I'm Jewish...
-- Freeman: Okay..! Which month, is Jewish history month?
--"Wallace": There isn't one.

[Later]
-- "Wallace": How are we going to get rid of Racism, though?
--Freeman: Stop talking about it!



** -- [Original name: Myron Leon Wallechinsky]

3/25/2011 09:55:00 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

There should be a new mantra (like "anti-racist is a code word for anti-White"): "Jews aren't liberal, they are just anti-White."

There is no reason to believe that jews are "liberals" (in today's meaning, in the old meaning even less). Tanstaafl, you have written a lot about the liberalism lie while discussing Auster, maybe you could write one definative article about it. If I were better and faster in English, I would do it.

Here are some points:

- If liberalism means not fighting for or even fighting against one's own group, jews are the least liberal people on earth. No one is more ethnocentric.

- They think it's the worst crime if Whites are overrepresented by 10% somewhere. If they are overrepresented by 500 or 2000%, that's fine.

- Where's the culture of critique when it comes to Jews? Why no criticism of their violent past? Why don't jews blame themselves for everything like good liberals do? They criticize Whites for the most absurd things but not themselves, not even for their real sins, let alone for imagined ones.

- White liberals never complain if someone says unfriendly things about their group. Jews do all the time. White liberals fight against "anti-jewish" Whites all the time. Jews not only agree with anti-White statements by jews but most of the time don't even hide it.

- Open borders in White countries, ethnonationalism in Israel. A few Isreali leftists don't change anything even if Auster wants people to believe it does. There are all kinds of people in every country. What counts is what is mainstream and that is decided by the people who have the power in politics, business, media, education etc.

- Why do jews hate Christianity? They should love it if they are liberals. Because Christians have allegedly been so evil to jews? So what? Since when do liberals care about such things? Do they care about the Turkish or Arab invasions and mass murders in Europe? Don't liberals love "the other"? Isn't one of Auster's beloved laws that the more hostile something is the more liberals do to protect it?

That's probably only a fraction of what could be said about the liberalism lie. But the conclusion is: All the things liberals do, jews don't do. All the things non-liberals do, jews do. For their own group of course.

Jews aren't liberal, they are just anti-White.

3/25/2011 12:25:00 PM  
Blogger Vlad Z. said...

This comment has been removed by the author.

3/25/2011 01:37:00 PM  
Blogger danielj said...

"The essential difference between [White Racialism] and the organization of Jews, which the "white nationalists" seek to emulate, is that the Jews point to a common four-thousand-year-old religion, with a shared culture, historical memory, and transcendental hopes. ..."Whites" are not, and never have been, a people, in the sense that one speaks of the "Jewish people."


Is this a parody?

Sounds just like John Goodman in The Big Lebowski.

3/25/2011 08:05:00 PM  
Blogger Rusty Mason said...

Thank you, Tan, good work as usual.

3/25/2011 09:08:00 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

This Boris character does the usual culture critique wrapped in mind-numbing verbosity act that these Jews love so much.

I'm not going to comment on his whole inane rant, but he obviously doesn't know what he's talking about regarding the history of our identity. White Western man always had an implicit sense of tribe, same as the Jews and contrary to Boris' ignorant claims. If this were not the case we wouldn't have bothered resisting Arab, Mongol, Turk and Jewish conquest attempts over time. These conflicts were racial conflicts rationalized as religious ones. White Western man always knew who was kin and who was not. Boris also implies that the tribes of Europe did not feel a sense of kinship with one another - this is ahistorical nonsense as all the nations of Western Europe at the very least stem from a common origin. Europe was even ruled by related families!

Furthermore, racialism requires exposure to the Other in order to become truly fertile. Jews always had this because the Other was whichever new host nation they chose to live in. With whites, it took colonialism, the end of slavery, etc to understand the threat posed by the "rising tide of color." To say that we "invented" white racialism out of nothing is, again, completely ahistorical. Boris also displays the typically Jewish contempt for anyone who doesn't see things his way.

3/26/2011 07:22:00 AM  
Blogger Robert Gray said...

If you want to argue specific points, I'm open.

Your general point seems to be that I shouldn't vilify those who concentrate their putative pro-white discourse on the Jews and Jewish influence.

All hyperbole aside, my position is that talk of Jews and Jewish influence is harmful to white ethnic interests. It drives whites away. The goal is to convince whites to defend their ethnic interests. How does talk of the Jews help?

You seem to miss the point about Laura Wood's anti-anti-Semitism. That is the attitude of most whites. They don't like this talk of Jews.

And fundamentally, I don't get it. I don't get the utility of analyzing Jewish influence. What are we going to do about it? What's the goal? Making laws against Jews? Deporting them all to Israel? I simply don't understand the goal. We can talk about Jews and their influence ad infinitum, but what's the point?

3/26/2011 01:59:00 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Whose fault is it that the Jewish problem exists? The Jews? Who are doing what they always have done? Or Whites, who are NOT doing what they always have done?

I say Whites, because if all us Whites read your site and took to heart what it says, the problem would get dealt with. So that's it's not getting dealt with is Our fault.

Woods's fault is in getting us Whites to not see the Jews as a problem. She works with Jews to camouflage the Jews. She works to let them operate freely, unhindered.

Do I have it right?

3/26/2011 02:35:00 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

To continue the thought--if I'm right--merely wanting to suppress or remove Jewish influence and power is considered anti-Semitic?

If I advocated a Christians-only policy for elected officials, that would be considered inherently anti-Semitic, wouldn't it?

3/26/2011 02:39:00 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

And if I promoted the Christian West, that would be considered anti-Semitic, wouldn't it?

3/26/2011 02:40:00 PM  
Anonymous Sheila said...

Thanks for addressing this issue, Tanstaafl. I used to read/comment at Laura Wood's site (can't recall how I first found it) because she does promote a more "traditional" lifestyle, particularly regarding women's proper role re home and workplace. She has also had some decent discussions of homeschooling and how modern education is particularly damaging for boys.

I stopped some months ago (shortly before VA began blogging again) when Wood had some really strange posts regarding self-denial/self flagellation as good for the soul. She is extremely Catholic in her views and extremely prickly about any comments she views as anti-Catholic, whereas she extends a great deal of patience and more of a teaching attitude toward other controversies.

I have been reading the Faith and Heritage website since VA recommended it, and I greatly enjoy it - let me extend that recommendation to others.

If I may, I would suggest to Robert Gray that those White Nationalists who discuss Jews and their antipathy to White, Christian culture do not "frighten" away those timid Whites who might venture across a WN website. The problem is that most of those Jews who label themselves conservative and visit HBD or WN sites then expect accolades for their purported superior IQ (which they implicitly equate to higher character and higher value to society), just as do the Asians who frequent such sites. Supporting a White, Christian America has nothing to do with Nazism, and those who so carelessly fling around that label as an epithet are revealing their true orientation and intentions.

3/26/2011 04:27:00 PM  
Blogger danielj said...

What are we going to do about it? What's the goal? Making laws against Jews? Deporting them all to Israel? I simply don't understand the goal.

That is a small step in the right direction.

3/26/2011 06:01:00 PM  
Blogger danielj said...

This comment has been removed by the author.

3/26/2011 06:01:00 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Jews talk about anti-Semites and their influence ad infinitum, where's the utility in that?

3/27/2011 12:00:00 AM  
Anonymous The Monitor said...

If Laura Wood is not an Auster groupie, I suspect she will find herself on his bad list eventually. Auster split with everyone, including the founder of VFR, James Kalb. He is a loose cannon unto himself.

3/27/2011 12:39:00 AM  
Blogger Tanstaafl said...

"All hyperbole aside, my position is that talk of Jews and Jewish influence is harmful to white ethnic interests. It drives whites away. The goal is to convince whites to defend their ethnic interests. How does talk of the Jews help?"

To defend any group's interests you have to understand who is in the group and who isn't. Jews aren't White. Jews have their own group identity and on the whole over a long period of time that group has demonstrated itself hostile and harmful to White interests. If you paid attention to jews and jewish influence you would know this.

Many Whites do not know. They have been deprived of much of the information that would help them understand. They have been indoctrinated to regard jews as "white", to ignore jewish hostility, to feel only sorrow and guilt for the poor victimized jews when they do think of them. Or else. People who advocate ignoring jews always conveniently forget to mention the "or else" part. If jews and jewish influence were inconsequential then there would not be such stiff penalties for opposing them. Those penalties, including pathologization and demonization, are an attempt to drive people away from even factual, sensible discussion of jewish influence.

"And fundamentally, I don't get it. I don't get the utility of analyzing Jewish influence. What are we going to do about it? What's the goal? Making laws against Jews? Deporting them all to Israel? I simply don't understand the goal."

The goal is to be free to discuss and pursue our own interests.

3/27/2011 01:39:00 AM  
Blogger danielj said...

"All hyperbole aside, my position is that talk of Jews and Jewish influence is harmful to white ethnic interests. It drives whites away. The goal is to convince whites to defend their ethnic interests. How does talk of the Jews help?"

The costs we incur for not talking about it is higher.

3/27/2011 08:23:00 AM  
Blogger danielj said...

*are*

Sorry.

3/27/2011 08:23:00 AM  
Anonymous Captainchaos said...

"If Laura Wood is not an Auster groupie, I suspect she will find herself on his bad list eventually. Auster split with everyone, including the founder of VFR, James Kalb. He is a loose cannon unto himself."

Auster demands blind obedience from his followers. He has that in common with his bete noire, Hitler. LOL!

3/27/2011 10:03:00 AM  
Anonymous Daybreaker said...

It's rude to discuss differences in things like IQ and criminality to the detriment of Blacks, but it's also necessary, because unfortunately the false assumption of quality is used, whenever it is not challenged, to show that every less-than-equal outcome for Blacks is due to White malice.

That's an example of why you can't rule awkward topics out of order. You can decline to discuss them yourself, if you feel insufficiently informed, or unskilled in argument, or just too uncomfortable with that topic. But it's not legitimate to demand that everybody shut up. That would mean in effect conceding all the false arguments in which unjust blame is placed on Whites for Black failings.

Compared to Jews, Whites are coming up short nowadays. This can be seen for example in their weak attendance at elite universities. Also, the outcomes of mass immigration policies pursued by the governments of historically White countries are utterly destructive to White interests. Unlike with Blacks, the default assumption is that those who are doing badly have it coming, because they are dumb and slackers and they want to fail. The favorite explanation of Jewish intellectuals is that "they're doing this to themselves".

It's not possible to explain what's really going on with out calling attention to how Jews play a team game against Whites competing as individuals, without calling attention to the power of Jewish networking, to laws and institutional procedures and biases that discriminate against Whites and for Jews, and to the destructiveness of Jewish influence, particularly on issues of immigration and multiculturalism. To say that everybody should shut up about Jews and Judaism is in effect to say that everybody should accept a false, demeaning and demoralizing image of Whites.

There's also the question: how come the explanation of any social disparity is that White men are evil and have it coming? The default explanation, if one bars discussion of Jewish media influence and the Culture of Critique, is that White men get castigated as evil all the time simply because they are remarkably evil and it's natural to notice it.

Jewish cultural and intellectual aggressiveness is such that it doesn't really permit genuine neutrality. When in a game someone is cheating aggressively, either they don't get called on it in which their victims are at a great disadvantage and likely to lose, or they get called on it and are made to back off, or the other side evens things up by also cheating - but why would they do that if the cheating is never mentioned in the first place, if it's forbidden to discuss it?

Really, saying that everybody should shut up about Jews and Jewish influence is destructive to White self-respect and White interests.

(Somebody like Jared Taylor deciding that this is not an issue for him, but that other people should be free to take it up on their own blogs and in their own books is not the same thing at all.)

Finally, there's the "pay no attention to the man behind the curtain" effect. In other words, all kinds of bluster can leave people only half-convinced but still passive and unable to throw off the intimidating show, until they see who is working the levers and what interest they have. Then suddenly a great light dawns.

Oh wait, it's not just our nature to do this to ourselves! We can be better than this! And (say around the turn of the 19th and 20th Centuries) we actually were better than this. Let's throw off that bad influence, and be our best again! We can be better than we ever were, now we know what went wrong.

Anyone who wants to deprive Whites of the possibility of throwing off negative cultural influences by "seeing the man behind the curtain" is no friend of Whites or the truth.

3/27/2011 10:30:00 AM  
Anonymous JSM said...

"You seem to miss the point about Laura Wood's anti-anti-Semitism. That is the attitude of most whites. They don't like this talk of Jews."

WHY don't they like this talk?

After all, ordinarily people LOVE gossip and explanations for why things are the way they are and why people act the ways they act.


Why? Because Jews have carefully, through much repetition and hysterical overreaction, programmed the idea into our people that it's baaaaaaaaad to talk about Jews.

So the cure for our people's crashing is to leave the malware program running?


No. The cure is to talk about Jewish influence long enough to overwrite the "talking about Jews is bad" programming.

3/27/2011 10:43:00 AM  
Anonymous Captainchaos said...

Critiquing the Other, indeed merely highlighting the fact that the Other is THERE, is the quickest and most effective means to knock out the cobwebs of group member complacency for defending the group. It is highly arguable that it is a metaphysical impossibility to distinguish one entity from another entity except by contrast. Moreover, it is precisely the conflict of one or more entities against one or more entities that is the very process by which those entities came into being in the first place - and by which new entities shall be created. From the river that shapes the rocks - and vice versa - to the beak shape and size of Darwin's finches. Peculiar to organic life, however, in all its multifarious expressions, is the apparent property that it 'strives' for the continuity of itself in the form of its particular expressions. To strive for the continuity of the entity of which one is a part in competition with other entities is then to live according to the nature of organic life. To become conscious of the striving of another entity as this is detrimental to the survival chances of one's own entity is in that sense synonymous with 'self'-consciousness. If none of this were so, then we, indeed life, would not exist.

3/27/2011 11:27:00 AM  
Anonymous Captainchaos said...

Or, for the sake of argument, we could say that Jews are indeed "White". The clear analogy would then seem to be that of a cancerous growth on a body which must be excised before irreversible metastasis sets in if that body is to enjoy its unaffected lifespan. That the cancerous growth in question originated from said body is no argument against removing it assuming one is concerned for the continued life of the body. Even if Jews are "White," unless they can be made to behave in a way that is not detrimental to the continued life of other Whites, then there is no good reason I can see which should dissuade us from removing them from our racial body.

3/27/2011 11:58:00 AM  
Anonymous Ralph said...

This is all cumulative, like those black mayhem videos on youtube. Woods has value if she directs a few White women towards standing by their (White) man, but if anyone thinks she or Auster really have any influence or that their efforts to silence dissent will work then they should get out more.

In fact the conversation is long over, since we keep repeating it again and again. All one has to do is read the comments on any news story relating to race, immigration or anything else for that matter. I've never seen people be so bold and in such numbers for the white cause, either peripherally or directly (there are all kinds, after all). That includes calling out the jew. It's gotten so bad that sites are disabling their comments and paid hacks are supposedly employing software to manage multiple screen personas (I don't know but its not surprising).

Auster is a bad joke. Does he really think that racially aware Whites are going to accept him in his self-appointed role as gatekeeper of the WN movement? That the first test we should pass to enter is for we ourselves to ask "Is it good for the jews?". The jew propaganda is good only as long as there is a civil society based on talking, where people don't want to lose their jobs or not be invited to the coolest parties. Not so good when things heat up. And they are, fast. That jew propaganda we think libs have internalized so much will wear off real quick once the threat becomes starkly real. (Lest one brings up the Russian revolution and all those jewish Cheka I might remind that those were harder times and harder men. Nowadays there is nothing softer than a 21st cent. American or European jew).

Do a poll. Ask a bunch of whites, of all income levels, how many have heard of Auster or Woods and how many have heard of 'Beat Whitey Night'. The answer is obvious, and while we may bemoan that not enough have heard of the Iowa State Fair debacle or the Denver 32 or the Philly flash mob, that stain is growing and sadly they will, in one form or another. Then let Larry get up therewith his hand in a halt gesture and demand that we stand for a head-lice inspection. Then his true divine purpose in life, as comic relief, will be revealed.

3/27/2011 04:31:00 PM  
Blogger Tanstaafl said...

There is more discussion with Robert Gray in the comments at Mangan's: Taylor's Letter to Alexandra Wallace.

3/27/2011 08:39:00 PM  
Blogger Tanstaafl said...

Ralph, the gatekeepers repress what they can and redirect what they can't. I think their influence is significant, needs to be confronted, and that the best way to do this is to shine a bright light on them.

Dissembling and dissimulation work if they are permitted to go unchallenged.

3/27/2011 09:13:00 PM  
Anonymous Ralph said...

"Ralph, the gatekeepers repress what they can and redirect what they can't. I think their influence is significant"

I'm aware of what they've been doing since before I was in grade school. And yes, they should, have and will continue to be confronted by discussion and example. But I wasn't talking about all of them. I was just talking about Auster and Wood, especially Auster. He himself is rather a pitiable excuse for a gatekeeper. Media Matters and SPLC, e.g., have been effective filters and should be and are targeted, with increasing effectiveness, if you judge by MM's rather desperate, newly announced "War on Fox".

"Dissembling and dissimulation work if they are permitted to go unchallenged."

But my contention is that they are being challenged, increasingly and by reality itself. Like I said, this is all cumulative (and thank God for the new technology). Rush Limbaugh is nobody's idea of a White Nationalist, but he serves his purpose if he directs people away from supporting the big institutions that are in the hands of the multicults. Do you think his support of Bush (didn't he call us nativists once, for even bringing up immigration?) made a difference to all the anti-amnesty sentiment? Now he's on board (in a fake way, of course).

Mark Levin is another mainstream guy who is always qualifying his opinions with his anti-racism bonafides. Yet in his book the chapter on immigration called for all the right prescriptions, No amnesty, end chain migration, the 14th amendment etc. A shabat jew, if you will. People will focus on that and more and more ignore the anti-racism message.

And Laura Wood. If she is the intellectual embodiment of the "security mom" then many in her audience will respond to that and her jew-defense will matter less and less. But how big is her readership, anyway? Millions, right?

I could also mention the Tea party and Sarah Palin. They have become mainstream, but as things get worse fewer and fewer are going to heed their call to mind their racial manners.

Read the comments boards and more importantly talk to White people of all walks, especially the working joes. They know they are being attacked. Even liberals I know were fed up with, e.g., the media drumbeat for anti-racism in the Budweiser plant killings (a middle-aged kumbayah lady I know: "They're trying to make it out like it was racism!").

You are right, the jew should have a light shined on him and I appreciate your blog for just that. But momentum is on our side and we are White. I believe we will respond. All the more reason to press the point. Thanks.

Ralph

3/28/2011 06:33:00 AM  
Anonymous Ralph said...

"I'm aware of what they've been doing since before I was in grade school."

Just to clarify. I don't mean I was hip to this as a toddler. I just mean that it's been going on for longer than I've been around (I'm 50). I do remember that my jewish teacher taught us to sing Kumbayah, as well as those stupid Saturday night guitar masses.

3/28/2011 06:38:00 AM  
Blogger Tanstaafl said...

Your longer comment was stuck in the spam filter.

I don't generally block/delete comments. I make the occasion exception for the few (so far) I deem completely worthless.

3/28/2011 08:37:00 AM  
Anonymous Daybreaker said...

Tanstaafl: "Dissembling and dissimulation work if they are permitted to go unchallenged."

Ralph: "But my contention is that they are being challenged, increasingly and by reality itself."

Ralph, a good friend had to tell me many times before I got it: "nothing speaks for itself."

In the story of the emperor's new clothes, the tailors who sold the emperor a nonexistent suit of clothes were getting away with it, even with the emperor parading around naked in front of everyone, till a little boy yelled out the truth.

If you say the clothes are invisible to those who are stupid and / or unfit for their positions (so that telling the truth means risking shaming and job discrimination), people shut up. That's what the deceitful tailors did in the story, and that's what other people do for real today.

The modern version of the trick is for supremely high stakes, and has many improvements, including a mighty media orchestra constantly blaring to shout down inconvenient little boys, compulsory mass education in the right kind of gullibility, and ultimately race replacement to create a new majority with a stake in upholding the official lies.

In the face of all this, the silent witness of reality is inadequate.

That's why we have to spell out even very simple and obvious things.

3/28/2011 08:50:00 AM  
Anonymous Mary said...

That's why we have to spell out even very simple and obvious things.

I completely agree with this, and in fact I guess I wish there were more doing more of this kind of 'elementary' level work. I know I am not the brightest chickie around, and yet I am still more racially aware than probably 90% of the people I know, never mind even getting into the whole JQ question. Even with all I knew and was exposed to , this STILL came as a massive shock to me over the course of the last few months/year.

In fact, I think I need to start a blog of my own, maybe catering to the 'White Genocide for Dummies' type of theme since I too belong in this category, lol.

I am really grateful to you guys, Tan's site alone holds a truly astounding amount of work. I am starting from the very beginning and, when I get time, am schooling myself via his and other like-minded sites.

3/28/2011 10:14:00 AM  
Anonymous Hail said...

Robert Gray deleted his Warbeler blog and blogger account! Why?






Word verification: porkale :D

3/28/2011 04:05:00 PM  
Anonymous Daybreaker said...

Mary, good for you. Go ahead.

3/28/2011 06:10:00 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

What needs to happen is the radicalization of the national discourse. If a larger number of people are more freely expressing anger at a blatantly white-hating racist system it is only because a radical vanguard has pressed against the imposed limits of debate. Militants are accurately calling what is happening genocide, and because it is accurate it will increasingly be picked up by the polloi, who at this time don't really think in those terms, but only IF it has someone to push it. Truth should be your compass, don't worry about what the masses will support at any given moment. The battle is between the truth and the censors (including, and perhaps especially, the collaborators of the "Conservative" press). Imitate success, not failure; militant Leftists, not conservatives.

3/28/2011 07:54:00 PM  
Anonymous ben tillman said...

Boris's writing is pure mendacity:

The "white nationalists," on the other hand, want to impose a totally new tribal organization, invented out of thin air, on a group that has never constituted--that is, never saw itself as--a single nation, people, or tribe. "Whites" are not, and never have been, a people, in the sense that one speaks of the "Jewish people."

And in the very next sentence:

Furthermore, no matter how much "white nationalists" deny their ideological affinity with Hitlerian National Socialism, the latter remains the only movement to have tried to reorganize the European nations into a single race-tribe

So, Whites have never been a people, yet they have been an organized "race-tribe" in the past.

3/29/2011 07:03:00 PM  
Blogger danielj said...

Ben,

I think he was trying to say that in both cases, that of White Nationalists and that of the Nazis, a group of white people are encouraging the consideration of whites, without distinction, as a single tribe when that has not historically been the case.

I think he is wrong about the latter and since we in the former camp openly acknowledge that to be the case, I'm not sure where he is going. It isn't really "criticism" so much as simple prejudice against the formation of a newly cemented, racial identity. And, although whites have never considered themselves a single "race-tribe" (whatever that means), they have pretty much always saw themselves as a single race (i.e. "Men of the West") with a single history.

3/30/2011 03:04:00 AM  
Blogger Tanstaafl said...

Jews squabble over who they are and what's best for them but realize their strength is in coming together under a single flag, "the jews", to advance their political interests. They don't like it when others, especially Whites, organize similarly because they know it is effective.

3/30/2011 07:51:00 AM  
Anonymous Daybreaker said...

Boris S.: "Furthermore, no matter how much "white nationalists" deny their ideological affinity with Hitlerian National Socialism, the latter remains the only movement to have tried to reorganize the European nations into a single race-tribe, itself differentiated according to an internal racial hierarchy."

Boris S. lies constantly, weaving falsehoods, false implications and condescending sneers together in a tangled, propagandistic mess. This is one of his strands of deceit.

Hitler treated Whites East of Prussia not as fellow members of the race / tribe with a less glorious pedigree but as race enemies. Not just Bolsheviks or Jews, but Russians, Ukrainians and even Poles were were treated as sub-humans by the Nazis. And when a Nazi was more enlightened than that, Hitler would over-rule him, favoring the harsher enemies of Eastern Whites.

Hitler prevented attempts to reorganize the East in line with the feelings and aims of a White brotherhood. He thought Britain's Imperial rule in India was a harsh regime in which racially inferior Indians were practically enslaved, killed out of hand if they flashed a defiant eye at a White man, and ultimately collectively doomed. That was what Hitler wanted to do to Russia. It's in his Table Talk.

Hitler's racial contempt for all Whites but Germanic ones and his hate for Eastern Whites led him to defeat and infamy.

This is not the face of pan-White brotherhood. It is not the face of a cause that Whites (including of course Slaves) would ever be able to rally around, even if every White agreed with Leonid Brezhnev, as we should, that "there is only one important question facing us, and that is the question whether the white race will survive."

Rather, those who oppose White unity and the legitimate pursuit of White common interests and constantly trying to fix the mask of Hitler on us, to demonize us and prevent us defending ourselves.

And Boris S. is one of those lying demonizers. Evidently with Laura Wood's approval.

3/30/2011 06:52:00 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Mary - I was just looking at a thread at the (UK) Daily Telegraph about looting in Japan (lack of).

There is a commenter there, very good, called 'MaryJay'. Is that you?

Here is the item:

No looting in Japan

3/30/2011 08:40:00 PM  
Anonymous Hail said...

Daybreaker:
It's in his Table Talk.

You don't need to rely on this highly-questionable source. Even in "Mein Kampf" there is discussion of colonization of the east, though not in the cartoonish language the "Table Talk" writers allege Hitler used.


Hitler's racial contempt for all Whites but Germanic ones and his hate for Eastern Whites led him to defeat and infamy.

Around 500,000 non-Germanic volunteers served in the Waffen-SS. Many others applied but were rejected because of the exclusive standards for entry.

There is historical Nazism, which has its black marks, and then there is Hollywood Nazism, which maintains the cartoonish fantasy that WWII consisted of a series of invasions and "exterminations" by the Nazis, until we heroically stopped them. The "exterminating Slavs" myth falls into the latter category.

3/30/2011 10:17:00 PM  
Anonymous Daybreaker said...

Russian memories of the Great Patriotic War aren't a Hollywood invention.

Hitler's war-making was a murderous assault on the Russian people, plus sideshows. This shouldn't be defended by anyone.

The dictator who asked "Is Paris burning?" should be morally condemned by everyone who loves White Western culture.

The Nazi complex of murder camps is not a possible model for the sane, legitimate, moral defense of White ethnic and genetic interests against Jewish cultural aggression.

Hitler is not a "hero" on which supporters of White pride and the legitimate defense of White interests can agree. He was not a hero at all.

He's a figure whose been demonized for over half a century now, with complete success, because enough of his actions really were "demonic". This won't change.

If America and its allies are the new Rome and its ancient (mostly Latin) allies, Hitler is our Hannibal, a defeated figure of hate. This will never change.

To associate people with Hitler is to damn and demonize them utterly.

This is being done to Whites, to end us. Even though Hitler's war was against Whites, and the bulk of Whites in the world were his victims, enemies and vanquishers.

I find it insane that it's even necessary to say this. It should all be obvious. I'm done in this thread.

3/31/2011 10:40:00 AM  
Blogger Tanstaafl said...

In calling that fratricidal tragedy "Hitler's war", claiming it "was against Whites, and the bulk of Whites in the world were his victims" you indulge in hyperbole and scapegoating. You are implicitly giving everyone else a pass for their role.

The current anti-White/pro-jew regime damns and demonizes any White who advocates White self-determination/self-government, no matter their opinion of Hitler. Under this regime even the nostalgic, deracinated propositional nationalism of the Tea Party is regarded as "nazism". The people who aid and abet the regime are responsible for their actions. Not Hitler, not the people who won't join you in condemning him, and not even the people who lionize him.

"This is being done to Whites, to end us."

Yet your moral outrage is more aroused by a man dead 65 years and his scattered, powerless fans. Can you explain why without resorting to the same kind of demonization we get more than enough of from our enemies?

3/31/2011 01:58:00 PM  
Anonymous Daybreaker said...

OK, Tanstaafl our host has spoken on this (to my surprise) so I am not done in this thread.

Tanstaafl: "In calling that fratricidal tragedy "Hitler's war", claiming it "was against Whites, and the bulk of Whites in the world were his victims" you indulge in hyperbole and scapegoating. You are implicitly giving everyone else a pass for their role."

But everybody at the time could see on a map that a medium-sized state in the middle of Europe (with unimportant "help" from Italy) was fighting states to the East from the Polish border to Vladivostok, and states to the West from the French border to the United Kingdom (but not Ireland!) and across the Atlantic (in an era when the seas had for a long time been colored British Imperial pink) to the United States of America and Canada (which at that time was a formidable fighting power). In the main, Hitler was at war with the White world that was.

The world that was better than what we have, even after the vast harm the First World War did.

3/31/2011 09:31:00 PM  
Anonymous Daybreaker said...

Tanstaafl: "Yet your moral outrage is more aroused by a man dead 65 years and his scattered, powerless fans. Can you explain why without resorting to the same kind of demonization we get more than enough of from our enemies?"

I think you're asking for my gut level reasons, so this will be sort of biographical.

I have a big pro-Russian bias for reasons I won't go into, so when I think of Hitler my first and strongest association is a river or an ocean of Russian blood. And I was strongly influenced by the writings of Solzhenitsyn, who knew that the Russian side the war was fought for and at the direction of monsters, but always accepted that it had to be fought anyway.

3/31/2011 09:39:00 PM  
Anonymous Daybreaker said...

In Australia, Japan's Second World War effort was totally a racial war directed ultimately at White men. At least that was the view of those older men I respected most as I grew up. They didn't talk about it, but when the topic occasionally came up, their views on Adolph Hitler, race traitor and monster, were as hard line as possible. I took on the same feeling and perspective. That's not a part of me that I would let go. (It's the same part of me that gives me the view that the "Asianization" of Australia by mass immigration and government-imposed cultural change is the moral equivalent of treason.)

I was particularly influenced by one old soldier, very old even when I knew him, who had fought in World War One when young. He was simply and sincerely convinced that the great evils of the modern world had come into it through that awful war. Before that, he saw a world that was less corrupt, without Communism (that counted for anything), and without a lot of the bad modern "causes" that were rotting the world around him. It would be easy for people who never met him to dismiss him as a dreamy old idiot, but he was far from that. He impressed me, he made me think and study, remembering his voice, and I still see the malign effects of a really bad war as reaching further than most people think.

3/31/2011 09:49:00 PM  
Anonymous Daybreaker said...

Later, I fell in with a Jewish crowd, and became for years as Jewish as possible without being a convert. (This was not what one of my wisest friends, an old Estonian woman, was telling me was a good idea. At the time I thought she was kind and loyal but an idiot. Later I realized who the idiot had been.)

I soaked myself in the Holocaust culture for years. It was a never-ending river of facts, weeping and bitter rage, and it was and is no fake. Sure, Hollywood never lets it go, but Holocaust survivors I got to know, and one Pole in particular, were .00 Hollywood. It is impossible for me to have sympathy for people who talk about a "Holohoax". What happened happened.

Some things disturbed me about the attitudes of my Holocaust-obsessed Jewish friends. (Much later, I got a whole new perspective, but this was at the time.) Basically they regarded non-Jewish whites as potentially Nazi, if not already Nazi and just not conscious of it, or already Nazi and conscious of it but hiding it. (Non-Whites got a pass.) This fit perfectly with their self-image as Jews: "I am the Eternal Jew, hounded and persecuted in every country in the world where I'm allowed to exist, murdered, despised and attacked, never through any fault of my own!" (Yes that's a quote. Jewish ethnocentricity can be over the top sometimes.)

I could not and cannot square that picture of the world and the people in it with the older men I had grown up with. It stuck me as an immense slander on them. (And I raised the issue, till I learned not to, and I found that except for purposes of not being "caught out" and not looking prejudiced, there was no Jewish pass for strongly racially aware Whites like them, even if they "consciously" rejected Naziism.)

The insult still rankles.

3/31/2011 09:57:00 PM  
Anonymous Daybreaker said...

Later I became aware of the wide spread and corrosive effect on White pride and White interests of the Holocaust industry that grew up after Israel's wars in 1967 and 1973, and the Holocaust museums everywhere (yes in Australia too), and that this cruel, terribly unjust insult was being internalized by Whites, to our ruin, and to the moral satisfaction of Jews (who see themselves as all right, and non-Jewish Whites as potentially or actually guilty of the ultimate sin), and to the moral satisfaction of "Stuff White People Like" teachers, who teach the Holocaust as though they could never be the evil ones if they lived in that era, but as though the children very well might be, if the right self-examining, self-blaming, self-restricting, effectively anti-White mindset was not implanted in them.

It should be criminal to do that to children.

Children who in many cases are descendants of men who wore our uniforms and fought Naziism.

3/31/2011 09:59:00 PM  
Anonymous Daybreaker said...

That leads me to another point. WWII was the last hurrah for a kind of straightforward, belligerent patriotism, and a set of virtues that go with it. Those virtues were misapplied to our ruin in WWI with the "Kindermord" and the industrial slaughter of the "chums" and again in WWII, but rightly applied they are necessary for our survival. To me, being rhetorically soft on the Nazis, who were the enemies of our recent ancestors the second time around, and who played a leading role in there being a second go-round, after the unbearable slaughter of WWI seems somehow to go against that. I can't explain how offhand, but that's my feeling. There's a tension of symbols and values there.

3/31/2011 10:19:00 PM  
Anonymous Daybreaker said...

Anyway, when I see White pride and strong white cohesion and assertion being associated with Hitler and Naziism, it makes me angry. I reject the blood libel.

When strongly identified pro-White Whites act or talk Nazi or soft on Naziism, it angers me. They are letting the side down. They confirm the blood libel against us. I am not with them. I feel obliged to put up my hand and say so.

Also I feel like they don't give a damn about that river of Russian blood. I admit that's unfair, but that's how I feel.

You asked for the reasons I feel this way, and not for an intellectual explanation of "why I'm right". It doesn't come down to an argument that can be neatly compressed into a paragraph. It came down to influences, stages of life, experiences (which I've left out as being too identifying), and people.

People who in one case I wish was still around just so I could apologize to her. I was so stupid and so smug, and she was so right, and so forgiving. (Shakes head.)

Anyway, that's it.

3/31/2011 10:21:00 PM  
Blogger Tanstaafl said...

"In the main, Hitler was at war with the White world that was."

I think a more accurate description, especially from where we are now, is that the portion of the world led by those who were in alliance with jews waged war against the portion who had thrown off the jewish yoke. It began in 1933 when Hitler came to power and Judea declared war on Germany. It was preceded by hegemony or near hegemony by jews over German economy, politics, academy and media; decades of crypto-jewish communist agitations, uprisings, and revolutions; and the Holodomor.

You blame a single person for something many millions participated in for many reasons. You could just as well demonize Napoleon for waging war on the White world out of a maniacal desire to emancipate jews.

"I have a big pro-Russian bias for reasons I won't go into, so when I think of Hitler my first and strongest association is a river or an ocean of Russian blood."

When I think about Russian suffering my first and strongest association is judeo-bolshevism, in particular the reign of Stalin and his willing executioners. Hitler did not rise to power nor operate in a vacuum.

"In Australia, Japan's Second World War effort was totally a racial war directed ultimately at White men. At least that was the view of those older men I respected most as I grew up. They didn't talk about it, but when the topic occasionally came up, their views on Adolph Hitler, race traitor and monster, were as hard line as possible. I took on the same feeling and perspective. That's not a part of me that I would let go."

Again you insist on directing attention and bile specifically toward Hitler. You argue that to help ourselves we should heap all the blame on him personally. You are trying to split a hair that cannot be split. In most every context that name is understood as the personification of "naziism". Certainly the old soldiers who influenced you saw it that way. The spirit in which they fought to defend Australia from the Japs is today regarded as "naziism". Today "Hitler" (or "nazi") means "evil person". It does not mean "evil White person who wants to wage war on the White world". It is bizarre that you argue as if it does.

4/01/2011 03:06:00 PM  
Blogger Tanstaafl said...

"Later, I fell in with a Jewish crowd, and became for years as Jewish as possible without being a convert."

What was left to convert, your genes? This explains more than your pro-Russian bias.

"I soaked myself in the Holocaust culture for years. It was a never-ending river of facts, weeping and bitter rage, and it was and is no fake. Sure, Hollywood never lets it go, but Holocaust survivors I got to know, and one Pole in particular, were .00 Hollywood. It is impossible for me to have sympathy for people who talk about a "Holohoax". What happened happened."

Sure, and if you question what happened you're Hitler. If you debate the wrong fact i in the wrong country you may even go to prison.

The word holohoax makes a mockery of the most egregious example of jewish tall tale telling. Jews are the ones who fished for and landed your sympathy. The idea that jews or any aspect of jewish behavior should be exempt from question or criticism is premised on the idea that jewish sensibilities trump everything else. I reject this idea.

Look, if you're part Russian and part jewish the way you think makes total sense. I wish you could just say it. It would be truly admirable if you could be pro-White without going on as you do about Hitler.

"...the moral satisfaction of "Stuff White People Like" who teach the Holocaust as though they could never be the evil ones if they lived in that era, but as though the children very well might be, if the right self-examining, self-blaming, self-restricting, effectively anti-White mindset was not implanted in them.

It should be criminal to do that to children.
"

Replace "the Holocaust" with "Hitler" and you describe yourself.

"To me, being rhetorically soft on the Nazis, who were the enemies of our recent ancestors the second time around, and who played a leading role in there being a second go-round, after the unbearable slaughter of WWI seems somehow to go against that."

. . .

"Anyway, when I see White pride and strong white cohesion and assertion being associated with Hitler and Naziism, it makes me angry. I reject the blood libel."

You get angry at "nazis". You don't get angry at the people who pathologize and demonize "nazis". You join them in doing so.

Your position is a variant of Gray, Wood, Auster, Boris et al. You try to dictate what is or isn't good for Whites in jewish terms. You differ mainly in aiming your pathologizing and demonizing and blame specifically at Hitler and those who are "rhetorically soft on the Nazis" rather than Whites in general.

Correct me if I'm mistaken.

4/01/2011 03:07:00 PM  
Anonymous Daybreaker said...

Tanstaafl: "You blame a single person for something many millions participated in for many reasons."

Yes. Just like I blame Napoleon for waging war on everybody in sight.

That means to some extent letting others off the hook. Vlasov, for instance, who I am more ready to forgive than others are. On the one side there was what Solzhenitsyn rightly called a regime of never-surpassed evil, and on the other side Hitler's completely free, one-man choice to treat Russians as subhuman and launch a war that he chose from the outset to have the harshest racial character, sans chivalry. There was no real possibility for Vlasov and his men to get away, say to America, they had to fight because they were going to be drafted anyway, and they had to choose between evil and evil.

It was Hitler's free choice that fighting against the evil they already knew meant fighting for a new evil.

Hitler could have chosen to fight a war of liberation, in Ukraine and everywhere, but he didn't. He could also have chosen to stand on defense in the East, which would have been his wisest choice in my opinion, but he didn't do that either. He made the call, he gets the blame.

4/01/2011 06:14:00 PM  
Anonymous Armor said...

Daybreaker: "Hitler's completely free, one-man choice to treat Russians as subhuman"

Can you give a few examples of that?

4/01/2011 07:15:00 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

According to Vladimir Avdeyev in his recent publication, Raciology, “The Third Reich did not fight with Slavism, but with threat of Bolshevism to the fundamentals of European civilization… It was the Bolsheviks, such as Mehlis and open racists like Ilya Ehrenburg that those in Himmler’s department described as “Untermenschen” in an exceedingly anthropological sense of the word” (p.123).)

Further, Stoddard wrote in his "The Revolt against Civilization: The Menace of the under Man" (according to Rosenberg Stoddard coined the phrase Under-Man):

"the still more fundamental query arises, whether, even if Bolshevik rule should soon end, Russia may not have suffered such racial losses that the level of her intelligence has been permanently lowered. Russia's biological losses have been appalling. For five long years a systematic extirpation of the upper and middle classes has been going on, and the results of this "inverse selection" are literally staggering. The number of Russian exiles alone, to-day scattered to the four corners of the earth, is estimated at from one to two millions. Add to these the hundreds of thousands who have perished by execution, in prison, in the civil wars, and by disease, cold, and famine; add to these, again, the millions who survive ruined, persecuted, and thus unlikely to rear their normal quota of children; and we to realize how the Russian stock has been impaired--how well the Under-Man has done his work!"

If Stoddard believed that the Under-Man was Russians in their totality, why does he lament the virtual destruction of the best of the Russian stock?

Ehrenburg, of Jewish descent, although a proclaimed atheist wrote:

"We know everything. We remember everything. We have understood: Germans are not human beings. Henceforth the word German means to us the most terrible curse. From now on the word German will trigger your rifle. We shall not speak any more. We shall not get excited. We shall kill. If you have not killed at least one German a day, you have wasted that day. If you think that instead of you, the man next to you will kill him, you have not understood the threat. If you do not kill the German, he will kill you. If you cannot kill your German with a bullet, kill him with your bayonet. If there is calm on your part of the front, if you are waiting for the fighting, kill a German before combat. If you leave a German alive, the German will hang a Russian and rape a Russian woman. If you kill one German, kill another - there is nothing more amusing for us than a heap of German corpses. Do not count days; do not count miles. Count only the number of Germans you have killed. Kill the German - this is your old mother's prayer. Kill the German - this is what your children beseech you to do. Kill the German - this is the cry of your Russian earth. Do not waver. Do not let up. Kill."

Who is it then that urges the waging of the most vicious of racial warfare, a war already conducted against the best of the Russian stock, without mercy, now bent upon the utter extermination of the German people, the Bolshevik or the Nazi?

4/01/2011 07:24:00 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

"Japan's Second World War effort was totally a racial war directed ultimately at White men."

It was a racial war orchestrated by Jews, like Harry Dexter White, in the FDR cabinet, to pit the white man against the yellow man in order to aid the Bolshevik battle against the Nazi.

Again from Stoddard, "The Rising Tide of Color Against White World-Supremacy":

"While Pan-Germanism was mainly responsible for precipitating Armageddon with all its disastrous consequences, it was Russian Pan-Slavism which dealt the first shrewd blow to white solidarity. Toward the close of the nineteenth century, Pan-Slavism's "Eastern" wing led by Prince Ukhtomsky and other chauvinists of his ilk, went so far in its imperialistic obsession as actually to deny Russia's white blood. These Pan-Slavists boldly proclaimed the morbid, mystical dogma that Russia was Asiatic, not European, and thereupon attempted to seize China as a lever for upsetting, first the rest of Asia, and then the non-Russian white world - elegantly described as "the rotten west." The white Power immediately menaced was, of course, England, who in acute fear for her Indian Empire, promptly riposted by allying herself with Japan. Russia was diplomatically isolated and militarily beaten in the Russo-Japanese War. Thus the Russo-Japanese War, that destroyer of white prestige whose ominous results we have already noted, was precipitated mainly by the reckless short-sightedness of white men themselves."

The Russo-Japanese War may be the result of the short-sightedness of some whites, however, the victory that Stoddard and the white world at the time sorrowfully lamented was underwritten by the American "German" banker Jacob Schiff.

"From his base on Wall Street, he was the foremost Jewish leader from 1880 to 1920 in what later became known as the "Schiff era", grappling with all major Jewish issues and problems of the day, including the plight of Russian Jews under the Tsar, American and international anti-semitism, care of needy Jewish immigrants, and the rise of Zionism."

What is good, apparently, depends upon who it is good for.

4/01/2011 07:38:00 PM  
Anonymous Daybreaker said...

Tanstaafl: "What was left to convert, your genes? This explains more than your pro-Russian bias."

At least I know why the Holocaust guilt cult that does so much harm to Whites is not going to stop.

Do the late-to-the-party pseudo-Nazis who talk about a Holohoax understand anything? I don't think they do.

-

Tanstaafl: "Sure, and if you question what happened you're Hitler. If you debate the wrong fact in the wrong country you may even go to prison."

That's why my negative take on Holocaust deniers includes the words "many or most". Because prison is no fantasy, and I don't want to impugn the courage or the sense of reality of those who've braved it for the safe of arguing a vital historical issue.

That said...

There's a funny and dead-on YouTube I've been unable to find again, where someone, I think it was at an American Renaissance conference, calls people on internalizing and then externalizing negative stereotypes propagated by those who have contempt and hostility for anyone who would advocate for White interests. His uniform was his White skin, and he wore a suit, as Whites generally did before the degeneracy set in.

I think many or most Holocaust deniers and Hitler fans are living down to a stereotype of what advocates of White racial interests and skeptics of Jewish good intentions are like. I think they are living in a fantasy, one that defines them as hateful. And I think they invent Jewish motives, treating whatever gives them an emotional charge as likely.

Experience and sympathetic understanding are a better basis for discussing real problems.

Scrupulous scholarly investigation is better yet, which is why Kevin MacDonald is essential reading for us all. Reading and experience can confirm each other.

4/01/2011 07:58:00 PM  
Anonymous Daybreaker said...

What's coming at us, and what has already done us a lot of harm, is blind revenge on blameless victims, globally, to the end of the White race, for motives that are real, factually based, completely human and sympathetic and inevitable when you know the kinds of people involved and have a "feel" for they live and think.

"Inevitable" in this context means "unstoppable" at least from within Judaism. Jews are not letting go of the White guilt / Holocaust accusation cult, and there's no sign that they will.

In any case, if they were to in say three hundred years, it wouldn't do us any good. As things are going, Whites aren't going to last three hundred years. The Americans are going into a minority in their own country now.

Death for the White race is unacceptable. Even a sacrifice of White interests is unacceptable, though we don't know it will lead to the end.

This includes our moral interests, our interest in having a culture that asserts our goodness, our specialness, our importace and our right to a great White future.

We must choose to live. I think that choice, made explicitly and followed through to every necessary consequence, should be the starting point of our moral and practical reasoning, which means it has to be central in our culture.

In the face of the morally annihilating "Nazi!" accusation, I think the first thing we have to say is "not guilty". Not for the sake of winning absolution from those who want to spread the smear "Hitler's willing executioners" as widely as they can, because that won't happen, but for our own sakes and for the truth.

We need, in the face of deadly accusations that will not stop, to assert our clean consciences, our right to live, and when need be our right to fight to live, against all foes.

Tanstaafl: "Your position is a variant of Gray, Wood, Auster, Boris et al. You try to dictate what is or isn't good for Whites in jewish terms. You differ mainly in aiming your pathologizing and demonizing and blame specifically at Hitler and those who are "rhetorically soft on the Nazis" rather than Whites in general.

Correct me if I'm mistaken."

I'd prefer to redefine Jewish interests in line with what I perceive as good for the Whites, in other words live and let live.

Since I don't get to redefine Jewish interests, and Jews define them in ways that clash with White interests, my view is that to the extent of the difference Jewish interests have to give way. For example, it's in Jewish interests to control Hollywood and the leading positions in our culture. It's in our interest to displace Jews with Whites who put White intersts first. Our interest has to prevail, Jewish interests have to give way, and the rest is the very difficult issue of getting it done.

Is that how Gray, Wood, Auster, Boris et al. reason?

I am a fan of Kevin MacDonald. Are Gray, Wood, Auster, Boris et al.?

4/01/2011 08:35:00 PM  
Anonymous Daybreaker said...

Daybreaker: "Hitler's completely free, one-man choice to treat Russians as subhuman"

Armor: "Can you give a few examples of that?"

Can I just give you a reference to a book?

I don't want to go back to it. I've done enough Holocaust reading and related study for my lifetime. It's soul-killing stuff.

4/01/2011 08:46:00 PM  
Blogger Tanstaafl said...

"I think many or most Holocaust deniers and Hitler fans are living down to a stereotype of what advocates of White racial interests and skeptics of Jewish good intentions are like. I think they are living in a fantasy, one that defines them as hateful. And I think they invent Jewish motives, treating whatever gives them an emotional charge as likely."

Who, specifically, are you talking about?

"Experience and sympathetic understanding are a better basis for discussing real problems.

Scrupulous scholarly investigation is better yet
"

This would have been more credible if you hadn't just gone on and on as unsympathetically as you have, unscrupulously demonizing unnamed "Holocaust deniers and Hitler fans".

4/01/2011 08:50:00 PM  
Anonymous Daybreaker said...

By the way, everybody in this thread is arguing properly.

If what I said about people living down to anti-White stereotypes doesn't apply to you, it isn't directed to you.

4/01/2011 08:51:00 PM  
Anonymous Daybreaker said...

Tanstaafl: "Who, specifically, are you talking about?"

I don't have anybody specific in mind.

4/01/2011 08:55:00 PM  
Anonymous Pat Hannagan said...

I have always said that if Great Britain were defeated in war I hoped we should find a Hitler to lead us back to our right­ful posi­tion among the nations.

Sir Winston Churchill

The reason why Churchill said that is because the 1st World War was, in all actuality, "just a sordid trade war" as Archbishop Daniel Mannix described it, and organised Australians to fight against conscription on those grounds.

And what was the difference between English or British genocide in Ireland with anything the Nazis ever did? Gas chambers? The difference is you can quibble with the historicity of British genocide against the Irish but you can't with Nazi genocide of the Jews.

That the British were the first ever to utilise concentration camps in history, against the Boers in SA, seems to have gone down the memory hole. Not that anyone wants to excoriate the British for it today but that everyone wants to excoriate the Germans (and by extension now all Whites) for what we had been told was right good and proper.

The fellas who fought in WWI and WWII from Oz also fought the Boers and committed atrocities every bit as bad as anything the Nazis ever did. And where were the Brits when we were about to sink under Japanese invasion, in a war we went into just so we could save the British Empire, the British Trade Empire? They left us for dead like the suckers we were and are.

The whole Second World War and everything that has happened since is predicated on the idolisation of Churchill, and that it was a "Good War" somehow different and special to any other war. Why?

Because Hitler killed the Jews!?

None of your Russians mattered to the West Daybreaker because Stalin wasn't threatening the Jews. The West sold out Poland ,in particular, to the Soviet genocidalists all for the supposed premise that they were saving Poland! The West sold all White nations down the river by backing the Soviets and taking on the Nazis.

Many people like Lindbergh could see exactly whose interests that war was being fought, argued against it and were outcast for it. Yet they still fought for their people, just as Lindbergh did when he had no other option being forced into Churchill's war.

And just so today we continue to fight wars that we have no national interest in fighting.

4/01/2011 09:09:00 PM  
Anonymous Pat Hannagan said...

Perhaps you could define "Holocaust denial" Daybreaker?

I think it would help your position. As it is, Holocaust denial is simply the equivalent of anti-Semitism, i.e. anyone the Jews hate.

To assist you, since you are throwing about the term, how many Jews to the precise as possible figure, died as a result of intentional Nazi genocide and what are your sources?

Of course, unless you state the magic number, then you too are a Holocaust Denier.

Did the Nazis make Jew skin lampshades and soap? Until that was debunked then according to your "Holocaust denial" denunciation, anyone who correctly argued that there is no evidence for it were of course...Holocaust Deniers!!

See, that's why it's called the Holohoax. Because so much of what is accepted history simply isn't supported. In fact the contrary is supported.

Once we get rid of all the embellishments then we have a stock standard story of violence and inhumanity in war. Nothing unusual. Nothing unique. Just the sheer horror of war. Much like you'll find in the Old Testament though probably not as ruthlessly efficient as the OT types.

So define "Holocaust denier" Daybreaker. I dare you.

4/01/2011 09:44:00 PM  
Anonymous Pat Hannagan said...

Churchill could have chosen to stay out of a Continental war of liberation, in German Poland and other German Pre-WWI lands, but he didn't. He could also have chosen to stand on defense in the West, which would have been his wisest choice in my opinion, but he didn't do that either. He made the call, he gets the blame.

4/01/2011 10:01:00 PM  
Anonymous Daybreaker said...

Tanstaafl: "Your position is a variant of Gray, Wood, Auster, Boris et al."

I've made a reply that must be caught in the queue.

In order not to get the argument moving in the direction of a misunderstanding in the meantime, I'll restate my key point.

"What's good for the Whites goes: yes or no?" is a radical choice.

Laura Wood's view is that if the choice is between a suicidally multicultural state and one where the Jews have been told to go, suicidal multiculturalism here we come. That implies that when White and Jewish interests conflict, White interests must give way.

My view is that when White and Jewish interests conflict, Jewish interests must give way. Suicidal multiculturalism or suicidal anything for Whites is right out. If (for the sake of argument) we have to tell the Jews to go to Israel, so be it, because the bottom line is whatever it takes for the sake of a future for White children.

4/01/2011 10:03:00 PM  
Anonymous Daybreaker said...

Pat Hannagan: "Churchill could have chosen to stay out of a Continental war of liberation, in German Poland and other German Pre-WWI lands, but he didn't. He could also have chosen to stand on defense in the West, which would have been his wisest choice in my opinion, but he didn't do that either. He made the call, he gets the blame."

I'll give you that one. He had real, basic choices, which is more than most people caught up in that mighty meat-grinder had. He could have replaced "Bomber" Harris, for one thing.

4/01/2011 10:08:00 PM  
Anonymous Pat Hannagan said...

I'd agree with your last comment Daybreaker but while ever you throw about Holocaust Denier then you are throwing away our humanity.

One can equally admire and abhor Hitler and Churchill both without being evil personified.

I had a similar discussion with a Jew only this week about White nationalism and Jewish ethnocentrism. He agreed with pretty much all my positions and yet, at the very end, when pressed on the idea of Oz being a White nation threw the Holocaust at me, effectively laying out what he thought were his left and right bowers.

I asked him if he knew how many Irish were genocided by the British. He had no idea, nor did he really care nor see the significance of the question. Likewise, I pointed out how I could care even less for his Holocaust.

Game, set and match.

4/01/2011 10:16:00 PM  
Anonymous Daybreaker said...

Pat, I'm sorry, but I never thought of defining "Holocaust denier" and I'm not ready to produce a definition now. Which of course means I'm not ready to argue the topic.

It would be easy if I used a stock-standard definition, but I've got a feeling that when I look some up, they're going to be unsuitable to my needs. The White guilt / Holocaust accusation industry has a heavy bias in favor of ruling out of contention disputes against Jewish claims.

Nevertheless, there's a lot of minimizing or disputing of Nazi war crimes that has an odd psychological bent, like the way people argue for 9/11 conspiracies. I don't keep track of it, because life is too short, and conspiracy theorists never get tired. But it does exist.

How about this, for a starting point? Someone serious about World War II war crimes should take Bertrand Russell's books on German war crimes and Japanese war crimes as factual.

4/01/2011 10:26:00 PM  
Anonymous Captainchaos said...

"At least I know why the Holocaust guilt cult that does so much harm to Whites is not going to stop."

It will not stop so long as Jews retain the ability to manufacture opinion and enforce adherence to those opinions through dehumanization of those that would gainsay their self-serving lies. As you all but admit yourself, this IS the intended function of the Holocaust myth (indeed, it is a Hoax) - to shame into submission any last questioning of Jewish diktat. And you would not have it any other way.

"Do the late-to-the-party pseudo-Nazis who talk about a Holohoax understand anything? I don't think they do."

You must know that to question what took place in the past is not capable of inflicting injury on anyone except at a sub-rational level. Is it your contention that the hysterical and hypocritical sensibilities of ethnically alien aggressors ought be the light that guides our search for truth? Of course you would not come out and say that. But that, really, is what you are saying.

"calls people on internalizing and then externalizing negative stereotypes propagated by those who have contempt and hostility for anyone who would advocate for White interests."

Who, pray, would you say is primarily responsible for the wide dissemination of those anti-White stereotypes in the first place?

"And I think they invent Jewish motives, treating whatever gives them an emotional charge as likely."

Yes, Jim Bob and his brother Cletus, what with their billion dollar media conglomeration, invent and promulgate anti-White stereotypes so that these can be internalized by their fellow rednecks, all to antagonize the Jews.

Are you sure you haven't been smoking a little too much meth down at the trailer park?

4/01/2011 10:45:00 PM  
Anonymous Pat Hannagan said...

Well you got me there Daybreaker with your last paragraph as I have never read "Bertrand Russell's books on German war crimes and Japanese war crimes".

I'll check 'em out.

Mate, I think you're a clever bloke and honest and open to a fault, as I may have said before. But throwing around "Holocaust denier" is stock standard Jewish schtick that simply will not stick, unless the accused has lost all sense of self worth.

The big bad "Holocaust denier" David Irving has stated that the Nazis slaughtered the Jews in great number, at minimum 3 million. So even the worst the Jews have got says that the Nazis slaughtered the Jews. So what's their quibble?

The uniqueness of what happened to the Jews and, White culpability stretching back into time eternal, is what they claim. "Nazi war crimes [have] an odd psychological bent" because that is the Jew's ethnocentric bent being imbued and bred into our identity.

I reject it. Not simply because I don't wish my history to take on a correct historical accusation but because not only are the ramifications so psychologically disabling to the point of national paralysis but - because the accusation is FALSE!

There is nothing unique about what happened to the Jews. It has happened to all people, continues to happen, and will happen again and again.

I'd support Zionism if the Jews would stick to their side of the bargain. But that they won't and continue to play out their psycho dramas upon my people cause me to oppose them.

Back to your Russians: Churchill saw what was happening there, knew about the Jewish element in the Bolshevik movement yet STILL took the Soviet side.

Better the Holodomor than Poland be taken by the Nazis and the British have no influence in Continental Europe. Better that White nations be annihilated by the Soviets than the Brits and Jews lose their superannuation factories.

Jews are Jews, I have no quibble with them so long as they remain openly Jews and acknowledge their loyalties as such. Disingenuous, disloyal to the point of treason and covetous Whites I despise most of all.

4/01/2011 10:49:00 PM  
Anonymous Daybreaker said...

Pat Hannagan: "I had a similar discussion with a Jew only this week about White nationalism and Jewish ethnocentrism. He agreed with pretty much all my positions and yet, at the very end, when pressed on the idea of Oz being a White nation threw the Holocaust at me, effectively laying out what he thought were his left and right bowers."

Exactly. That's the fork in the road.

At that point, you have to accept the Jewish value set, and at least implicitly accept that whatever conseqences follow for Whites must come, or you must say that some other specific value must prevail, and to the extent that conflict is unavoidable Jewish values must give way. (Which is what you did.)

We need to make an explicit choice that we, as White people, together, must live, and whatever values ultimately lead to conflict with that must, to the extent of the difference, give way. We must follow through accordingly.

Without putting that basic choice on the table, we've got no orientation point, and no cutoff for useful debate.

Without that, disputes can be decided by factors like "who owns the megaphone?" and "who is most tireless and intense in rcounting their people's grievances?" That's a bad way to find the truth or choose among policies. It's also bad for the Whites. And I'm against what's bad for the Whites.

Is a Jewish cultural elite going to accept my foundation stone for White survival, and not going to fudge it, effect it, and put Jewish values in place of it? No.

So pro-White Whites are going to have to displace Jews from the leading positions in White culture.

There's no way to soften that.

4/01/2011 10:58:00 PM  
Anonymous Daybreaker said...

Duh! "Is a Jewish cultural elite going to accept my foundation stone for White survival, and not going to fudge it, efface it, and put Jewish values in place of it? No.

4/01/2011 11:02:00 PM  
Anonymous Captainchaos said...

"The big bad "Holocaust denier" David Irving has stated that the Nazis slaughtered the Jews in great number, at minimum 3 million. So even the worst the Jews have got says that the Nazis slaughtered the Jews. So what's their quibble?"

Here can be found a devastating critique of Irving's contention that the Reinhardt camps were extermination centers:

http://juergen-graf.vho.org/articles/david-irving-and-the-aktion-reinhardt-camps.html

4/01/2011 11:28:00 PM  
Anonymous Daybreaker said...

Right on cue, wealthy, privileged Jewish philosopher Bernard-Henri Levi brags about his success in ginning up the needless war on Libya.

It's not just Jewish intelligence, ethnocentricity and intensity that causes trouble. It's Jewish culture, including its meddlesome aggressiveness.

With a cultural elite like this, "live and let live" doesn't work. Libyans may not have been interested in Bernard-Henri Levi, but he was interested in them. At least to the extent of urging French President Sarkozy (who of course also boasts Jewish descent) to make war on them.

We are not going to get any relief from this bloody meddling, or from the far worse effects of Jewish cultural dominance on our culture and demographics, until we displace this elite and replace it with an explicitly pro-White elite.

4/02/2011 02:04:00 AM  
Anonymous Armor said...

Pat Hannagan: "The big bad "Holocaust denier" David Irving has stated that the Nazis slaughtered the Jews in great number, at minimum 3 million. So even the worst the Jews have got says that the Nazis slaughtered the Jews. So what's their quibble?"

Indeed, the same question can be asked about Daybreaker in this discussion. He wants to disagree, but it isn't clear about what.

Daybreaker: "Can I just give you a reference to a book? I don't want to go back to it. I've done enough Holocaust reading and related study for my lifetime. It's soul-killing stuff."

It is unlikely that the German army was more brutal than other European armies. White historians are not allowed to set the record straight for the same reason that they are not allowed to do their work about the Jewish holocaust narrative.

Like you, I don't want to spend too much time on the subject. I won't even read a whole book on the subject. I'd rather read a few articles by authors I trust, which excludes Jews. I can only trust authors who are pro-white, independent minded, who say that Jewish indoctrination is a problem and that White people have a right to exist. The book you suggested doesn't fit the bill. I think its author is anti-White and should not be allowed to live in White countries.

Title: The Eastern Front, 1941-45: German Troops and the Barbarisation of Warfare
Author: Omer Bartov

Amazon's Product Description:
"Omer Bartov's study looks closely at the background of the German army on the Eastern Front during the Second World War. He describes the physical hardship, the discipline and morale at the front, and analyzes the social, educational, and political background of the junior officers who formed the backbone of the German army. Only with these factors in mind, together with the knowledge of the extent of National Socialist indoctrination, can we begin to explain the criminal activities of the German army in Russia and the extent of involvement of the army in the execution of Hitler's brutal policies."

Wikipedia: "Bartov was born in Israel and attended Tel Aviv University and St. Antony's College, Oxford. As a historian, Bartov is most noted for his studies of the German Army in World War II. Bartov has challenged the popular view that the German Army was an apolitical force that had little involvement in war crimes or crimes against humanity in World War II. Bartov has argued that the Wehrmacht was a deeply Nazi institution that played a key role in the Holocaust in the occupied areas of the Soviet Union.

Bartov (...) is one of the world's leading authorities on the subject of genocide."

4/02/2011 08:55:00 AM  
Anonymous Daybreaker said...

Armor: "Indeed, the same question can be asked about Daybreaker in this discussion. He wants to disagree, but it isn't clear about what."

I'm not as keen as all that on quibbling. I thought I was done, but our host asked me to say more, so I did.

Re: "You are implicitly giving everyone else a pass for their role."

Yes. I accept the conventional factual account of the Holocaust, and I say the initial response of the West was correct. Put the blame on Adolph. (And a few of his chums.) Daniel Goldhagen is wrong.

Re: "You are trying to split a hair that cannot be split."

I don't agree.

Re: "Your position is a variant of Gray, Wood, Auster, Boris et al."

Not unless they agree that what's good for the Whites goes, and that to the extent that Jews define their interests in ways that clash with what's good for the Whites, Jewish interests have to give way.

Re: "Correct me if I'm mistaken."

I've tried.

4/02/2011 10:37:00 AM  
Blogger Tanstaafl said...

"Nevertheless, there's a lot of minimizing or disputing of Nazi war crimes that has an odd psychological bent"

I find the pathologization and illegalization of disputing jewish tall tales more odd. I think it would be odd if nobody challenged this. Are you really surprised, given the consequences, that many who do are eccentric?

"I've tried."

You come across as having two minds. In one mind you demonize some vaguely defined subset of Whites in jewish terms. On the other you claim to put White interests over jewish interests.

In this you are like Auster when he occasionally admonishes Whites to stand up and assert ourselves, only to quickly return to sniffing out and condemning anyone who actually does. You occasionally condemn, quickly returning to the assertion tack.

You are like Gray in that your advocacy for Whites is transcended by concerns about a jewish boogeyman-like image of "Holocaust deniers and Hitler fans" which you are unwilling or unable to even substantiate.

The thrust of your argument is much like Gray's: you personally are turned off by your image of "nazi" boogeymen, you think all good people are (or should be) as well, and thus good Whites must renounce "nazis" to demonstrate our goodness and in order to best serve White interests.

4/02/2011 03:27:00 PM  
Blogger Tanstaafl said...

Robert Gray:

"12. Nazi Germany was not good for the white race. It made war on European states and killed millions of white people. To claim that Hitler or the Nazis were "pro-white" is utterly absurd."

Daybreaker:

"Hitler's racial contempt for all Whites but Germanic ones and his hate for Eastern Whites led him to defeat and infamy.

This is not the face of pan-White brotherhood. It is not the face of a cause that Whites (including of course Slaves) would ever be able to rally around
"

4/02/2011 05:50:00 PM  
Blogger Tanstaafl said...

Daybreaker, can you explain the nationalist "neo-nazi" Russians who celebrate Hitler's birthday in Christof Putzel's unsympathetic documentary: From Russia With Hate? Putzel doesn't seem to be able to, but then he's focused on demonizing the "neo-nazis" and doesn't explore the jewish role in immigration and globalization.

4/02/2011 05:56:00 PM  
Blogger Tanstaafl said...

I just bought a copy of the March/April 2011 issue of "World War II" magazine. The cover is filled with Hitler's face and the title article is "Hitler's Biggest Blunders". Curiously, "Waging War on the White World" doesn't make the list, but "Issues Halt Order at Dunkirk" does. I suppose we must assume that Hitler was so demonic that he wanted the opportunity to wage war on those 338,226 White asses twice.

Another cover story even more relevant to our discussion here is titled "The Nazi who saved Denmark's Jews". In this article the reader is informed that as late as September 1943 the jews of Denmark were still living in their homes, going about their ordinary lives and business. The Danes too. Hitler apparently blundered on two counts.

When the "nazis" finally planned to remove the Danish jews a high level "nazi" got the word around. "But most of the Jewish Danes did not have non-Jewish friends or business associates could turn to for help." Even so, they virtually all found out quick, and some 10000 Danes came forward to spirit nearly 8000 jews to Sweden. Groups of German soldiers looked the other way as trainloads of jews left. There were no "nazi" reprisals. Danes sent clothing and "a steady stream of packages containing vitamins and food" to the nearly 500 jews who were taken to Theresienstadt in Czechoslovakia. Miraculously, the Germans dutifully delivered those packages.

In another miracle, a month before the war ended the Danish government and Swedish diplomats convinced the Germans to release those 500 jews and transported them to Sweden. The last miracle (the article actually uses that word) was that almost all of the escaped jews returned to Denmark immediately after the war. There they were surprised to be warmly welcomed and found in most cases their homes intact. Their businesses had even been run by faithful Danish employees who had only taken their usual pay and set aside all the profits!

Why are we required to assume all these miracles and blunders? Robert Gray spelled it out:

"13. In World War II, the Nazi leadership deliberately attempted to kill all the Jews in Europe. They did this by the use of shootings, confinement, forced labor, random murder, death camps, and gas chambers. The number of Jews killed by the Nazis was on the order of millions. Had Nazi Germany won the war, they would probably have succeeded in killing all the Jews in the world."

The jewish consensus is that only someone who is morally or mentally defective, a "holocaust denier", can question assertions like this. Those who wish to remain non-deniers are thus compelled to double-down and assert an extra layer of miracles and blunders to explain what actually transpired.

What I conclude from this tale about the Danish jews is that the "nazis" weren't deliberately attempting to kill all the jews in Europe. Or even all the jews they had in hand. They behaved as if they wanted to be free of jews, told them so, watched most go, removed the rest by force, and ultimately let them go too. The Danish jews, for their part, didn't behave as if they thought anyone wanted to kill them. That they waited until late 1943 to leave and then so quickly returned leads me to believe that they must have considered life amongst the Danes (who, according to the article, they mostly didn't know) to be, all things considered, pretty good.

I haven't looked but I wouldn't be at all surprised to find that today the Danish jews overwhelmingly stand against Danish nationalists and with immigrants, just as the jews in the US, Australia, Switzerland, France, Germany, Norway, England, Netherlands, and Sweden behave.

Does such irreverent talk drive jews blind with rage? I have no doubt. Does it make me a bad person in White eyes? That I doubt.

4/02/2011 06:04:00 PM  
Anonymous Andy said...

Daybreaker, can you explain the nationalist "neo-nazi" Russians who celebrate Hitler's birthday in Christof Putzel's unsympathetic documentary: From Russia With Hate? Putzel doesn't seem to be able to, but then he's focused on demonizing the "neo-nazis" and doesn't explore the jewish role in immigration and globalization.

I'm reading Irving's "Hitler's War and the War Path" right now, and Irving claims that Hitler referred to Russians as "slavic subhumans", and was amused by the way they suffered at the hands of the Jews under Bolshevism.

I think we should be able to agree that Hitler wasn't a White Nationalist, he was a German Nationalist. He was fond of certain white countries (Italy, England) and strongly disliked others (France and Russia).

As for the neo-Nazi Russians, perhaps they're confused? Frankly, I'm not putting too much stock in the intellectual abilities of any costumed youth movement. In that regard I'm lumping the neo-Nazis in with anarchists and others of that ilk. Or, more charitably, they're able to look past Hitler's anti-Russian bias and see the positive effect his leadership had on Germany for a time.

4/02/2011 06:54:00 PM  
Blogger Tanstaafl said...

I sense more than a little bias in the Wikipedia article on Theresienstadt concentration camp, but the following section corroborates the article on the Danish jews I just quoted above:

"456 Jews from Denmark were sent to Theresienstadt in 1943. These were Jews who had not escaped to Sweden before the arrival of the Nazis. Included also in the transports were some of the European Jewish children whom Danish organizations had been attempting to conceal in foster homes. The arrival of the Danes is of great significance, as the Danes insisted on the Red Cross's having access to the ghetto. This was a rare move, given that most European governments did not insist on their fellow Jewish citizens being treated according to some fundamental principles. The Danish king, Christian X, later secured the release of the Danish internees on April 15, 1945. The White Buses, in cooperation with the Danish Red Cross, collected the 413 who had survived."

Then comes this revelation:

"On February 5, 1945, the SS chief Heinrich Himmler allowed a transport of 1,210 Jews from Theresienstadt, most of them originating from the Netherlands, to Switzerland. According to an agreement between Himmler and Jean-Marie Musy, a pro-Nazi former Swiss president, the group was released after $1.25 million was placed in Swiss banks by Jewish organizations working in Switzerland."

And this:

"On May 1, 1945, control of the camp was transferred from the Germans to the Red Cross. A week later, on May 8, 1945, Terezín was liberated by Soviet troops.

After the victory of the Allies in 1945, Theresienstadt was used by Czech partisans and former inmates to hold German SS personnel and civilians as retaliation for their atrocities.[citation needed] After the German surrender the small fortress was used as an internment camp for ethnic Germans.[citation needed] The first prisoners arrived on the May 10, 1945. On February 29, 1948 the last German prisoners were released and the camp was officially closed. Among the interned Germans were former Nazis like Heinrich Jöckel, the former commander of Terezín and other SS members.[citation needed]

After the Allied victory and lasting until July 1945 the mortality rate in the camp was high due to diseases, malnutrition and incidents of murder.[citation needed]
"

I'm afraid if I keep digging I'm only going to find much more evidence that even the "nazi leadership" was not "attempting to kill all the jews in Europe". What's more, it seems that the Allies, heads full of jewish particularistic thoughts, didn't have any problem putting uncounted, unlamented non-Hitler "nazis" in camps to die.

The same anti-White/pro-jew morality was visible recently when David Lynch was murdered. Demonize the "nazi", then dance on their grave.

4/02/2011 07:02:00 PM  
Anonymous Andy said...

The number of Jews killed by the Nazis was on the order of millions. Had Nazi Germany won the war, they would probably have succeeded in killing all the Jews in the world."

I thought Mr. Gray was going to stick around to debate specifics?

It seems pretty clear that Hitler's aim was the removal of Jews from Germany, not extermination. The Nazis worked with the Zionists to move Jews to the Middle East and had a plan to send Europe's Jews to Madagascar (The sticking point there being that Madagascar belonged to France at the time). The idea that the Nazis would have scoured the earth hunting down every last Jew had they won the war is frankly ludicrous. All the evidence that we have suggests that they would have been perfectly happy with no Jews in their living space.

Equally ludicrous is the notion that the Nazis were alone in their feelings towards the Jews. Prior to World War II, the French government had actually discussed sending their own Jews to Madagascar. The governments of Czechoslovakia and Poland had discussions with the Nazis about what they could do about their Jewish problem (they were particularly concerned with the possibility of an influx of German Jews into their countries).

Poor unlucky Jews. Never doing anything to bring all this animosity upon themselves, yet somehow universally disliked.

4/02/2011 07:12:00 PM  
Anonymous Armor said...

"The Nazi who saved Denmark's Jews"

In France, today's official discourse is that the Vichy regime, headed by Pétain from 1940 to 1944 under German supervision, was a criminal regime. Le Pen challenged that view in an interview, one year ago, on the day the chief rabbi for France was in Vichy, commemorating the deportation of Jews and France's infamy. Le Pen said :

"Too many French Jews lost their lives, unfortunately: 29.000 French Jews, and 80.000 residents in total (dead or missing). If this is compared to the treatment inflicted on Jewish communities in Belgium, Holland, Denmark or other European nations, one notices that French Jews, all things considered, were treated with an indulgence owed to the action of the French government. So, pretending to believe that Marshall Pétain was responsible for the persecution of the Jews during the war is an outrage."

Asked about the anti-Jewish laws of the Vichy government, Le Pen replied that "the anti-Jewish laws did not go so far as deportation".

I suppose what he said is true. But the French (aka Jewish) media blamed Le Pen for yet another verbal indecency. The CRIF, the most powerful Jewish organization in France, took exception to the word 'indulgence': "That word is the most horrible he ever said. It means that Jews would have deserved much worse. He never went so far in ignominy. This is unforgivable" (and so on, and so on).

source

4/02/2011 07:21:00 PM  
Anonymous Armor said...

Daybreaker: "The dictator who asked "Is Paris burning?" should be morally condemned by everyone who loves White Western culture."

When I think of Western cities to be nuked in priority in order to save the white race, Paris is first on my list, together with New-York.

Of course, if we would like to prove that the Germans were uniquely evil, we should stick to what they did, not what Hitler allegedly thought of doing. The thing is the Germans didn't destroy Paris.

I think whatever fighting erupted in Paris as the Germans were being driven out of France by the US army was the fault of the so-called French "resistance", many of them communists. They started causing trouble as the Germans were leaving. I think they were mostly dangerous to French people, especially intellectuals, and to German soldiers who lagged behind.

4/02/2011 07:30:00 PM  
Anonymous Armor said...

Tan: "What I conclude from this tale about the Danish jews is that the "nazis" weren't deliberately attempting to kill all the jews in Europe. Or even all the jews they had in hand."

What I conclude from your conclusion is that I have no more reason to believe claims that the Nazis saw the Russians as subhuman.

4/02/2011 07:41:00 PM  
Anonymous Mary said...

http://irishsavant.blogspot.com/2011/04/time-for-german-day-of-rage.html?zx=76865f1a51fee29b

Just an interesting post from a good guy :)

Ps: To Anon waaaaay back up the thread, I am not 'Maryjay' from the your provided comments.

4/03/2011 05:08:00 PM  
Blogger danielj said...

I learned a lot from this thread.

Thanks specifically to Tan and the Captain.

4/03/2011 05:57:00 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Hitler's sins:

1. Starting World War 2

In Mein Kampf, Hitler made clear that he wanted to gain territory in eastern Europe for German colonization. He had nothing but contempt for German Nationalists who would be content with 1914 boundaries and areas already inhabited by Germans. (if you are unaware of this, you either haven't read Mein Kampf or you have a bad memory) He wanted to take land inhabited by Slavs. That is why he broke the Munich agreement and occupied Czech populated Bohemia and Moravia - he was not content with Sudetanland. That was why a peaceful transfer of Danzig and other German inhabited regions of Poland was impossible - the English, French and Poles had every reason to believe Hitler would subsequently use Danzig as a platform to invade Polish inhabited areas, as he had used Sudetanland as a platform to invade Czech inhabited territories.

2. Mass Murder of Jews

Before WW2, there were many Jews in Poland. During WW2, many more were shipped into Poland. After the war, there were few left in Poland.

Mainsteam historians estimate that 4.5-6 million European Jewish civilians were killed by gassing, mass-shooting, and bad conditions in concentration camps (starvation, disease etc.)

Holocaust revisionist David Irving maintains that 4 million European Jewish civilians died as a result of mass shootings and terrible conditions in the concentration camps.

Either way, this is one of the most horrific instances of mass murder in world history. One doesn't have to be a "Jewish Particularist" to be outraged.

Conclusion: White American advocates should not express admiration for such a morally compromised historical figure. To do so is to lose all possibility of support from the 99.999% of White Americans who are outraged by the sins of Hitler, and rightly so.

And yes, I am aware that Hitler was not the only monster in modern history. The correct response is to condemn the likes of Lenin, Trotsky, Stalin, Talaat Bey - not to defend Hitler.

4/03/2011 06:45:00 PM  
Blogger Tanstaafl said...

"One doesn't have to be a "Jewish Particularist" to be outraged."

The fact that "holocaust denial" is illegal in many countries is a product of both jewish particularism and jewish political power.

I'm more outraged about today's genocide of Whites by mass immigration, forced integration, anti-White laws and mass media than I am about "Hitler's sins". Naturally those who put jewish interests over White interests will continue to ignore the former while they hype the latter.

4/03/2011 08:01:00 PM  
Blogger Tanstaafl said...

"Conclusion: White American advocates should not express admiration for such a morally compromised historical figure. To do so is to lose all possibility of support from the 99.999% of White Americans who are outraged by the sins of Hitler, and rightly so."

This is not a conclusion, it's an assertion. It's the same one Robert Gray and Daybreaker have made.

The majority of White Americans are misinformed about many things, including history and morality. Most don't realize the extent to which self-interested jewish influence - especially in law, media and education - has defined a defense of jewish interests as "moral" and a defense of White interests as "immoral".

Whites who attempt to change or even explain this state of affairs are equated to Hitler as a matter of course by jews and their allies. Their premise is the same as yours: that jews and jewish interests are more important than Whites and White interests.

I feel no need to defend or condemn Hitler. When he comes up I consider it an invitation to discuss jewish influence and the distinction between White interests and jewish interests.

4/03/2011 08:58:00 PM  
Blogger Chechar said...

@ “When I think of Western cities to be nuked in priority in order to save the white race, Paris is first on my list, together with New-York.” - Armor

My chosen cities would be NY, DC, LA (Hollywood), Tel Aviv and Jerusalem.

@ “…like Auster when he occasionally admonishes Whites to stand up and assert ourselves, only to quickly return to sniffing out and condemning anyone who actually does. ” – Tan

Lol. This also describes non-jewish counter-jihadists.

4/04/2011 03:01:00 AM  
Anonymous Wandrin said...

Too many annoying things which would just go round in circles if answered so three points:

1. France and Poland both had very strong Fascist movements. If Hitler had worked behind the scenes to help them into power that would have dramatically shifted the course of any later war against the Bolsheviks.

2. The best way to use the holocaust is to point to the Bolshevik holocaust and ask why the mass murder of 30 million non-Jews doesn't matter.

3. Teddy Kennedy helped to get the 1965 US immigration law passed because Anglo-Irish historical grievances were more important to him than the future.

4/04/2011 11:47:00 AM  
Anonymous Sheila said...

I guess I'll be the fool that steps in where angels fear to tread, but . . . isn't all of this about the past? Whether or how many Jews were killed and why is just not particularly relevant to me as an American today. Who calls whom a Nazi and in what context doesn't really concern me. Every group through history has suffered defeat or slaughter at the hands of others; this comparison of who had more coethnots killed or who was a worse tyrant is, again, irrelevant to today and seems rather childish. From time immemorial, man has made war and killed other men. Land has changed hands - I'm not particularly interested in irredentism, either. The only significance the "holocaust" has for me is to wonder why people prefer to dwell on past grievances and force everyone to genuflect at their purported victimhood. Why does every city in the U.S., which had no part in any holocaust of whatever size, have to have a Jewish holocaust museum? Why must Germans, the younger of whom are becoming extinct through miniscule birth rates and Muslim immigration, pay reparations to Jews in Israel? Millions of young Germans turned out to cheer D'Won - yet they're tarred with the brush of historical evil warmongers. WWII ended 65 years ago; America's population replacement and rapid decay is taking place right now, and affects every White now alive, and their children. While I strongly disagree with Laura Wood's preference for a multicultural society, her posts about the mistreatment of boys, or the loss of manners, or women's proper role in society, has more relevance to me and America's problems today than Hitler's historical reputation and how many of which group were killed and by whom.

All right, I expect to get attacked viciously as an a-historical dimwit, but I've been reading this thread and wondering what its point has become. I like your blog in general, Tanstaafl, and appreciate the courtesy of your allowing me to comment here.

4/04/2011 12:08:00 PM  
Blogger Chechar said...

@ "The best way to use the holocaust is to point to the Bolshevik holocaust and ask why the mass murder of 30 million non-Jews doesn't matter."

You hit the nail. This is the real crux, especially if taking into account that many of Stalin's excecutioners were Jews. As long as die Juden own Hollywood they won't pull the plug of the Matrix for us poor gentiles wake up to the real world.

4/04/2011 04:15:00 PM  
Anonymous Armor said...

Sheila: "isn't all of this about the past?"

I think white people need to study history (at least a little) and must accept a positive historical narrative about themselves and their nation. Then, they will be more likely to try to defend their own people.

Here is a recent text by Tom Sunic :

"The issue that needs to be addressed, however, is not how the rapid balkanization of America, largely caused by the uncontrolled immigration of non-Whites, represents a threat for Whites. Rather, the crucial point is how much racial and cultural consciousness the remaining two hundred million White Americans are willing to muster. Have they ever tried? Can they? One can sport his White biceps, or take for granted his good White looks, but if historical and cultural memory is missing, Whites will simply be gradually dispossessed. Unless Whites develop an explicit sense of White identity and interests with all its necessary cultural and historical corollaries, they will continue their slide toward oblivion. One does not need millions of people to start the process of national reawakening, but one surely needs a critical mass of Whites who are well aware of their common racial and cultural roots."

Sheila: "Why does every city in the U.S. (...) have to have a Jewish holocaust museum?"

Good question. It doesn't matter if Jews are obsessed with the holocaust, or if they think that non-Jews are evil. What's wrong is that the Jewish point of view would be forced on white people.

4/04/2011 06:34:00 PM  
Anonymous Armor said...

Anonymous: Hitler's sins = Starting WWII + Mass Murder of Jews

As you know, both charges are contested. Besides, it's wrong to grieve over Jews more than over our own people. It doesn't matter if Jews see Hitler as a monster, but it isn't right for a white person to take a Jewish point of view.

"In Mein Kampf, Hitler made clear that he wanted to gain territory in eastern Europe for German colonization."

I think what he had in mind was a displacement of some non-German populations. There was no plan to kill any Slavs. For example, in chapter 14 of Mein Kampf (Germany’s Policy in Eastern Europe), here is what he thinks of Jewish rule in Russia :

"It must never be forgotten that the present rulers of Russia are blood-stained criminals, that here we have the dregs of humanity which, favoured by the circumstances of a tragic moment, overran a great State, degraded and extirpated millions of educated people out of sheer blood-lust, and that now for nearly ten years they have ruled with such a savage tyranny as was never known before."

What our Western rulers are doing to us today is much worse than Hitler's desire to steal land in the East. In the end, his plans were never realized. What happened instead is that the Germans themselves were displaced, and I think about two millions of them where killed after 1945. Maybe more, I don't remember the figures. Anyway, no one was allowed to complain about that.

About the "holocaust": "This is one of the most horrific instances of mass murder in world history."

Read what Fred Scrooby had to say about your theories.

"White American advocates should not express admiration for such a morally compromised historical figure."

People in the anti-immigration movement usually do not hold Hitler up as a model, as it would be counter-productive. But a lot of what Hitler said and did makes a lot of sense, and it is unacceptable to forbid discussion of the subject. Besides, what people think about him, and what they admire or don't admire about him, is none of your business.

"And yes, I am aware that Hitler was not the only monster in modern history. The correct response is to condemn the likes of Lenin, Trotsky, Stalin, Talaat Bey - not to defend Hitler."

Do you realize that you are not Saint Peter granting or refusing admissions to Heaven ?

4/04/2011 06:45:00 PM  
Blogger Chechar said...

@ “…But a lot of what Hitler said and did makes a lot of sense, and it is unacceptable to forbid discussion of the subject.” - Armor

OK, the above comment got stuck in Blogger’s spam filter (though I just saw it in my email). I’ll respond it anyway.

You are absolutely right. Compare your humble thought with Takuan Seiyo’s words this year at Gates of Vienna: “Hitler is not arguable. Holocausts (including that of the Slavs) are not arguable. Jews are arguable, but again, not with a Nazi.”

By “Nazi” Seiyo meant a German-American woman who rejects that label and dared to challenge his views.

I understand that Hitler and his Nazis (the real NS men I mean, not us) is too strong a piece of meat to digest. And I agree with Tan that unless you are a scholar (or a German perhaps) his Mein Kampf is just too boring to read from cover to cover. That’s why a couple of months ago I selected some excerpts from that book.

For those who are still under the impression that he was The Monster as presented by TV and Hollywood I’d advise taking a look at those excepts and see how, once separated from the boring stuff, they appear fairly reasonable.

4/04/2011 07:27:00 PM  
Anonymous Wandrin said...

@Sheila
"isn't all of this about the past?"

Yes, apart from this bit...

"force everyone to genuflect at their purported victimhood."

I think people react against the pressure to genuflect and that pushes them into certain directions and then other people react to that etc.

"I've been reading this thread and wondering what its point has become"

There is no point. It's a side-effect of people reacting to the pressure to genuflect but it's too wrapped up in emotions to be helpful.

4/04/2011 08:21:00 PM  
Anonymous Captainchaos said...

"He [Hitler] wanted to take land inhabited by Slavs."

I don't think it can be realistically disputed that intrinsic to National Socialist ideology was the doctrine that Germans, as allegedly the superior race of the White races (NS literature referred to the traditional European ethnies as "white races"), was entitled to hegemony, with varying degrees of stringency vis-a-vis Europe's various ethnies, over Europe.

If one accepts that historical interpretation, and supports the self-determination of all Europe's peoples, then one cannot ultimately say that NS was morally flawless. Indeed, imposing external rule on those that don't wish to be so ruled would seem to be immoral in the extreme - again, assuming one values self-determination for Europe's distinct peoples.

To my mind, it takes a good measure of courage to say that even in light of the above, one still wishes NS Germany had won the war for if it had our race would not now be facing an existential crisis. For a true racialist, it seems such a position is unavoidable. Why? For a genuine racialist, the continued existence of the race must come first - always and with no exceptions. If NS Germany had won the war, those that it would have enslaved could have been freed later, but the extinction of our race will be forevermore. With a German victory in WWII, the continuity of the White race would have been all but assured. With Germany's defeat, whether or not the White race will now survive is questionable to put it mildly.

"Mainsteam historians estimate that 4.5-6 million European Jewish civilians were killed"

I do not share their viewpoint.

And let it be said, mainstream academics/intellectuals agree that 'race is a social construct'. Or, if they concede that 'race is real', most will say it is of no real import and therefore the continued existence of the White race is a nullity in their eyes.

I do not share their viewpoint either. Do you?

"this is one of the most horrific instances of mass murder in world history."

According to James Bacque, in his book Crimes and Mercies, a minimum of 9 million Germans died needlessly as a result of conditions imposed on them by the Allies with malice aforethought. Assuming that to kill two innocent people is worse than to kill one, and so on, we must conclude that this crime exceeds "the Holocaust" as a moral outrage. Unless you believe Jewish lives are more precious than German lives. Unless you ascribe collective guilt to Germans for "the Holocaust" but do not do as such with Jews for their involvement with the Bolshevik killing fields. In which case, you would be ipso facto a Jewish supremacist.

Are you a Jewish supremacist?

"White American advocates should not express admiration for such a morally compromised historical figure."

I think there is merit in this suggestion.

4/04/2011 09:08:00 PM  
Anonymous Captainchaos said...

Wandrin:

"France and Poland both had very strong Fascist movements."

Oh, really?

"If Hitler had worked behind the scenes to help them into power that would have dramatically shifted the course of any later war against the Bolsheviks."

Um, sure.

4/04/2011 09:12:00 PM  
Anonymous Hail said...

Sheila wrote:
"Whether or how many Jews were killed and why is just not particularly relevant..."

Short version:
"He who controls the past, controls the future".

Longer version: Walk into any bookstore or any library in the USA or its satellites. Find the history section. I will guarantee you will find dozens of titles browbeating us to idolize alleged Jewish losses in WWII, for single title that the commentariat here would approve of (Racialist). Indeed, you'll have a tough time finding even one of the latter. Why? (Of course, some "pro-white" titles written 50+ years ago may still be on the shelves of libraries, grandfathered-in, but no-one reads those). Thousands more books will make reference to the alleged "gassings of Jews", etc. Implied in all is that the alleged killings of Jews in the 1940s are the defining evil event that blackens Germany's/Europe's name forever. This is highly relevant.

Furthermore, try to find even a single book in a bookstore or library that gives anything close to a fair-hearing to the Big-H Revisionists. Scores of scholars have earned themselves serious prison sentences and other penalties in Europe for questioning the story, yet no one except Iran's president makes any hay over it. Very few people know about this, because it's not talked about.

(Another example: Many libraries still carry Irving's early books, those from before he accepted Revisionism. In light of the Leucther Report [later confirmed by various other studies], the Auschwitz 'Gassings' Myth was dead in the water. Irving conceded that the Revisionists were mostly correct: The Big-H was a Big H..oax. Before: He was a respected scholar. After: His works were black-listed. His great works of the past 20 years are not to be found in any library or bookstore. Probably something like Soviet libraries' attitudes towards Solzhenitsyn before and after he published "Ivan Denisovitch" which publicized gulag horrors.)

These are the libraries of 2011, these are the political-prisoners of 2011, this belief in unique German/European evil is strong in 2011 (e.g. Goldhagen calling Germans "Hitler's Willing Executioners", implying an inborn evil in European-Christians, especially Germans). Most of us in the USA and its satellites, in 2011, feel they we to be not just non-racialist but anti-racialist, to atone for their Original Sin of being white.

Therefore the "Big-H Question" is relevant to 2011.

4/04/2011 10:06:00 PM  
Anonymous Hail said...

If anyone is interested in a Big-H discussion forum, here is a big one: CODOH Forum.

Most any relevant question you can think of has been gone over many times there.

4/04/2011 10:12:00 PM  
Anonymous Captainchaos said...

Two points:

1. Adolf Hitler, from a decidedly pagan perspective and with a view of his accomplishments set against the entire history of Europe, can surely be regarded as a great man. A political and military-strategic genius; a spell-binding orator; personally magnetic with the ability to inspire confidence in all those who came in contact with him; steadfast with will unbending unto the very end. Verily worthy of being mythicized as the antithesis of the yet anticipated Jewish messiah, from a Jewish perspective. Which is why Jews do just that. Which is why "pro-White/anti-Jews" feel a pull on their hearts to lionize the Fuhrer.

2. Morally normal Whites that have internalized what are undoubtedly the moral progresses of individual rights for Whites rooted in individual liberty would nonetheless most likely not care to live under a regime that was in the final analysis at the whim of a dictator.

For Whites, this is the eternal struggle: Just where shall idealism and practical considerations aimed at living the good life come together in a premium blend that the race might not only live but live well? For Whites, it not only matters to us that we live but additionally how we live. The good life cannot be had amongst dishonorable men.

Isn't that, really, what are trying to tell these kikes, Tan?

4/05/2011 12:27:00 AM  
Anonymous Captainchaos said...

"The good life cannot be had amongst dishonorable men."

Fitting as the ultimate and summary sentence of my previous comment. It is intended to contrast the essential character of White men - particularly Germans - with Jews, who have no honor. By way of example, in Irving's book "Uprising", regarding the Hungarian lot in life under Soviet rule leading up to their 1956 revolt, he relays the story of a Hungarian woman who experienced both the former and NS German rule. It is told that she was physically ruined by Bolshevik rapists and her husband sent to the Gulag to return years later a broken man in nearly every sense. The Germans, she said, though strict and arrogant, in keeping with I think somewhat accurate stereotypes, cared for the material and cultural improvement of the Hungarian people. German rule, though external rule it was, had its undeniable element of ennoblement. The effect of the Jewish party bosses and commissars on the Hungarian people speaks for itself - so many vultures picking clean the bones of a fresh kill.

This is what kikes like "Daybreaker" cannot fathom: the, even at his pagan best, essential honor of the White man, particularly Germans. For him not to project what his co-ethnics would do to those they might rule in the form of "the Holocaust" onto Whites - particularly Germans - is to in a sense look into the abyss of his own dehumanization. From the perspective of the good life, men without honor are indeed less human than those who have it. Jews have no honor.

4/05/2011 01:23:00 AM  
Anonymous Captainchaos said...

Jesus, no wonder Mangan refuses to give me a free hand with his buddy and fifth-rate hack of an academician: Cornelius Troost. I would nail him to the cross.

4/05/2011 02:14:00 AM  
Blogger Chechar said...

You are absolutely right, Capt.

Today, rereading O’Meara’s “The Edge of the Sword”, I highlighted a passage thinking about Mangan: “Those who think that IQ, JQ,… HBD, etc, are somehow more important in mobilizing a people than appeals to their spirit or destiny do not seem to know” (page 44).

It was precisely Hitler the one who tried to do it by reviving the spirit of Wotan. Conversely, those nationalist academicians at Mangan’s have no idea how the mind works.

I can see no way that an American ethnostate be created without first debunking the kosher vision of Hitler and his Reich. This may well prove to be the real acid taste to know who has really been unplugged from the System.

4/05/2011 04:58:00 AM  
Anonymous Armor said...

Captainchaos: "the doctrine that Germans, as allegedly the superior race of the White races (...), was entitled to hegemony, with varying degrees of stringency vis-a-vis Europe's various ethnies, over Europe."

There is no talk of that in chapter 14, volume 2 of Mein Kampf (about Germany’s Policy in Eastern Europe), which I read rapidly yesterday.

In that chapter, Hitler writes :
"For the Russian State was not organized by the constructive political talent of the Slav element in Russia, but was much more a marvellous exemplification of the capacity for State-building possessed by the Germanic element in a race of inferior worth. (...) But this nucleus is now almost wholly broken up and abolished. The Jew has taken its place."

I think he is entitled to his opinion about the Germans being better than the Russians. But he doesn't really say that the Germans have a right over inferior races. In his mind, Germany should seize more territory in the East because he thinks his nation can get away with it, and the East Europeans have lots of room anyway. That's all. It can be done in the East, and it can not be done in the West. He thinks that European races have moved around Europe in the past, and even in the 20th century, the borders are not fixed for eternity: Germany needs a stronger base in Europe to ensure its prosperity and security. He is a believer in the 'ORION' principle: our race is our nation. A nation is not defined by its borders, it is the other way around: a nation has to define its borders. In places where German minorities were already established in the East, I suppose his tactic would have been to secure as much territory as he could for Germany. Unlike France, who took Alsace from Germany but didn't expel the Germans, Hitler would have relocated the non-Germans somewhere else. Of course, I can see why the Poles would take exception to Hitler's views.

What you should do, Captain, is read the whole book, and come back to report: Did Hitler say that the Germans were entitled to hegemony over other white races? I have a strong suspicion that he never did.

At the time, white people thought of themselves as superior to the Black race (they still do!). The French and English governments thought they were entitled to hegemony over the third-world. But overall, they exerted a very benign hegemony. In France, most people still saw themselves (wrongly) as superior to the Bretons. Breton interests would be sacrificed to Parisian interests, and the language would be banned from school as a matter of course. But there was no attempt to enslave people or anything of the sort. At the time, the French elites saw themselves as a superior race, but they were already inviting the first Arabs and Africans to France (together with Jews, Armenians, and so on), with the miscegenation it would inevitably entail. It must have come as a shock to them to realize that the Germans saw themselves as racially superior to the French.

When Hitler put people from France, Poland, and all over Europe to work in German plants and farms, I think it was simply a practical measure to win the war. The idea was not to enslave non-Germans.

Since then, white people have been enslaved by Zog! They are made to work and pay for their own displacement.

4/05/2011 10:06:00 AM  
Blogger danielj said...

War is just genocide by other means.

The question is whether Hitler's genocide/war was just. I prefer this tactic then the revisionist tactic. I just look people directly in the eye and say that the Kikes had it coming. It works for me, but I've got serious gravitas and force of personality.

4/05/2011 07:58:00 PM  
Blogger danielj said...

this tactic *rather than* the revisionist

4/05/2011 07:59:00 PM  
Blogger FlippityFloppity said...

Capt - Hungary was Germany's ally and the Soviet Union was an occupier. How else would we expect them to act towards Hungarians?

Daniel J - I gave thought to the term "just war" numerous times in the last 2 decades. There are no "just" wars - there are only acceptable losses (military, collateral damage, etc.)

4/06/2011 02:36:00 PM  
Blogger danielj said...

There are no "just" wars - there are only acceptable losses (military, collateral damage, etc.)

If the Jews had been rendered permanently powerless and been completely dislodged from their position, the loss of Russia for two generations would have been acceptable.

4/06/2011 05:39:00 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

The Russians didn't feel that way, and it easily could've been anticipated by anyone in their right mind that they wouldn't have felt that way.

4/06/2011 10:54:00 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

the loss of Russia for two generations

What does this phrase mean?

4/06/2011 10:55:00 PM  
Anonymous Captainchaos said...

Flip,

"Hungary was Germany's ally and the Soviet Union was an occupier."

In 1944 Admiral Horthy was deposed and Germany effectively assumed control of Hungary, with the power of life and death over Hungary's people. Final Victory for Germany at this stage was not a realistic possibility. There was nothing to lose in doing with the Hungarian people as they would...save honor. On the other hand, one might think Stalin would wish to make a positive impression on those he sought to rule, or at least insist that his soldiers be retrained for the sake of military discipline. Stalin made no such effort as apparently he did not deem it necessary or desirable. What does that tell you?

Armor,

In volume one, chapter XI of Mein Kampf, Hitler wrote:

"Thus, the road which the Aryan had to take was clearly marked out. As a conqueror he subjected
the lower beings and regulated their practical activity under his command, according to his will
and for his aims. But in directing them to a useful, though arduous activity, he not only spared
the life of those he subjected; perhaps he gave them a fate that was better than their previous so called
'freedom.' As long as he ruthlessly upheld the master attitude, not only did he really
remain master, but also the preserver and increaser of culture. For culture was based exclusively
on his abilities and hence on his actual survival. As soon as the subjected people began to raise
themselves up and probably approached the conqueror in language, the sharp dividing wall
between master and servant fell. The Aryan gave up the purity of his blood and, therefore, lost
his sojourn in the paradise which he had made for himself. He became submerged in the racial
mixture, and gradually, more and more, lost his cultural capacity, until at last, not only mentally
but also physically, he began to resemble the subjected aborigines more than his own ancestors.
For a time he could live on the existing cultural benefits, but then petrifaction set in and he fell a
prey to oblivion."

Hitler is very clear here, Aryan civilization, according to him, is predicated on the enslavement of inferior peoples that none the less, he implies, are treated relatively humanly by their Aryan conquerors. It is when those so enslaved begin to too greatly take on the civilizational veneer of their conquerors that mixing and civilizational death ensue. So, pretty obviously, if that mixing is to be avoided the conquerors would be prudent to keep their slaves in a perpetual state of ignorance - at least according to Hitler's logic. This explains why Slavs were to be reduced to sub-literate serfdom - at least to the extent they were not already.

4/06/2011 11:05:00 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Captainchaos,

Just to be clear, Hitler used the word "Ayran" is such a way to exclude Slavs?

4/06/2011 11:27:00 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

This explains why Slavs were to be reduced to sub-literate serfdom - at least to the extent they were not already.

I can't imagine why the Russians didn't like conquerors who wanted to reduce them to sub-literate serfdom.

Some Russians were sub-literate serfs, but not all by any means.

Talk about alienating the disproportionately influential literate class.

No wonder the vast majority of Russians sided with even the bloodthirsty tyrant Stalin over the Germans, if the Germans wanted to take that kind of attitude.

4/06/2011 11:30:00 PM  
Blogger FlippityFloppity said...

Capt - my point is, the Germans occupied Hungary in March '44 to avert the attempted armistice and maintain support from the Hungarian army and people which they did even after the coup that removed Miklos in October. Compared to the Soviet invasion and occupation which according to numerous sources was brutal.

I dont see how you draw a conclusion on "race" with regards to Germany's occupation and I would question whether "race" had anything to do with Soviet brutality anywhere during WWII.

4/07/2011 10:41:00 AM  
Blogger Tanstaafl said...

There are significant racial/ethnic differences between Magyar, Teuton, and Slav.

4/07/2011 11:25:00 AM  
Blogger danielj said...

This comment has been removed by the author.

4/07/2011 04:41:00 PM  
Blogger danielj said...

"the loss of Russia for two generations"

What does this phrase mean?


It means that the loss of Russia to Communists, and, all the other costs borne by the European community as a direct or indirect result of Hitler's war against finance and Judea would have been "acceptable losses" as far as I'm concerned had Hitler and/or the European community ultimately and finally prevailed over international Jewry.

4/07/2011 04:42:00 PM  
Anonymous Armor said...

Captainchaos: "This explains why Slavs were to be reduced to sub-literate serfdom"

I think Hitler wished to expand Germany's territory and push other nationalities out of it. I would expect that he believed in total separation of the races and nationalities. If I'm wrong, can you quote the passage where he writes that Slavs should be reduced to sub-literate serfdom?

4/07/2011 06:17:00 PM  
Anonymous Captainchaos said...

You are not familiar with the views of Herr Himmler, who would have been tasked with enforcing the living arrangement between German settlers and conquered peoples, Armor?

4/07/2011 10:32:00 PM  
Anonymous Armor said...

Captainchaos,

As you seem to have some fascination for Hitler, I would have expected you to reject the official discourse about him. But in fact, you seem to accept the Jewish theory that the National Socialists were a bunch of psychopaths, which is not true.

Jewish intimidation, censorship and lies make it difficult to know what really happened. I think it's even harder to know what WOULD HAVE happened.

Some of the Nazis liked to call other people subhuman, just as some people today will use words like turd-worlders. Contrary to what Wikipedia and the Jews will say, it doesn't prove any desire to kill or enslave.

Usually, a human mind and a government's policy are not entirely coherent, and it isn't entirely clear what they want. Himmler's worst statements will be produced by Wikipedia and the Jews as proof of Germany's evil intentions. At the same time, any statement or actual policy in favor of the expulsion of the Jews will be ignored or described as a lie or a stratagem.

I'm no historian, and I have only read a few chapters of Mein Kampf. But I accept that Hitler's goals are those he gave in his book: to take measures of racial preservation and to grab some land from his neighbors in the East. I don't think there was any German plan to rule over Eastern Europe. I don't think there is any evidence of such a plan in Mein Kampf, or in the German behavior in Eastern Europe in 1943. Unless it was a secret plan, like the gas chambers, which doesn't make sense.

For example, this is an excerpt from Mein Kampf: "As a State the German Reich shall include all Germans. Its task is not only to gather in and foster the most valuable sections of our people but to lead them slowly and surely to a dominant position in the world."

I suppose Jewkipedia would see that as a plan to enslave the world. But I think the idea was simply to make Germany as strong as Britain.

4/10/2011 08:21:00 AM  
Anonymous Captainchaos said...

Armor,

"you seem to have some fascination for Hitler"

You seem to be insinuating a level of interest in Hitler on my part that is obsessive and unwholesome, in a word, pathological. That would be strange indeed as it was you who first began quoting Mein Kampf and touting it as recommended reading. Now, I don't suspect you have in your home a picture of der Fuhrer surrounded by votive candles that you kneel before in reverent and contemplative silence as a prelude to retiring to bed each night. At least, I hope you don't. You don't, do you?

"I would have expected you to reject the official discourse about him."

I don't see how you could conclude that I accept the culturally dominant interpretation of Hitler's life and legacy if you had read my commentary in this thread (carefully).

"Jewish intimidation, censorship and lies make it difficult to know what really happened."

Not so difficult that apparently you are willing to accept, based upon what Hitler wrote in Mein Kampf (a book which, according to you, we should read, but not too much), that it was Hitler's settled will to take the land of other White peoples by force. You should take care not to stumble into serving the Jewish agenda, Armor. (Yes, there is an element of mild sarcasm deployed for rhetorical purposes in the preceding, in case you hadn't guessed.)

"you seem to accept the Jewish theory that the National Socialists were a bunch of psychopaths, which is not true."

To ethnically cleanse Slavs from their ancestral land and to claim the latter as one's own would have been an immense moral outrage. It would have been decidedly, yes, psychopathic (this is adjectival, not a clinical diagnosis - just in case I need to spell it out). That is, assuming we agree on the moral standards that all decent men in this age are expected to abide by. To press ahead in this vein is to fashion a rod for your own back, Armor. Proceed with caution. In my previous commentary in this thread I took care to interpret National Socialism according to its own standards - pagan standards. Also, I contrasted the pagan ethos of National Socialism with what I stated are the moral progresses of individual rights and the self-determination of peoples.

4/13/2011 10:48:00 PM  
Anonymous Armor said...

"You seem to be insinuating a level of interest in Hitler on my part that is obsessive and unwholesome"

Not necessarily obsessive and unwholesome, but a little awkward.

"it was you who first began quoting Mein Kampf and touting it as recommended reading."

I feel stupid having a conversation about Hitler when I realize that no one has bothered reading Mein Kampf. Since you are the one claiming that Hitler had sinister plans concerning the Slavs, it should be your job to read the book and come back here with the relevant quotes. So far, you have nothing. As for me, I don't need to read it, as I cannot produce non-existent quotes to prove that there is nothing sinister in the book.

"Mein Kampf (a book which, according to you, we should read, but not too much)"

Everyone understands that white advocates being seen as advocates of Nazism is harmful to the anti-replacement cause. At the same time, I can't help contradicting you when you come out with a Jewish interpretation of Hitler and WW2.

"To press ahead in this vein is to fashion a rod for your own back"

Just read my comments, remember that I won the argument, and then, forget that I ever mentioned Hitler.

"To ethnically cleanse Slavs from their ancestral land and to claim the latter as one's own would have been an immense moral outrage. It would have been decidedly, yes, psychopathic"

For a Nazi lover, you talk too much like a semitically correct American. For your information: the Nazis are supposed to be psychopaths because they gassed Jews and used them for experiments, soap and lampshades, forbade them to work in some professions, systematically and meticulously killed them all, forbade them to marry Aryans, convinced many of them to move to Palestine or the USA, and moved the rest to concentration camps in the East, leaving only a few millions of miraculous survivors.

The "fact" that the Nazis also thought of enslaving millions of Slavs, and of killing millions of cripples, doesn't matter in itself. It is only meant to show that the Germans were nasty. If they were mean to the Slavs, it is all the more believable that they were mean to the Jews. Nothing else is supposed to matter.

But if the Germans were so mean to the Slavs, it should be easy to find convincing examples. Otherwise, the accusation must be considered as another example of Jewish propaganda about WW2.

In the end, the Nazis didn't steal any land. A lot of their own land was stolen by the Slavs in 1945, and the Germans were expelled or killed. You need to make up your mind whether you think that Hitler wanted to expel the Slavs from Central Europe, or whether he planned to enslave them. I think neither is true. There had never been any German plan to destroy the Polish nation and steal all its land.

4/14/2011 02:35:00 PM  
Anonymous Armor said...

Trying to grab some land for one's people isn't necessarily psychopathic behavior (I mean some land, not all the land). I don't see the Serbs and ethnic Albanians who vied for possession of Kosovo as psychopaths. For several decades, Albanians had been moving to Kosovo. It isn't surprising that it resulted in civil war. In Turkey, the Turks have kept displacing the Greeks throughout the 20th century. In 19th century France, the government invited Polish and Italian immigrants, as well as Jews. In Germany and Austria, there must have been a lot of immigration from Eastern Europe, and the government probably did nothing to stop that. What usually happens is that the population of the most successful nation gets partially replaced by people from the neighboring nations. I can understand Hitler's desire to change that. Why should all immigration, even from fellow Whites, be accepted as an accomplished fact? How is it worse for Germany to grab some land in the East, than for the neighboring populations to come and settle in Germany?

Of course, what is happening today is much worse, since there is a deliberate policy to destroy every white nation. If Hitler is demonized for thinking of territorial aggrandizement, what should we think of the millions of people who work today at the destruction of the white race!? The truth is that Hitler has been demonized because of his Jewish policy, not because he allegedly planned to steal land and enslave the Slavs. You may not realize that, but the only reason you feel you have to blame Hitler for being harsh on the Slavs is because the Jews have made it mandatory to demonize him. I think it would be simpler and more honest to simply say that you believe in gas chambers.

Captainchaos: "According to James Bacque, in his book Crimes and Mercies, a minimum of 9 million Germans died needlessly as a result of conditions imposed on them by the Allies with malice aforethought."

Who did it? the Americans, or the Russians ? In any case, I would be surprised to learn that the Russian Slavs and Jews treated their German prisoners better than the "supremacist" Germans treated their Slav prisoners.

4/14/2011 02:48:00 PM  
Blogger Chechar said...

@ “The truth is that Hitler has been demonized because of his Jewish policy, not because he allegedly planned to steal land and enslave the Slavs.”

This is so obvious. The impression you get by reading it is that Hitler craved to crush a continent (the URSS was almost a continent) than befell in the hands of hostile Jews. This sounds like common sense politics to me. Greg Johnson has written: “If the Germans had defeated the USSR, a vast, German-dominated, high-tech, racially unified blonde empire would have emerged stretching from the Rhine to the Urals. And a lot of us, I imagine, would prefer living there to what we have to endure today.” (Incidentally, don’t miss the current discussion at C-C about the Northwest imperative.)

I have not read all of Mein Kampf because I don’t like the translation I got, the Ralph Menheim edition. They say that the Ford edition is better. And what I really need is to learn German.

What all of us need is a fully annotated edition by a WN scholar.

4/14/2011 09:44:00 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

In the end, the Nazis didn't steal any land.

That's because they failed in their military invasions of Poland, Russia, and other white countries.

Duh.

4/14/2011 11:49:00 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Why should all immigration, even from fellow Whites, be accepted as an accomplished fact? How is it worse for Germany to grab some land in the East, than for the neighboring populations to come and settle in Germany?

Immigration is different than a military invasion because immigration can only happen if the government of the nation being immigrated into consents to it, whereas a military invasion is forced with guns and bloodshed.

It's like the difference between seduction and rape.

Even illegal immigration can't happen without the consent of the government being immigrated into, as immigration laws a very easy to enforce.

What isn't easy to do is keep a massive invading army from taking over your country and driving your people off their land.

4/14/2011 11:53:00 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

This is so obvious. The impression you get by reading it is that Hitler craved to crush a continent (the URSS was almost a continent) than befell in the hands of hostile Jews. This sounds like common sense politics to me.

Why crush an entire continent just because you have a problem with its Jewish elite?

Wouldn't it have made more sense to free the Russians from their Jewish/Communist yoke, thereby earning both their gratitude and help in your effort to eliminate the threat posed by the Soviet Union's Jewish elite?

4/14/2011 11:58:00 PM  
Anonymous Armor said...

"That's because they failed in their military invasions"

Maybe so, but we are left to conjecture on that point. It is probably not known what Hitler intended to do, if he knew that himself. On the other hand, there is no doubt that the USSR took German and Polish territory and expelled the population. And there has been little moral outrage over that in "our" media.

Without German and Soviet intervention, I suppose the policy of Poland would have been to slowly make its German minority disappear, either by assimilation or by discrimination. We know Hitler was not satisfied with the borders of the Versailles treaty. He would have imposed a different arrangement, more favorable to the Germans. We can not know how it would have turned out, but I suppose it would have been less brutal than what happened in 1945.

"Immigration is different than a military invasion"

It can also be much more destructive. I'd rather have a Russian invasion with guns and bloodshed than the current race-replacement policy enforced by "my" government. I'd rather give the Africans and Arabs half of Europe and be resettled in the other half than have to accept the destruction of Europe as a whole by third-world immigration. (Of course, the correct solution is to send the new arrivals back to Africa/Israel).

"Even illegal immigration can't happen without the consent of the government being immigrated into"

A government that accepts the replacement of its population cannot be very legitimate. Today, it has become clear that our Western governments want to destroy us. They want the Whites to become a minority. But even in the past, many Western governments were irresponsible. For example, I think the practice of importing African slaves was criminal, not just for the slaves themselves.

"Wouldn't it have made more sense to free the Russians from their Jewish/Communist yoke"

There was no magic way to do that. In fact, the USSR was getting ready to free Western Europe from its bourgeois yoke.

(More realistically, I ask myself the same question about Saddam Hussein: if they had a problem with him, why didn't they try to target him, instead of the whole of Iraq?)

4/15/2011 06:32:00 AM  
Blogger Chechar said...

Anonymous:

Napoleon also invaded Russia. But only Hitler gets demonized. Why?

You know why. And I find it a little shameful that even in a counter-Judaization of the West blogsite the commenters still stick on the Jewish Weltanschauung.

4/15/2011 10:43:00 AM  
Anonymous Andy said...

Immigration is different than a military invasion because immigration can only happen if the government of the nation being immigrated into consents to it, whereas a military invasion is forced with guns and bloodshed.

It's like the difference between seduction and rape.


Terrible analogy, anonymous troll. The ones doing the "consenting" aren't the ones getting fucked.

4/16/2011 12:56:00 PM  
Blogger Tanstaafl said...

Couldn't have said it better myself Andy.

4/16/2011 06:46:00 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

They vote for the people who consent and they obey the laws of the people who consent, thus showing that they consider them empowered to rule over and make decisions for them.

4/16/2011 09:27:00 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

It was for the Russian government of the time to decide whether Russia was to take in millions of German colonists, not for the German government to decide.

Any other view just leads to bloodshed beyond imagining.

Can’t you fools see that Hitler tried to do something when he invaded Russia that led to millions of white people dying needlessly?

A good leader would have shown far more prudence than that.

4/16/2011 09:30:00 PM  
Blogger Chechar said...

@ “A good leader would have shown far more prudence than that.”

I don’t believe that anyone is saying that invading the Soviet Union, led somewhere by Jews, was a good idea. But Stalin was perhaps the man who killed more whites in history, and the current zeitgeist makes us place the burden of guilt almost exclusively on the German chancellor, right?

4/16/2011 09:38:00 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

I don’t believe that anyone is saying that invading the Soviet Union, led somewhere by Jews, was a good idea.

I'm glad to hear that.

But Stalin was perhaps the man who killed more whites in history, and the current zeitgeist makes us place the burden of guilt almost exclusively on the German chancellor, right?

That is right. The history of these events are told in a too one-sided manner.

I just don't think that the best response to the one-sided way history is told is to defend the horrible mistake Hitler made.

If you want to lionize Hitler, lionize him for the things he did before he became an imperialist against other whites, an imperialist who bit off more than his people had a chance of chewing.

4/16/2011 09:56:00 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Terrible analogy, anonymous troll. The ones doing the "consenting" aren't the ones getting fucked.

His analogy may have been poor but his point remains. Immigration tends to occur with a significant degree of consent. Military invasion doesn't.

I would also add that immigrants often (though not always) find themselves welcomed; invading armies, seldom.

Regardless of which you think is worse, there are important differences.

If you want to lionize Hitler, lionize him for the things he did before he became an imperialist against other whites, an imperialist who bit off more than his people had a chance of chewing.

Had he not taken the country to war he could have his 1000 year Reich. And if at some point racial attitudes changed -- not an unreasonable thing to imagine -- to the point where immigration of other races was permitted, policies could much more easily have been reversed upon realizing the harm they were causing in the absence of the modern conflation between positive white identity/desire to live on and hatred of other races/desire to harm them.

Maybe it's too much to blame the nazis for failing to foresee such an eventuality but the point remains that nazism was a fuck-up of epic proportions.

Captainchaos,

You seem to believe your very existence alone entitles you to rule over others, whether that hurts others or not. You wield power because you can. That's what you call "honorable"?

4/17/2011 08:37:00 PM  
Blogger Chechar said...

@ “Maybe it's too much to blame the nazis for failing to foresee such an eventuality but the point remains that nazism was a fuck-up of epic proportions.”

Only Body-Snatched Pods talk like this. Have you been snatched? While I disapprove Hitler’s invasion to the URSS, what Churchill and Roosevelt did was nothing less than the most catastrophic political blunder in the entire history of the West since Constantine handed over the empire to the bishops at the dawn of the Age of Darkness. Anyone who has not been “snatched” realizes that the Anglo-Saxons' policies in the late 1930s and early ’40s were a fuck-up of epic proportions.

Read Pat Buchannan’s book on this very subject.

4/17/2011 09:47:00 PM  
Anonymous Captainchaos said...

"You seem to believe your very existence alone entitles you to rule over others, whether that hurts others or not."

I'm not sure where you get that idea.

In this thread I've attempted to flesh out various possible perspectives on National Socialism - quite effectively if I do say so myself.

My own perspective is that National Socialism as historically incarnated was not morally optimal. (How one could conclude that I believe otherwise is a mystery to me.)

"That's what you call 'honorable'?"

German treatment of the Hungarian people was certainly more "honorable" than Bolshevik treatment of the Hungarian people. Do you disagree?

4/18/2011 08:16:00 PM  
Anonymous Captainchaos said...

"I feel stupid"

You shouldn't be so hard on yourself, but I can fully understand a creeping sense of "awkward[ness]" on your part as at some level you must know you are not reasoning well.

"Everyone understands that white advocates being seen as advocates of Nazism is harmful to the anti-replacement cause. At the same time, I can't help contradicting you when you come out with a Jewish interpretation of Hitler and WW2."

Why should we avoid advocating for National Socialism if all that is putatively morally debased about it is a Jewish lie? Wouldn't doing that be to give deference to Jewish lies? Are you saying we should give deference to Jewish lies?

"But I accept that Hitler's goals are those he gave in his book: to take measures of racial preservation and to grab some land from his neighbors in the East."

The land you say yourself you believe Hitler intended to "grab" was not unoccupied. Otherwise, it couldn't very well be characterized as a land "grab". What do you suppose would have been the fate of that land's non-Germanic occupants? Answering in the form of studied bafflement for the sake the better talking point will not do. There are two possibilities:

- equal status for Slavs under the law with German settlers

- unequal status for Slavs under the law with German settlers

Only the latter possibility is consistent with a land "grab", which can only be characterized as the dispossession of Slavs by force.

"remember that I won the argument"

You must be kidding me.

4/18/2011 09:11:00 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

"I don’t believe that anyone is saying that invading the Soviet Union, led somewhere by Jews, was a good idea."

Tooze, in his treatise Wages of Destruction, argues that from a position of economic well-being, it was a rational act. Even with the conquest of Western Europe, the global nature of trade meant that the Reich was not sustainable, under the coming US mobilization, without the invasion of the Soviet Union and acquisition of oil and wheat.

4/19/2011 01:11:00 PM  
Anonymous Armor said...

Captainchaos,

I don't know much about Hitler and the Slavs, but unlike you, I'd rather trust the revisionist authors than the Jewish media.

"There are two possibilities:
- equal status for Slavs under the law with German settlers
- unequal status for Slavs under the law with German settlers"


Another possibility:
Hitler decides to give back to Germany the borders it had in 1900.
Non-Germans are expelled.

Another one:
He didn't have any definite plans.
He wanted to finish the war first.

--
In The Unnecessary War, Patrick Buchanan titled one chapter "Hitler's ambitions".

I found this in wikipedia :

"Buchanan argues that Hitler's public demands on Poland in 1938-39, namely the return of the Free City of Danzig (modern Gdan'sk) to the Reich, "extra-territorial" roads across the Polish Corridor, and Poland's adhesion to the Anti-Comintern Pact were a genuine attempt to build an anti-Soviet German-Polish alliance, especially since Buchanan argues that Germany and Poland shared a common enemy in the form of the Soviet Union. Buchanan contends that Hitler wanted Poland as an ally against the Soviet Union, and not an enemy."

--
I googled "hitler's ambitions" on the IHR.org website.
I found this article: Reviews of IHR Books Show Greater Acceptance of Revisionism

The article presents a few reviews written by "non-revisionist" authors about books published by the IHR.

One of the books is The Forced War published in German in 1961 by David Hoggan, translated in English in 1989 for the IHR.

A review of that book by the historian Stephen Sniegoski (1991) :

"Hoggan claims that Hitler's ambitions were limited to making Germany the preeminent power in Central Europe. Hitler did not seek world conquest, according to Hoggan, and his policies did not threaten Britain, the British empire, or Western Europe.

Leading British policymakers, however, opposed German hegemony in Central Europe on the basis of Britain's traditional balance of power policy ... To achieve the goal [a pretext for war], Britain, in March 1939, gave Poland an unconditional guarantee of its border with Germany, and later promised that it would support Poland in any conflict with Germany. Britain, however, had neither the intent nor the capability of actually defending Poland militarily... -

Hitler's demands on Poland, Hoggan emphasizes, were quite moderate. Hitler sought the return of the Free City of Danzig (detached from Germany by the Versailles Treaty) to the Reich, and German transit rights across the Polish Corridor ... In return, Hitler pledged to allow the continuation of Polish economic privileges in Danzig and to guarantee the Polish boundary with Germany ..."


--
It seems that Hoggan didn't mention any secret plan to enslave the Poles.

4/19/2011 06:43:00 PM  
Blogger Chechar said...

@ “Tooze, in his treatise Wages of Destruction, argues that from a position of economic well-being, it was a rational act. Even with the conquest of Western Europe, the global nature of trade meant that the Reich was not sustainable, under the coming US mobilization, without the invasion of the Soviet Union and acquisition of oil and wheat.”

Thanks Tooze. I hadn’t thought about that.

I now see that there’s an unsurpassable gulf between me and (1) so-called WNs who hate Hitler and ridicule the neonazis, like those who post at OD, (2) those who have commented in previous threads of this blog against my stance about euthanizing the severely retarded, and (3) Captain who seems to have introjected the current neo-Christian scruples against a National Socialist imperative: conquest.

Yes Anonymous: only a Greater Deutschland could have beaten the most serious threat for the white race: the US. Perhaps Capt. and others should read Wages of Destruction (I haven’t)?

Hitler and the Third Reich are being discussed today at a couple of threads at CC. For the links see this article in the new incarnation of my blog.

4/20/2011 03:00:00 PM  
Anonymous Captainchaos said...

Armor, you are unaware of the ambitions for power on a global scale Hitler wrote of in his Zweites Buch?

"He didn't have any definite plans.
He wanted to finish the war first."

Hitler was counting on a swift victory over the Soviet Union. He would not have given the go-ahead for Barbarossa if he believed victory impossible. If Germany had proven victorious, having expended so much effort to attain it, Hitler certainly would not have squandered the fruits of victory - hegemony over the conquered territory of the East. Hitler's confidence in a German military victory in the East and his will to carry out whatever he had planned for the land and peoples of the East occupy the same existential space. The former was done in whole or in part to achieve the latter. That is what intentionality is. Unless we are to assume his ordering that invasion was the random whim of a mentally disorganized lunatic. And, as you have conceded yourself, Hitler had planned a land "grab". Hitler deemed Slavs an inferior people to Germans. Unless one is a liberal - Hitler was certainly no liberal - one does not usually feel the moral imperative to grant the inferior equal status in whatever sense to the superior. That means...whatever concessions the allegedly inferior get are at the sufferance of the allegedly superior when the latter has power over the former.

All of this should be self-evident.

4/20/2011 10:45:00 PM  
Anonymous Captainchaos said...

For those who haven't guessed, it is the seemingly congenital inability of so many individuals of our race to perceive things at the level of psychological subtext which makes us easy pickings for kikes like "Daybreaker". Those few are what Nietzsche referred to as natural born psychologists. Or, to put it more colloquially, they can just "read" people within an intuitive intellectual framework.

For example, it is precisely the pagan a-liberal swagger Germans evinced before and during WWII which Tan admires with a hint of the guilty pleasure. And not for the kid gloves Armor is attempting to fit them with. Germans fully intended to affect a New Order in Europe and (gasp!) actually acted the part. That this was found wanting in many ways by our contemporary (not pagan) moral standards should surprise no one. (For those with short memories, I've stated in this thread I believe individual rights and the self-determination of peoples are moral progresses. So then, bundling off some poor sap to a concentration camp for criticizing der Fuhrer and endorsing German hegemony in Europe would not precisely fit the bill.)

4/21/2011 01:24:00 AM  
Blogger Chechar said...

A 3rd Hitler article at CC, this time by Greg himself, has been published:

http://www.counter-currents.com/2011/04/the-burden-of-hitler/

4/21/2011 09:56:00 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

"Armor, you are unaware of the ambitions for power on a global scale Hitler wrote of in his Zweites Buch?"

Global dominance? An alliance with the British Empire and an ultimate conflict between Europe and the United States over Europe's destiny. His concern with Russian Slavs were their alliance with Jewish Bolsheviks that "brought about a further [the last] bleeding of Russia's Nordic German elements...It was not as if the Slav race instinct had deliberately carried out the struggle for the extermination of the former non Russian upper stratum by itself.
No, it had acquired new leaders meantime in Jewry. Jewry, pressing toward the upper strata and therefore toward supreme leadership, has exterminated the former alien upper class with the help of the Slav race instinct"...and that by doing such "Slavdom is altogether lacking in any organising ability and thereby also in any Stateforming and Statepreserving power."

Hitler, in his Second Book, feared the chaos that would arise in Russia with the destruction of its Nordic governing class.

4/21/2011 11:22:00 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

"the current neo-Christian scruples against a National Socialist imperative: conquest."

Christian morals oppose war unless it attends to a greater evil. The question is whether the moral imperative is still valid even if the greater evil is addressed incidentally. The Allies fought not to save Jewry but their salvation, it is argued, even though incidental, payed, supposedly, a moral dividend. Considering the evil that was Bolshevism, even if the Nazi invasion of the Soviet Union was rational, done under an economic imperative, if they had destroyed Bolshevism incidentally, then should it not be considered a moral act?

4/21/2011 11:48:00 PM  
Blogger Chechar said...

And now a fourth article on Hitler & WW2 has been published at CC: “Exposing Stalin’s Plan to Conquer Europe”. This article by Daniel W. Michaels suggest that Hitler's Operation Barbarossa was a preemptive strike.

4/22/2011 11:04:00 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Yeah, like the war in Iraq.

4/22/2011 06:52:00 PM  
Anonymous Captainchaos said...

"An alliance with the British Empire and an ultimate conflict between Europe and the United States over Europe's destiny."

Hitler obviously did not anticipate the advent of nuclear weapons, which would have made any such confrontation mutually annihilating.

Goebbels, in his diary, remarked that it was Hitler's view that the British Empire should be preserved otherwise Germany would not inherit it. Also, that if Britain would not come on board, then she must be beaten to her knees. This was Hitler's attitude to those recalcitrant to German hegemony. It is not unreasonable to conclude Hitler would in the long view have taken a similar tack to an America sans nukes.

It is important that those who flirt with embracing National Socialism in the privacy of their own thoughts (not naming any names) know what the score is.

The truth is of more interest to me than flimsy talking points (the latter can be dispatched with easily by those who can actually think). And I dare say, a more solid basis on which to build a revivified White racial consciousness.

"Hitler, in his Second Book, feared the chaos that would arise in Russia with the destruction of its Nordic governing class."

Yes, Hitler thought it best that Slavs be subjected to German rule. Thanks for making my point.

P.S. No wonder Mangan won't give me a free hand with Troost. I would nail him to the cross.

4/23/2011 04:37:00 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

I would nail him to the cross.

Where have I heard that phrase before?

You've become that which you set out to destroy, Chaos.

4/24/2011 07:46:00 PM  
Anonymous Captainchaos said...

"You've become that which you set out to destroy, Chaos."

A pretentious jerkoff who speaks in poorly crafted epigrams? You sure that's me, chief?

4/25/2011 06:33:00 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

First, Lawrence Auster is a Jew by birth.

Second, he writes as Laura Wood. They are the same person. Research it a little.

9/23/2011 07:31:00 PM  
Blogger Tanstaafl said...

Evidence?

9/24/2011 12:39:00 AM  

Post a Comment

<< Home