something at google, I happened to come upon an article at a neo-Nazi or pro-Nazi or just plain Nazi website called Vanguard News Network
. It makes its intention clear right up front, with a slogan in its masthead that says: “No Jews. Just right.” The article
, by the website’s editor Alex Linder, attacks Samuel Francis and Jared Taylor for being insufficiently pro-white and not anti-Semitic at all.
Below are a few excerpts from the article that give an idea of where Linder is coming from. It’s unpleasant to know that such things exist, but necessary nevertheless.
In line with this, my litmus test, as you know, is that a man be willing to publicly name the jew as the enemy and publicly advocate White interests. If a man won’t do these things, then he’s not on our side. Open and shut: 100% clear policy…. Sam Francis and Jared Taylor fail our test. They are not on Whites’ side.
Whites working with jews is a vital mistake. A life and death, extinction-level mistake. My reading of history and MacDonald leads me to believe and say that there is absolutely no room for any deviation from the policy of no jews, period.
… your average White does not have the paranoia-feelers of the jew; he’s decent, well-intentioned, and assumes others are too. He is not going to grasp the nature of the jew unless he has dealings with them, or unless somebody points it out to him, because jews, unlike coloreds, are such a small and invisible minority.
In case none of this was clear enough, here Linder states his complete admiration for the Nazis:
Rather, in addition to taking utmost pains never to name the jew themselves—and to mock or attack others who do (and blame those same others for not supporting them when they get in a bind)—they always have recourse to “Nazis” as the ultimate evil. I can’t begin to convey to you—especially you older folks—how deeply destructive that is. By accepting the jews’ own demonology as their own, Francis and Taylor are ripping away at the honor of men 1,000 times as brave and fightful as they are and, more important, degrading the integrity of and drawing attention away from the ideas, arguments, and techniques of the one group of men in recent history who actually figured out what the jews were up to and beat them at their own game.
Posted by Lawrence Auster at August 01, 2003 06:53 PM | Send
What’s really disturbing about these people, quite aside from their obvious insanity, is that they stand out among those who would advocate for the interests of whites.
They are more concerned about hatred of Jews than the love of their own people, but that’s a point aside.
The real problem I see is that as the situation gets worse for white people in this country, and more whites get to a point where they recognize the legitimacy of their own grievances, where will they go? Where will these grievances be channeled?
Unfortunately, the likelihood is that many will resort to these groups which are already organized and in place. That’s bad.
Unless a legitimate movement by the majority ensues, where the majority assumes the moral leadership as the majority — you’ve expressed it elsewhere more articulately — then I’m afraid this is a real possibility.
Of course such resort to real extremism is a possibility. This is the ever-increasing polarization that I’ve worried about a great deal, and tried to confront, mostly very unsuccessfully, in various discussions here. There are certain types who, once they show up, make rational discussion impossible. However, in my own writings I’ve tried to show a moral middle way between amoral PC repression and amoral race-hatred and anti-Semitism.
As for Vanguard News Network publishing my article in their own format, rather than just providing a link to it, I don’t like that one bit but I have no idea what the legalities are. Any copyright lawyers among our readers?
Everyone should be sure to click on the link Joel provided to see the way this Nazi site presented my article. However, since I am a Jew, or rather a “jew,” as they rather conspicuously emphasize, they are being completely false to their sacred principles by publishing it. Their whole philosophy is that one should have nothing to do with Jews, period.
Does anyone know if there are any parallels on the Left (if the above can be called on the Right)?
I am glad there are those that can go into these sites and then tell the tale because I sure can’t. I suppose I could if pressed. It’s like reading the details (which I don’t) of one of our not so unusual sexual murders.
“I am glad there are those that can go into these sites and then tell the tale because I sure can’t.”
It’s not at all pleasant. You actually feel physically dirty and corrupted after viewing a site like this. But we need at least to know what’s out there.
When I first got my computer a few years ago I checked out the various far-white sites like StormFront and National Alliance. I listened to several of William Pierce’s weekly speeches. And since he said some intelligent things I agreed with, I listened. But as I got a sense of the evil place that he and others like him were really coming from, combined with the sheer monotony of their invocation of hate, I dropped them.
Similarly, I had some respect for David Duke, prior to reading My Awakening; namely I felt his standing up in an activist fashion for European-American rights was a righteous thing to do, even though I knew he was a sleaze. But in that book he reveals himself as basically a Nazi. After he published the book, he got even more obsessed and made the Jews the focus of everything. It’s amazing. There are a hundred things going seriously wrong with the world, but to these guys, there’s only one thing that’s wrong, and it’s the source of all the other wrongs.
These people are nowhere. Of course, they feel they’re somewhere very special because they have discovered THE SECRET that explains all the ills of civilization, and everyone else is suppressing this GREAT TRUTH which is the answer to all man’s problems. But the reality is they’ve just given themselves over to evil.
However, the problem is that, as our civilization continues to slide into an abyss, evil people like this will have a broader and broader appeal. The awareness of this danger makes the PC forces decide they have to be even more suppressive of any kind of racism and anti-Semitism (except when it comes from the left of course), which in turn only justifies the far-whites in their own minds.
Beyond that, I don’t know that there’s anything productive or useful that can be said about these people. All you can do is note their existence, understand them to the extent that that’s possible, and then turn away and forget about them.
“Francis and Taylor are … degrading the integrity of and drawing attention away from the ideas, arguments, and techniques of the one group of men in recent history who actually figured out what the jews were up to and beat them at their own game.”
There’s one more thing I have to point out. Nazism was the greatest disaster for the white race and Western civilization. The Nazis sought to enslave and destroy white nations, such as Poland and Britain. The Nazis represented nothing but a principal of destruction, and, in the necessary act of defeating these destroyers, liberalism and leftism won an overwhelming victory making liberalism the ascendant ideology of the world and discrediting any kind of moderate European nationalism, traditionalism, or cultural defense. The Nazi madness led to the effective end of the last remnants of the old Western order. Yet these sickos ADMIRE the Nazis and think that they had the “ideas, arguments, and techniques” that the world really needs. Hitler did more damage to the white race than any man in history. Yet the people at this Vanguard website, who supposedly care about the white race, avow their desire to replicate Hitler’s arguments and policies. Can you beat that?
I think that their extremism is at least partly explainable by the total absence of any mainstream voices talking about issues of race from a white perspective. Because it has been so effectively suppressed in our culture and media, a very high percentage of people attracted to this sort of thing are nut balls. That doesn’t mean that these issues can’t be explored civilly — in fact, just look at the amount of nut balls attracted to actual mainstream opinions. But fringe ideas attract fringe proponents.
On the other hand, if the march of events throws racial issues directly in front of everyone’s faces in a way that they are not now, people will again to speak rationally on the subject again. I would imagine that such a time is not far away, to our misfortune.
In reply to Thrasymachus, I was just reading an article by Kenneth Minogue about the differences between pre-modern and modern people that touches on this problem. Pre-moderns were specialized; they knew their own profession and place in life, and didn’t pretend to know more than that. Moderns are jacks of all trades, they profess to know everything or be able quickly to learn anything they want. Moderns feel free to have opinions on every subject, often on the basis of very little information. They are not contained by a social structure in their pretensions to knowledge.
So, if mentally normal modern men have superficial opinions on all kinds of subjects, what would the fringe modern types be like? You basically have people who pick up some tiny bit of information on some subject, and on that basis instantly subscribe to some vast theory, usually a conspiracy theory. One runs into this all the time. Somebody “heard” something, he “saw a tv show,” he “read” something, that tells him that what everybody believes to be true about some well known subject is not really true at all; he has the “true” knowledge. Of course, the alienation and anomie of modern life has a lot to do with this as well.
So, modern life has a built-in tendency for “fringe” personalities. Now, if we add on to that the fact that Thrasy mentioned, that vitally important subjects are suppressed, thus turning those subjects into fringe subjects which will attract fringe types, you can see the enormous potential for a society with lots and lots of nutcases.
But as Thrasy said, the most important thing is to open the public to rational discussion on these topics. Remember, however, that lots of nutcases also speak of their desire for “rational discussion,” when in fact (as I now know from lots of experience running this website), that that is often not the case. (Extremists and nuts are quite adept at imitating the phrases of normal people.) Another problem is that the ability to engage in rational debate has declined drastically not just among the fringe types but in the culture generally.
Still, whatever the risks, everything depends on reversing the trend of PC, which keeps putting more and more subjects out of limits, and instead start opening subjects that have been suppressed. The only thing that is capable of opening up the forbidden subjects while steering clear of nuttiness is a devotion to rationality.
Yes, Duke seemed to have repudiated his Nazi (sorry Matt for using the word in serious discussion on the Net) beginnings and appeared to be a fearless and reputedly handsome conservative. He served a respectable term as an effective state representative who was respected by his fellow legislators. He soon overreached by running for governor and received about 40% of the vote. I never legged it for him or contributed money. I voted for him to send a message that the status quo was unacceptable. Soon after the election, the media discovered he was still selling his white supremacy nonsense to earn a living.
Duke’s rise is an indication of how dissatisfied people are with the situation. Their dissatisfaction was the reason someone with his awful beginnings could deceive people, including me. The house behind my house began his state legislative district, which I was not in.
There is a happy ending. The Rhodes scholar state legislator Duke replaced is now a U.S. Representative, who I helped to elect. The scholar declined to run for the state seat and instead ran for the House seat. It was a hopeless election. Every single politician in the state, Republican and Democrat (except my bona fide louse of a former neighbor and local councilman), opposed this outspoken, yet mild-mannered and truly conservative scholar. The scholar ran against the former governor and U.S. Representative. It was a shoo-in for the former governor (neoconservative, status-quo type), who I had voted for when he ran for governor. No hope. Yet we pulled it off narrowly. (I had a very small part, but I am proud nevertheless.)
Postscript: The scholar now receives about 70% of the vote and is a member of the House Immigration Caucus.
Cet érudit et homme d’état de Louisiane, comment s’appelle-t-il?
Sorry, just having fun with my high school French. I figured people from Louisiana all spoke it. :-)
I was asking (literal translation): What is the name of this scholar and statesman of Louisiana?
My job is so doggone demanding I have little time for learning my Paw Paw’s language. He was an interpreter for the Allies in WWI. He never taught my Daddy. Instead he said, “You’re American. Speak American.” My Paw Paw was French not Cajun French. Yet even Cajun was suppressed. Many Cajuns can’t speak French, yet they carry the accent. But now Cajuns are reverting to the French pronunciations for their names, the inevitable result of identity politics.
Mr. Murgos asked, about the Nazi site: “Does anyone know if there are any parallels on the Left (if the above can be called on the Right)?”
I recently read some quotes from some far left anti-Bush site that was openly saying it wanted the U.S. to be defeated and harmed in Iraq.
His name is David Vitter.
My name is Paul, and my last name is a French name. The name Murgos is the name of a king in a fantasy novel by, if I remember right, David Eddings. The king was witty, which I admire.
I clicked on Joel’s link in the first comment. The article seemed familiar, but it took me a minute or so to recall where I had read it before. Your article had appeared in the Occidental Quarterly and I was very much impressed by it. I had no I idea that you were the one who had written it.
I did notice in the article you quoted, that they mentioned Kevin MacDonald as being their justification in for a policy of no Jews. I came across his article in the newest OQ just a few days ago. Do you have any opinions on it? I had come across him before in a review by John Derbyshire in the American Conservative. I’ll have to go farther than Derbyshire and say that I find his work extremely shoddy. The idea of an analysis of Jewish group dynamics seemed interesting to me. It would have been the same had I come across an article charting the influence of Confucianism on Chinese politics, or one about Hindu thought. (Truthfully, I find Jews more interesting then either of those groups, owing to a girl I dated in high school.) However, it surprised me that MacDonald doesn’t try to make any distinction among Jewish groups, not even between religious and non-religious Jews. He does not prove several of his main points – much of it seems based on a ‘so-and-so once said’ argument. I find his critique of Jewish ethno-centrism in a publication devoted to ethno-centrism incredible. And finally his conclusion is far overblown, even granting him the points that came before: “Jewish organizations in America have been a principal force—in my view the main force—for erecting a state dedicated to suppressing ethnic identification among Europeans, for encouraging massive multi-ethnic immigration into the U.S., and for erecting a legal system and cultural ideology that is obsessively sensitive to the complaints and interests of ethnic minorities: the culture of the Holocaust.”
I will probably read his further articles, the thesis of the second was somewhat interesting, but I am doubtful that he is the sort of fellow who is equipped to treat it with the subtleness of reason that it will require. I do think, however, that he is the sort of fellow who is foolish enough to be dangerous.
(And a postscript to Murgos — I read Eddings’ books when I was a kid. Murgos was the name of the race, I think. I didn’t realize it at the time, but thinking back, I notice that Eddings had written a series about a racially divided world where everyone was stereotyped to the hilt. Far over-stereotyped in my opinion. I also seem to recall that some of the main characters seemed to enjoy killing any Murgo they came across. Well, it was so many years since I read it, that it would be unfair to criticize him for stuff I can’t remember accurately.
On the other hand, when I read Tolkien’s Silmarillion back then, I certainly did notice Tolkien’s construction of different races. The Silmarillion is kind of obscure, which probably explains why nobody quoted it when a few accusations of Tolkien’s racism surfaced during the Tolkien hysteria a couple years ago. There are several quotes in there that would be considered damning, I’m sure, though I personally don’t have a problem with him. He was inventing the histories of detailed civilizations meant to be a sort of new cultural mythology. A lack of discussion of race would probably have been inappropriate.)
I haven’t read much of MacDonald’s work, so I can’t give a definitive opinion, but I have read bits of his work and have corresponded with him. (In the mid 1990s, before I had formed my current opinion of him, I gave him editorial feedback for his chapter on the role of Jewish organizations in advocating the removal of the national quota immigration system.)
However, I can say this much about him. It is clear that MacDonald is not just a critic of Jews and Jewish influence but that, in classic anti-Semitic fashion, he sees the Jews as The Enemy, as the main source of all that has gone wrong with our civilization. He has said that the Jews of Europe deserved what Hitler did to them, and he also supports Osama bin Laden. He sees America as a Jewish-dominated society, and therefore he is anti-American as well. His work seems to have become a principal intellectual prop for the rising anti-Semitism in parts of today’s right.
As for my article at Occidental Quarterly that you mentioned, it was originally published at VFR. It’s still linked on the main page under “From VFR’s archives”:
“I find [MacDonald’s] critique of Jewish ethno-centrism in a publication devoted to ethno-centrism incredible.”
Yes. When you see something like this, you know someone is seriously off-base.
There is something similar to this in Duke’s “My Awakening.” Duke is describing his trip around the world when he was in his twenties. In India, he sadly bemoans the fact that the ancient noble Aryans/Brahmins failed to maintain their racial superiority over the lower castes, and so allowed India to go downhill. Then Duke flies to Israel, and he immediately, in quite emotional terms, starts condemning Israel as a uniquely evil country because of the horrible way it keeps down Arabs. But he had just been SUPPORTING the idea of a more civilizationally advanced group dominating a less advanced group! Moreover, he betrayed no awareness of this obvious contradiction.
It was at this moment that I first realized the extent of Duke’s anti-Semitism.
“I find his critique of Jewish ethno-centrism in a publication devoted to ethno-centrism incredible.”
If Jewish ethnocentrism has been bad for white gentiles, and possibily the cause of whites having lost their sense of racial solidarity, then MacDonald’s thesis should not surprise you at all. But perhaps you would care to explain how America went from a country that from 1776 to 1965 was essentially an idealized, anglophone heir to Europe with the unfortunate presence of about 10% unassimilable black slaves or their descendents, to a multicultural, integrated, politically corrected society in which whites will shortly be a minority? All of this occurred in a short period of time. And as I have previously written on these boards, it is extremely doubtful whether the Civil Rights movement would have unfolded with the strength and rapidity it did without backing from Jewish individuals and organizations. Tell me, was integration good for whites, or bad for whites?
Peter wants to blame the unfolding of liberalism in America on the Jews. No doubt part of that is reactionary — a desire not to speak ill of America-qua-America in a time when hating America is liberal fashion. Loyalty to one’s own can sometimes blind us to the flaws within ourselves that make our enemies strong though. I would suggest that instead of blaming Jews for liberalism and its anti-racialist open-borders devolution that Peter read some Thomas Jefferson. I believe I posted some open-borders racial-equality quotes by Jefferson some months back on VFR. I don’t have them handy now, as I am traveling.
The need to even have a discussion of this nature is the reason I am increasingly distancing myself from America First and traditionalist conservatism.
At least amongst mainstream conservatives and neocons I’m not likely to have to deal with people like Peter.
The only “need” to have this discussion was that I happened to come upon the Vanguard website and thought that intelligent people ought to know about the existence of such people and such views. All the comments with one exception have been very critical about that website. So what is it that Shawn objects to here? That I posted the article at all? And for that reason Shawn—a longtime regular participant at VFR—is now, as he says, distancing himself from traditionalist conservatism?
Lawrence, I think you misunderstood my post. I fully support the need to highlight and draw people’s attention to the kind of twisted ideology represented by VNN and their fellow travellers, and I congratulate you for doing so. My point was that it is a shame that we have to do so at all, and that we have to engage such people in order to debunk them. One of the reasons I stopped supporting Buchanan was his views on Israel, and the views of many of his supporters on Jews in general. That, combined with the events of Sept.11, is the reason I have been increasingly distancing myself from the whole paleoconservative movement. This is something I have mentioned several times before at VFR.
Also, I have always made it clear that I am not a traditionalist, although I have learnt a great deal of value from my participation here, especially from yourself and Paul Cella. That being said, I do increasingly feel that I have more in common with mainstream conservatives than either paleocons or traditionalists.
My feeling about ‘mainstream’ and neocons is that they are increasingly motivated less by principle than what passes in their minds for pragmatism.
As bad as some paleocons are, and those even further on the extremity, at least one usually knows where they stand, and where they are likely to stand tomorrow. Mr. Buchanan of course has been a disappointment to alot of us. Mr. Auster’s ‘Open Letter’ to him expressed for many of us our disapproval at the direction he has chosen.
I think it’s a mistake however to assume any less volatility in the positions of the neocons. But it may be more difficult to ascertain this since whatever principles they have are increasingly blurry, a problem exacerabated by their tendency to compromise with liberalism, on moral issues especially. One can see this in Bill Bennett’s criticism of other conservatives for their stance against homosexuality.
Even though there are many Jewish neocons, I wouldn’t assume that this movement, whatever it morphs into in coming years, could not also veer toward a stance that is harmful to Israel, and to Jews everywhere.
What grouping does President Bush fall into? Are the steps he’s pushing on Israel really the right ones? And he’s considered one of the most Israel-friendly presidents ever.
An off-subject observation relating to Buchanan. One of the things that made me turn me away from him was when he called the Israeli government “the mirror image of Hamas and Hezbolah.” Well, it seems Buchanan is really into the “mirror image” trope. In the June 2 American Conservative, he speaks of the Brezhnev Doctrine, that “once the Communist system has been imposed on a nation, there is no turning back.” He then continues: “A mirror image of the Brezhnev Doctine is the American Doctrine.”
I’m telling you folks, the way Buchanan is going with this moral equivalency thing, pretty soon he’ll start echoing his contributor Fred Reed, who once wrote that Communism and Capitalism are equally immoral.
At the risk of my academic career, and offending people, I feel I must defend MacDonald on a series of points.
“I find [MacDonald’s] critique of Jewish ethno-centrism in a publication devoted to ethno-centrism incredible.”
MacDonald, of course, doesn’t develop his critique in a publication devoted to ethnocentrism. He does it in three volumes of heavily annotated, closely argued text.
Perhaps Thrasymachus meant he found a *reference* to MacDonald’s critique in said publication incredible.
I think its unfair to say that MacDonald believes the Jews ‘deserved’ the Holocaust. He writes from an evolutionary perspective, and as such words like ‘deserved’ which carry moral meaning don’t enter into his argument. Rather, his position is that anti-Semitism is a ‘rational’ group strategy in the context of an in-group/out-group struggles between a (in his view) tightly knit and ethnocentric Jewish community and a more diffuse ‘host’ society.
Now, you once can criticize this ‘evolutionary group’ perspective as lacking the transcendent, or just plain bad biology, but to effectively critique MacDonald one must engage his arguements.
As for the “so and so said this” nature of MacDonald’s work, this is the nature of the particular subject. It is not uncommon in works of historical sociology or ‘history of ideas’, which is essentially what MacDonald is doing. If you pile up enough “so and so said this’, you can get patterns, at least if you believe that ‘ideas have consequences’.
BTW, I have read a lot of MacDonald’s online stuff, and never have I read him “supporting” Osama bin Laden.
I would say a major flaw in MacDonalds work is lack of a ‘control’ group, or comparisons between groups. For example, it seems to me that very WASPy groups like the Quakers have been pretty destructive of our culture (maybe that’s why they were hanged in colonial Mass.), and the WASP elite seems to prefer $$$ to preventing the third-worldization of the US. I suspect MacDonald would argue that such groups are not anywhere near as ethnocentric as organized Jewry.
As for him seeing the Jews (or at least organized Jewry like the ADL, AJC etc) as the Enemy, that is partially right. He seems to be traumatized by his personal experiences with Jewish leftists during the Sixties. There is also double standard that makes MacDonald angry. For instance, it would be suicide for any WASP public figure to oppose out-marriage of ‘his people’, but several prominent Jews have done just that.
Yet, I do believe his work has some intellectual merit.
He himself mounts a defense of his work at http://www.csulb.edu/~kmacd/Preface.htm .
Disclaimer: I fully support the right of Israel to exist, I believe the Holocaust happened, I ate a passover Seder in 2002 (the Netanya bombings Passover) .
No one has claimed that MacDonald’s work is devoid of merit. But underlying and informing the objective, scientific form of his writings is a convicted and emotional animus against the Jewish people as the Enemy—the historical and cosmic Enemy. As John Derbyshire pointed out in his article about MacDonald in The American Conservative, MacDonald’s failure to find _anything_ positive to say about the Jewish people in a three-volume work about them is the defining mark of a bigot. Of course MacDonald’s books has all kinds of interesting information. But it is also, at bottom, the expression of a profound and passionate anti-Semitism.
As for his view that the Jews brought the Holocaust on themelves, here is part of what MacDonald wrote to me in our last e-mail exchange, a month after the September 11th attack:
“To the extent that it can be taken seriously, the Jewish ideology that the Holocaust created the need for Israel does not play well with me, because in IMO the treatment of Jews in Europe is at least partly the result of Jewish behavior and characteristics.”
So please just remember, Mr. Young, when, for example, you read about the Germans invading Holland and searching for every single Jew in Holland and sending them to die, when you read about Ann Frank with her family hiding in an attic for a year and then being captured and placed in a concentration camp where she starved and sickened to death in conditions of unutterable filth and squalor, that what happened to Ann Frank was—in MacDonald’s faux attempt at antiseptic, scientific description—“at least partly the result of Jewish behavior and characteristics.”
I think everything Mr. Auster says about Kevin McDonald and the Jews could be applied to himself and blacks. For example you accuse Dr. McDonald of failing to say anything good about the Jews in his books despite all his criticism. (While I have not read much of his work, I do recall reading him say the Jews are as a whole more intelligent than whites, which I would take as a compliment). By this standard whenever Mr. Auster talks about Blacks lower IQ’s or higher propensity towards Crime, he must also praise their skills at Athletics and Jazz music.
Similarly Mr. Auster constantly make these comments about that he fails to make prefaces about the Holocaust and by explaining something from a scientific view, without moralizing it, Dr. McDonald is somehow indifferent to the Holocaust. You could make the exact same argument about someone who talks about differences between whites and blacks without constantly harping about Colonialism, Slavery, and Jim Crow.
I am saying all of these things as a Jew. It is pretty undeniable that some jewish dominated intellectual movements like Bolshevism, Neoconservatism, Boas school anthropology, The Frankfurt School, and to a lesser extent feminism, the civil rights movement, and the drive for open borders have had a negative effect on America. This does not mean, as McDonald seems to suggest that all Jews have some sort of evolutionary imperative to subvert Western Civilization, but I think that it is a subject worth studying.
Saying that anyone who wishes to look into Jewish influence without qualifying every paragraph they write to say that they abhor the holocaust and noting Jewish Contributions to astrophysics makes a rational debate impossible.
Every one of Mr. Epstein’s comparisons is off-base and misstates my position. Did I say that every single critical comment about any group must be accompanied by a compliment? Of course not. I referred to John Derbyshire’s observation that the failure of MacDonald, as the author of a three-volume work on the Jewish people, to say anything positive about them, was proof of bigotry. Mr. Epstein points to some comment by MacDonald that Jews are more intelligent than gentiles. Yet such an observation in the context of MacDonald’s work is not a compliment but part and parcel of the standard anti-Semitic attack on Jews as fiendishly clever Svengalis who, despite their small numbers, completely dominate gentiles and bend them to their will. Is Mr. Epstein so naïve as not to know that—and not to know that others would see through such an obvious ploy?
Further, is there anything I have said that indicates that I deny that Jews have played an important role in the progress of leftism? Of course not. But here we come to the basic little lie that Mr. Epstein wants to get away with. It is the standard avoidance technique of contemporary bigots of all stripes and their apologists. When accused of being bigots, their reply is, “I’m only CRITICIZING! I’m being accused of being a bigot for merely making CRITICISMS!”
People who are up to no good, and who know they are up to no good, must eliminate the possibility of the rational distinctions by which good and bad are determined. To lump together all negative statements about a group, regardless of the nature of the statements, as mere “criticism” is such an obfuscatory technique which would make it impossible to describe ANY statement about a group as bigoted or anti-Semitic. And, as we know from much experience at this website, there are many anti-Semites who do indeed deny the very existence of anti-Semitism, just as there are lots of Muslims who deny the existence of Muslim terrorism.
Lawrence Auster writes (and many people agree throughout this thread): “These people are nowhere. Of course, they feel theyï¿½re somewhere very special because they have discovered THE SECRET that explains all the ills of civilization, and everyone else is suppressing this GREAT TRUTH which is the answer to all manï¿½s problems. But the reality is theyï¿½ve just given themselves over to evil.”
All very true. But these disciples of Wm. Pierce and other contemporary Nazis are the type of people who are attracted to Nazism *after* World War II. And, today, only someone living in the sunlit uplands of lunacy would endorse Fascism or Nazism.
Such was not always the case, however. Nazism and Fascism had a rather strong intellectual tradition. In fact, the intellectual roots of Fascism are far more formidable than those of its 20th century counterpart, Communism. Both movements confronted Modernism, both in its literal sense and in its aesthetic application. And I’m not just talking about the usual suspects (Eliot, Pound, Heidegger, et. al.) but a host of others (check out Roger Griffin’s Oxford Reader on Fascism. Even in America, it might be said that the most vital literary movement of the interwar years (the Southern Renaissance) had its roots in an aesthetic response to the modern, the Nashville Agrarians, that was quite similar to the intellectual response among European fascists.
I’m not sure that I’d so readily relegate Nazism to the dustbin of history, a failed force that only appeals to the diseased. That may be whistling past the graveyard. What made Nazism tick, still makes it tick. And, while I said above that only a lunatic would endorse Nazism today, given the right environment, it can take root across the entire spectrum of society again. Intellectuals, furthermore, aren’t as independent and iconoclastic as they like to appear. If fascists run a country, the intellectual class will be fascists, too. If you spend time in a university, just look around you.
We had some Nazis post here, and I deleted their comments and closed them out of the site. Be warned though, that they may attempt to return.
It is correct to note that Fascism — with its intellectual lineage & relevance to modernity — will resurge; according to its theories, modern life will get worse via said imbalance & will pave the way for a balancing mechanism. Nothing anyone says will change that; words only articulate resentment. If words do not articulate resentment sufficiently, & in the halls of power no less, then resentment will forge its own power & proceed to execute its concerns.
The balancing mechanism stepped in to correct the censorial decadence of the Weimar Republic; it will happen again. The arguments for & against it have scarcely changed; what proponents & opponents often fail to realize is that Fascism is a warning.
You simply cannot admit to Jewish dominance of certain fields of social activism & so on without admitting to a harmful imbalance. If you put weights on a skilled ballerina’s left leg, if you add a little weight with each successive performance, then she will bear it for a while. The quality of her performance will decrease; if critics make allowances for this decrease, that will not change the objective situation.
Given time, given enough weight, that ballerina will fall over in performance; she will get back up again & continue to perform. Given time, given enough weight, she will fall more often. Eventually she will be unable to perform, & some supposedly mentally ill person will note that she has a weight on her leg, & maybe something should be done.
As the poster Marcus Epstein says, “It is pretty undeniable that some jewish dominated intellectual movements like Bolshevism, Neoconservatism, Boas school anthropology, The Frankfurt School, and to a lesser extent feminism, the civil rights movement, and the drive for open borders have had a negative effect on America.” I would not say ‘to a lesser extent’ for a very good reason: Boas, the Frankurt School, & Bolshevism underpinned the ideology of feminism, civil rights, & the drive for open borders.
I repeat, in conclusion, that words are powerful things. If they do not articulate the powerfully growing resentment in these United States of America, then people will dispense with words, or at least they will dispense with ‘enemy’ words, & resentment will assume the collective force of an avalanche. You may consider me mentally ill for noting these things; you may consider my comrades mentally ill; I can only note that censorship & marginalization create artificial mental illnesses independent of genetic predisposition. I thank Kevin Macdonald from the bottom of my heart for articulating the dispossessed majority.
Every serious traditionalist conservative in America is marginalized and censored. Yet we don’t use that as an excuse for harboring primitive subhuman impulses such as those expressed by Trent A’s Nazi “comrades.” Trent and his pals would have had those impulses in any case. But because society rightfully and necessarily shuns them, they then make the shunning the excuse for the hate that they already had.
To suggest that what came after the Weimar Republic represented a counter-balance is fairly outrageous. ‘Balance’ doesn’t work here; ‘pendulum’ maybe.
But as Prof. Steven Farron pointed out in the June 2003 AmRen, (in rebuttal to Prof. MacDonald,) countries where there is a negligible Jewish presence such as the Netherlands and Belgium, and countries where Jews hardly exist at all such as the Scandinavian countries, have also allowed themselves to be inundated by Third World immigration. This started well before 1965.
Prof Farron goes on, “MacDonald trivializes a suicidal mental attitude that pervades the West and afflicts Jews as well as Gentiles.” (And as we’ve noticed elsewhere, Jews actually have the most to lose from our current multicultural immigration disaster, which only imports even more vehement flavors of Anti-Semitism.)
This is one of the problems with his thesis. It oversimplifies what has happened, and it draws attention away from our own failures. It makes it impossible for us to honestly assess our own responsibility for our fate.
It also makes legitimate criticism of specific Jewish groups almost impossible, since even valid criticism are instantly seized upon and blown to gargantuan proportions until they lose any basis of reality.
And the other problem — a BIG problem — it prevents reasonable whites from reigniting a legitimate sense of racial solidarity. At a moment in our history when a genuine movement by the white majority needs to assert itself, the timing for this couldn’t be worse.
The Fuhrer was the worst thing to befall the white race. He made a sense of white racialism odious in the eyes many, including most whites. His ideological heirs may end up consummating that disaster to the detriment of us all.
We aren’t nazis, we take their ideas seriously. There’s a reason the forces who produce AmeriKwa have made them the number one enemy - they’re substantially correct in their analysis of and reaction to jews. Who wants to waste his life with the go-nowhere — pardon me, go-backward kahnservatives — who spend all their waking hours hacking at the branches of evil, ignoring the root. Take two branches: open borders, “affirmative action” — trace them down to the root: jews. You can do that with virtually every other symptom AmeriKwa displays in 2003 — all lead back to the jew disease. Most of the pale-kahns know what we’re saying is true, they’re just afraid to say it. Hence our readership and support base grows, because we aren’t. The non-jews in whatever forum this is ought to read us and then join us. As we like to say, ITZ COMING.
Alex Linder is of course the editor the Nazi or pro-Nazi website Vanguard News Network, which among things has in its masthead the slogan “No Jews. Just right.” My own policy at VFR is to exclude Nazis. I will make an exception in this one instance, however, since there is something to be learned from seeing Mr. Linder’s words posted directly in our pages. But let me advise him and his cohorts that no further postings from open Nazi supporters such as themselves will be permitted. Mr. Linder’s post will be allowed to remain, as sufficient evidence of what we’ve been talking about.
Here I’ll just remark on one statement of his, his complaint about conservatives “who spend all their waking hours hacking at the branches of evil, ignoring the root.” As I have said many times at VFR, the Jew-haters and pro-Nazis literally believe that the Jews are the source of everything that is wrong with the world. Mr. Linder here confirms that idea. The Jews, he says, are the root of evil, thus giving a theological twist to Jew-hatred which resembles that of the Christian Identity movement.
Anti-Semitism is a religion, a religion with a devil (the Jews) and a God (Aryans or whites).
A Nazi isn’t just another form of liberal modern, although he is indeed that. A Nazi is a particularly pathetic and intellectually stunted form of liberal modern who creates legitimacy for leftist tranzis out of whole cloth. One of the great ironies of the twentieth century is that Hitler, by asserting a faux oppressor-untermensch in the Jews, created a real oppressor-untermensch in the form of “right-wing” (hah!) modernist politics. Nazis are the oppressor-untermensch to the free and equal new leftist superman, giving the left-ubermenschen the ideological opposition he needs in order to justify his assertion of political power in order to create the free and equal new man. How pathetic.
Mr. Auster wrote:
“As I have said many times at VFR, the Jew-haters and pro-Nazis literally believe that the Jews are the source of everything that is wrong with the world.”
Indeed hatred of Jews was Hitler’s larger-than-life unprincipled exception (though he had others). Every liberal modern needs an oppressor bad-guy to juxtapose to his own virtuous support for the free and equal new man. The irony of Hitler is that what the Jews did for the Nazis the Nazis now do for more modern forms of liberal. The Nazis now provide an actual substantive oppressor-subhuman to replace the phantom oppressor-subhuman - their pathetic caracature of the Jews — that they summoned from the darkest depths of their own failure to repent in order to justify their assertion of the will-to-power of the free and equal new man.
I can barely conceive of a response to Mr. Linder. All I can say is that I read a fair amount of 19th century literature. In doing so, I come across a certain amount of out and out anti-Semitism. For the most part it is far more literate and interesting than Mr. Linder’s comment. It is comforting to realize, therefore, that his is a movement that has lost all intellectual and emotional vitality. There is nothing left of the corpse. And at least it will be movements other than Nazism that will trouble future generations.
It’s true that the racialist and anti-Semitic writers of the 19th and early 20th century often had some kind of positive civilizational or racial vision mixed in with the anti-Semitism, Madison Grant for example. But these contemporary Jew-haters literally have nothing to offer but Jew-hatred. The third world is pouring in, minority race preferences have just been placed in the Constitution, sexual liberation has just been made a constitutional right, the Republican president is on board the anti-white wagon, any grassroots or conservative opposition to these and other outrages have virtually disappeared—and meanwhile what do these supposed defenders of the white race want to talk about? The Jews as the root of all evil.
Yet this kind of shrinking of the human soul into pure reactiveness and hostility is not limited to serious sickos like the Nazis. One sees it in less extreme precincts of the right as well, as we have often discussed.
Recall the first time the Jews were resident in another country and ask yourself if it doesn’t have a recent and modern ring:
“Now there arose up a new king over Egypt, which knew not Joseph. And he said unto his people, Behold, the people of the children of Israel are more and mightier than we: Come on, let us deal wisely with them; lest they multiply, and it come to pass, that, when there falleth out any war, they join also unto our enemies, and fight against us … Therefore they did set over them taskmasters to afflict them with their burdens.” Ex 1:8-11
Sound familiar? Thousands of years later, the details of the complaint may differ, but it’s all part of the same, never-ending story.
I just meant that they used to be able to write well.
I think your point on reactiveness and hostility is worth investigating. The cause is probably the modern political system. A polarizing media message is an effective one. The consequences are evident on both the right and the left. It is true that the “movement” nature of movement conservatives make them more vulnerable.
I’ve deleted yet another visitor from Naziland and closed him out, as I will continue to do. I will allow statements that bear some resemblance to reasonable speech, but not the sheer hate speech which is apparently the only form of communication that these oppressed übermenschen are capable of.
Matt’s latest is just a tad difficult to follow, as are most of his comments relating to his idea that the Nazis were essentially liberals. Indeed, I think the sheer difficulty Matt has had in getting this idea across to us ought to suggest to him the possibility that it may not be correct (though, as I have said, the difficulty may be solely on my side and maybe one morning I’ll wake up and suddenly “get” it. :-) )
However, there’s one point that I think Matt is wrong on even within the terms of his own argument.
“[H]atred of Jews was Hitler’s larger-than-life unprincipled exception (though he had others). Every liberal modern needs an oppressor bad-guy to juxtapose to his own virtuous support for the free and equal new man.”
Since when is the belief in an evil oppressor an _exception_ to liberalism? We have always discussed the unprincipled exception as a kind of commonsensical or footdragging resistance to the onward march of liberal equality and freedom. The belief in an oppresive force of inequality that must be overcome is not an exception from liberalism, it is central to it.
Note: One aspect of Matt’s theory of liberalism that is plainly correct and has been fruitfully used in discussions here is the “oppressive untermenschen / oppressed übermenschen” dichotomy. Yet while that liberal paradigm is based on the Nazi attack on the Jews as oppressive untermenschen, it still does not prove that the Nazis were liberals. It is, as far as I can tell, a point of similarity, not a proof of membership in the same category, just as certain similarities between Islam and liberalism are points of similarity, not a categorical similarity.
Mr. Auster asks:
“Since when is the belief in an evil oppressor an _exception_ to liberalism?”
Any sort of authoritative discrimination at all, including against (e.g.) Jews or some other perceived oppressor, is an exception to liberalism. It does of course become difficult to talk coherently about liberalism the closer one gets to its first principles because liberalism is fundamentally incoherent from the get-go. “Equal” (a demand for no authoritative discrimination) is an exception to “right” (an assertion of a particular authoritative discrimination); and “right” is an exception to “equal”.
The resolution of course is to view the oppressor as having abdicated his humanity (or his “rights”). Then one can maintain the intellectual illusion that equal rights makes coherent sense, at least among the ubermensch.
When I say that any argument from liberal principles can be countered by an opposite argument for its negation, also from liberal principles, I am being quite literal.
On my view of the Nazis as categorical liberals, clearly the Nazis believed strongly in the emergence of a politically free and equal new man and that this emergence was being impeded by an outside oppressor. Whatever other alliegences the Nazis may or may not have had are irrelevant: a strong alliegence to liberalism makes one a liberal, full stop.
Unless I’m entirely missing something, Matt has this wrong. Liberalism in principle seeks to destroy all authoritative discriminations that stand in the way of equality. But in reality liberals cannot do that in every case because it would make an orderly earthly existence impossible. For example, liberals view the police as instruments of white racist authoritative discriminations against the poor and the black. Yet the liberals, while doing everything they can to diminish and demonize the police, hold back from actually destroying the police because doing so would deliver the liberals into a Hobbesian hell.
But the authoritative discriminations that Nazis seek to exercise against Jews or that liberals seek to exercise against police or Republicans or white men is of an entirely different nature. The putting down of supposed oppressors is not an _exception_ from the ongoing march of equal freedom; rather, it is the very _means_ by which the equal freedom is to be achieved. An unprincipled exception is: my ideology tells me to destroy the police (or the Jews), but it is impractical for me to do so, so I won’t. Obviously the Nazi’s positive intent to destroy the Jews is not an unprincipled exception from the Nazi enterprise, but its essence.
Attaining equality means destroying inequality. Whoever is perceived as being at the top must be brought down, while those at the bottom are brought up. While this is routinely described as a double standard, i.e. as a contradiction, it is not really a contradiction at all, but rather the logical structure of the liberal project. To achieve equality, those with oppressive power must be treated according to a different standard than those at the bottom. That is the true leftist idea of justice, which is not to treat equals equally and unequals unequally (the classic philosophers’ idea of justice), but to force unequals to become equal.
It’s the same as with my recent article:
Why is liberalism both liberationist and totalitarian?
where I said that the liberals’s assault on the old authority they oppose is part of the same movement as their assertion of their own authority that they support.
Mr. Auster writes:
“Liberalism in principle seeks to destroy all authoritative discriminations that stand in the way of equality.”
Yes. But in order to do so it must assert an authoritative discrimination between oppressor and oppressed. The only truly consistent liberal is an anarchist, except that an anarchist has no authoritative way to oppose oppression.
“To achieve equality, those with oppressive power must be treated according to a different standard than those at the bottom.”
To achieve equal freedom there must be authoritative discrimination, yes. This *is* a contradiction, on all possible terms and for all possible rational beings. Any supposed rational coherence is pure illusion.
Ontologically speaking unchosen political authority to which submission is required must be eliminated, which degenerates into an active nihilism which asserts that nonexistence is a positive good that must be achieved. Liberalism is ultimately the worship of death, and Naziism is one of its more pure expressions.
Mark Konrad from the Vanguard News Network posted an interesting comment asking why Jews have so frequently been expelled from various countries and cities over the centuries, presenting a long list of such places with the dates of the expulsions, and suggesting that this frequent rejection must be the Jews’ fault.
I said earlier that I would allow reasonable appearing comments to be posted. On further thought, that must be qualified. I am not going to allow people associated with the Vanguard site or with any Nazi-like views to post at VFR on any conditions, and I advise them forthwith to stop trying. Here is why.
Questions such as Jewish-Gentile relations over the centuries are of course highly interesting and worth discussing. The problem is that Nazis and pro-Nazis are not the persons with whom one can have such a discussion, because they are so far out that no civilized discussion is possible with them. The irony is, these people would love nothing more than to have such a discussion with moderate right-wingers such as ourselves. But they have made themselves unqualified for any such discussion by their own conduct and evident evil will.
It’s the same with the Holocaust deniers. There are historically valid questions about the Holocaust to be discussed and explored. But the Holocaust deniers are the last people with whom to have such a discussion. If one is to examine the historical facts about the Holocaust, it will have to be with normal people—mentally normal, professional historians with an interest in the facts, not with Hitler sympathizers, who, while they may skillfully put out a front of reasonableness to get a discussion going, are basically motivated by Jew-hatred. As we’ve said elsewhere about certain paleo-libertarians and anti-war types, their own embrace of irrationality and hate disqualifies them from the very debate they would most like to have.
There is a more basic reason why pro-Nazis are not welcome here. Their own slogan is “No Jews. Just right.” So why do they expect their own presence to be tolerated by me, who am a Jew, though a Christian, and at this website, which is obviously open to Jews? The Nazis have declared Jews, “Jewish sympathizers,” and “Jewish dominated society” to be their enemies. They can’t then expect to be welcomed by the very people on whom they have declared war.
After I posted my last comment, I received the following e-mail from Alex Linder, editor of the Vanguard News Network website. He seems to be annoyed that I wouldn’t have a discussion with him and his friends. But, once again, since he regards me as a subhuman bug, why would he _want_ to have a discussion with me, and why would he expect _me_ to want to have a discussion with him? There is a need for more psychologists.
From A. Linder to LA:
“calling people ‘evil’ and banning them. yeah, i’m real worried about those nazis.
“you jews are priceless.
“actually, i don’t regard jews as evil, i regard them as what they are: inbred, xenophobic, parasitic subset of arabs. i used hacking at evil because that’s the phrase from emerson or thoreau, i forget which. in general we try not to moralize biology, but it is difficult when you consider the loathsomeness of the object and itz actions.
“and with that, good day to you, jew Auster.”
Matt’s notion that Nazi anti-Semitism is a type of unprincipled exception from liberalism provides the key to what is wrong with his whole “Nazism is liberalism” thesis.
Matt starts out with the concept—this concept that no one but himself agrees with—that Nazism is a form of liberalism. He then notes that Nazis want to harm the Jews. But, Matt continues, exercising such an authoritative discrimination against any group is contrary to liberalism. Therefore, Matt concludes, the Nazis’ anti-Jewish campaign is an exception from the essential, liberal idea of Nazism.
This conclusion is the result of Matt’s premise that Nazism is a form of liberalism. He calls Nazism liberalism, then notes Nazis behaving in a most illiberal way, and so calls that an exception!
Where does Matt get this idea? I think he gets it by taking one aspect of Nazi ideology—the idea of some sort of equal brotherhood of Aryan supermen—and (1) he sees that idea as the essence of Nazism, and (2) he equates that Nazi idea of a brotherhood of supermen with the liberal idea of equality.
This is all quite wrong. Nazism at its heart is a worship of power and violence. It is the belief that war—continual war—is the very essence of being, especially the being of Aryan man. There is NOTHING liberal about this idea! Liberalism is the desire to get rid of unequal power relations in an equal society. Nazism is the desire to realize one’s inner essence through war and domination.
Mr. Auster and I will continue to disagree about this. I think he sees Nazi violence against its perceived oppressors as somehow set apart and different from other liberal violence against perceived oppressors. My own view of the twentieth century is that the Nazis managed to murder far fewer people overall than the other forms of liberalism (for example American feminism) because it was, well, just manifestly dumber, weaker, and more primitive than the other forms. Its relative weakness and associated lack of confidence made it more overtly violent against its perceived oppressors, and it made it more difficult for the Nazis to avoid confrontation with manifest reality in the way that other liberalism’s so effectively do.
I’ve posted Hitler quotes on VFR before showing his belief in a radical abstract classless equality among the volk, so there is no need to rehash all that here. Every liberalism opposes the free and equal new man to an oppressor-untermensch. Every liberalism involves an incoherent and violent simultaneous assertion of discrimination and non-discrimination. Every liberalism has murdered millions, though it is true that unlike other liberalisms the Nazi murders were limited to single-digit millions. I don’t see these accidents as significant enough to make a categorical difference, though, when contrasting liberalism to (e.g.) traditional Christianity.
“Every liberalism opposes the free and equal new man to an oppressor-untermensch. Every liberalism involves an incoherent and violent simultaneous assertion of discrimination and non-discrimination. Every liberalism has murdered millions …”
18th and 19th century British and American liberalism opposed an oppressive untermensch? 18th and 19th century British and American liberalism murdered millions? Other than abortion, which was only liberated in the U.S. on a large scale in 1973, what could Matt be talking about? Perhaps in reply he’s going to bring in the bombing of cities in WWII. But, first, that wasn’t millions. Second, that was WAR against absolutist murderous regimes that had to be defeated for the safety of the world, not an ideological act of liberalism per se. So I’m just at a loss to understand what Matt is saying.
But, at least for myself, I feel I have successfully answered his liberalism-Nazism idea.
“On my view of the Nazis as categorical liberals, clearly the Nazis believed strongly in the emergence of a politically free and equal new man”
Was this in fact the goal of the Nazi’s? My understanding is that the Nazi’s believed in racial purity. So a good Nazi would not be free in the liberal sense because they were restricted only to other “Aryans” as far as marriage and breeding.
The Nazi’s also believed in hierarchy and obedience to authority. Even after the supposed rise of the New Man, the Nazi’s envisaged a hierarchical society marked by order and obedience to both Nazi authority and Nazi concepts of racial purity. The Nazi ideal for women, Church, Kitchen, Children, does not sound like a society based on equality and freedom. It is difficult to see any categorical liberalism here at all.
I think (and have done for some time) that Matt is indulging in a form of Gnostic dualism. The only two social/political forces he recognises are traditionalism (as he defines it) and liberalism. Everything that is not traditionalism (as he defines it) is therefore liberalism and unredeemable evil.
“Every liberalism has murdered millions”
liberalism, unrestrained by both traditional values and limited government, and especially in its form of Marxism, is without doubt destructive. But the murder of millions is, sadly, not restricted to liberalism (if it is even true). At the risk of re-starting the religious wars, I do not think representatives of the Catholic Church are in a position to be pointing fingers with regards to genocide. The ghosts of the Cathars, the Indians of South America, and, more recently the Rwandans ( http://www.christianitytoday.com/ct/2000/125/23.0.html), amongst many others, will be pointing back.
Mr. Auster wrote:
“Other than abortion, which was only liberated in the U.S. on a large scale in 1973, what could Matt be talking about?”
I am talking about abortion. It is true that American-style liberalism took a somewhat longer and slower burn to reach the point of perpetrating its massacres than some of the other liberalisms, but again I view that as accidental rather than essential.
“I think (and have done for some time) that Matt is indulging in a form of Gnostic dualism.”
We’ve pretty much only talked about modern liberalism versus Christian traditionalism on VFR, with an occasional smattering of Islam. Confucianism, the Hindu caste system, and Sharia Islam are examples that don’t fit either category (although Islam and Protestantism do share some roots, as I’ve also discussed before).
The fundamental questions are: (1) what defines liberal modernism; and (2) did the Nazis exhibit a strong loyalty to it. The former I’ve discussed so much recently that more wordsmithing isn’t likely to be helpful. On the latter, perhaps these are worth a re-hash:
“The army united a people who were split up into classes: and in this respect had only one defect, which was the One Year Military Service, a privilege granted to those who had passed through the high schools. It was a defect, because the principle of absolute equality was thereby violated; and those who had a better education were thus placed outside the cadres to which the rest of their comrades belonged. “
— Mein Kampf by Adolf Hitler, Vol. I Chap. 10
“To incorporate in the national community, or simply the State, a stratum of the people which has now formed a social class the standing of the higher classes must not be lowered but that of the lower classes must be raised. The class which carries through this process is never the higher class but rather the lower one which is fighting for equality of rights. The bourgeoisie of to-day was not incorporated in the State through measures enacted by the feudal nobility but only through its own energy and a leadership that had sprung from its own ranks.”
— Mein Kampf by Adolf Hitler, Vol. I Chap. 11
“Above all, it was the ‘Free Trades Union’ that turned democracy into a ridiculous and scorned phrase, insulted the ideal of liberty and stigmatized that of fraternity with the slogan ‘If you will not become our comrade we shall crack your skull’. “
— Mein Kampf by Adolf Hitler, Vol. I Chap. 2
“I had always hated the Parliament, but not as an institution in itself. Quite the contrary. As one who cherished ideals of political freedom I could not even imagine any other form of government. In the light of my attitude towards the House of Habsburg I should then have considered it a crime against liberty and reason to think of any kind of dictatorship as a possible form of government.”
— Mein Kampf by Adolf Hitler, Vol. I Chap. 3
“The cause for which we fought during the War was the noblest and highest that man could strive for. We were fighting for the freedom and independence of our country, for the security of our future welfare and the honour of the nation. Despite all views to the contrary, this honour does actually exist, or rather it will have to exist; for a nation without honour will sooner or later lose its freedom and independence. This is in accordance with the ruling of a higher justice, for a generation of poltroons is not entitled to freedom. He who would be a slave cannot have honour; for such honour would soon become an object of general scorn. “
— Mein Kampf by Adolf Hitler, Vol. I Chap. 6
“Ideas of ‘freedom’, mostly based on a misunderstanding of the meaning of that word, enter into the concept of the State as it exists in the minds of this group. “
— Mein Kampf by Adolf Hitler, Vol. 2 Chap. 2
“The present epoch is working out its own ruin. It introduces universal suffrage, chatters about equal rights but can find no foundation for this equality. It considers the material wage as the expression of a man’s value and thus destroys the basis of the noblest kind of equality that can exist. For equality cannot and does not depend on the work a man does, but only on the manner in which each one does the particular work allotted to him. Thus alone will mere natural chance be set aside in determining the work of a man and thus only does the individual become the artificer of his own social worth. “
— Mein Kampf by Adolf Hitler, Vol. 2 Chap. 2
“The parliamentary institution attracts people of the badger type, who do not like the open light. No upright man, who is ready to accept personal responsibility for his acts, will be attracted to such an institution.
That is the reason why this brand of democracy has become a tool in the hand of that race which, because of the inner purposes it wishes to attain, must shun the open light, as it has always done and always will do. Only a Jew can praise an institution which is as corrupt and false as himself.
As a contrast to this kind of democracy we have the German democracy, which is a true democracy; for here the leader is freely chosen and is obliged to accept full responsibility for all his actions and omissions.”
— Mein Kampf by Adolf Hitler, Vol. I Chap. 3
“It must not be answered here that the individual workman is free at any time to escape from the consequences of an injustice which he has actually suffered at the hands of an employer, or which he thinks he has suffered in other words, he can leave. No. That argument is only a ruse to detract attention from the question at issue. Is it, or is it not, in the interests of the nation to remove the causes of social unrest? If it is, then the fight must be carried on with the only weapons that promise success. But the individual workman is never in a position to stand up against the might of the big employer; for the question here is not one that concerns the triumph of right. If in such a relation right had been recognized as the guiding principle, then the conflict could not have arisen at all. But here it is a question of who is the stronger. If the case were otherwise, the sentiment of justice alone would solve the dispute in an honourable way; or, to put the case more correctly, matters would not have come to such a dispute at all.”
— Mein Kampf by Adolf Hitler, Vol. I Chap. 2
“For me these hours came as a deliverance from the distress that had weighed upon me during the days of my youth. I am not ashamed to acknowledge to-day that I was carried away by the enthusiasm of the moment and that I sank down upon my knees and thanked Heaven out of the fullness of my heart for the favour of having been permitted to live in such a time.
The fight for freedom had broken out on an unparalleled scale in the history of the world.”
— Mein Kampf by Adolf Hitler, Vol. I Chap. 5
“My own attitude towards the conflict was equally simple and clear. I believed that it was not a case of Austria fighting to get satisfaction from Serbia but rather a case of Germany fighting for her own existence the German nation for its own to-be-or-not-to-be, for its freedom and for its future”
— Mein Kampf by Adolf Hitler, Vol. I Chap. 5
“The struggle against international finance capital and loan-capital has become one of the most important points in the programme on which the German nation has based its fight for economic freedom and independence. “
— Mein Kampf by Adolf Hitler, Vol. I Chap. 8
“The German worker cannot be raised from his present standing and incorporated in the German folk-community by means of goody-goody meetings where people talk about the brotherhood of the people, but rather by a systematic improvement in the social and cultural life of the worker until the yawning abyss between him and the other classes can be filled in. A movement which has this for its aim must try to recruit its followers mainly from the ranks of the working class. It must include members of the intellectual classes only in so far as such members have rightly understood and accepted without reserve the ideal towards which the movement is striving. This process of transformation and reunion cannot be completed within ten or twenty years. It will take several generations, as the history of such movements has shown. “
— Mein Kampf by Adolf Hitler, Vol. I Chap. 12
“To-day I am more convinced than ever before that, though they may combat us and try to paralyse our movement, and though pettifogging party ministers may forbid us the right of free speech, they cannot prevent the triumph of our ideas.”
— Mein Kampf by Adolf Hitler, Vol. I Chap. 12
“For in order to give practical force to the ideals that grow out of a Weltanschhauung and to answer the demands which are a logical consequence of such ideals, mere sentiment and inner longing are of no practical assistance, just as freedom cannot be won by a universal yearning for it. No. Only when the idealistic longing for independence is organized in such a way that it can fight for its ideal with military force, only then can the urgent wish of a people be transformed into a potent reality. “
— Mein Kampf by Adolf Hitler, Vol. 2 Chap. 1
“But we, by our aggressive policy, are setting up a new Weltanschhauung which we shall defend with indomitable devotion. Thus we are building the steps on which our nation once again may ascend to the temple of freedom.”
— Mein Kampf by Adolf Hitler, Vol. 2 Chap. 1
“But the Coburg experience had also another important result. We now determined to break the Red Terror in all those localities where for many years it had prevented men of other views from holding their meetings. We were determined to restore the right of free assembly.”
— Mein Kampf by Adolf Hitler, Vol. 2 Chap. 9
“The chief characteristic difference between the policy of the present Reich and that of former times lies in this: The old Reich gave freedom to its people at home and showed itself strong towards the outside world, whereas the Republic shows itself weak towards the stranger and oppresses its own citizens at home. In both cases one attitude determines the other. A vigorous national State does not need to make many laws for the interior, because of the affection and attachment of its citizens. The international servile State can live only by coercing its citizens to render it the services it demands. And it is a piece of impudent falsehood for the present regime to speak of ‘Free citizens’. Only the old Germany could speak in that manner. The present Republic is a colony of slaves at the service of the stranger. At best it has subjects, but not citizens.”
— Mein Kampf by Adolf Hitler, Vol. 2 Chap. 10
“We, National Socialists, would reverse this formula and would adopt the following axiom: A strong national Reich which recognizes and protects to the largest possible measure the rights of its citizens both within and outside its frontiers can allow freedom to reign at home without trembling for the safety of the State. “
— Mein Kampf by Adolf Hitler, Vol. 2 Chap. 10
“The Constitution of the old Reich took all this into account, at least up to a certain degree, in so far as the individual states were not accorded equal representation in the Reichstag, but a representation proportionate to their respective areas, their actual importance and the role which they played in the formation of the Reich. “
— Mein Kampf by Adolf Hitler, Vol. 2 Chap. 10
“The National Socialist Trades Union is not an instrument for class warfare, but a representative organ of the various occupations and callings. The National Socialist State recognizes no ‘classes’. But, under the political aspect, it recognizes only citizens with absolutely equal rights and equal obligations corresponding thereto. “
— Mein Kampf by Adolf Hitler, Vol. 2 Chap. 12
“In the first volume of this book I have already expressed my views on the nature and purpose and necessity of trade unions. There I took up the standpoint that unless measures are undertaken by the State (usually futile in such cases) or a new ideal is introduced in our education, which would change the attitude of the employer towards the worker, no other course would be open to the latter except to defend his own interests himself by appealing to his equal rights as a contracting party within the economic sphere of the nation’s existence. I stated further that this would conform to the interests of the national community if thereby social injustices could be redressed which otherwise would cause serious damage to the whole social structure. I stated, moreover, that the worker would always find it necessary to undertake this protective action as long as there were men among the employers who had no sense of their social obligations nor even of the most elementary human rights. And I concluded by saying that if such self-defence be considered necessary its form ought to be that of an association made up of the workers themselves on the basis of trades unions.”
— Mein Kampf by Adolf Hitler, Vol. 2 Chap. 12
“The cultural importance of a nation is almost always dependent on its political freedom and independence. Political freedom is a prerequisite condition for the existence, or rather the creation, of great cultural undertakings. Accordingly no sacrifice can be too great when there is question of securing the political freedom of a nation. “
— Mein Kampf by Adolf Hitler, Vol. 2 Chap. 13
“For this reason the subtle instinct of the State parasites who came to the surface of the national body through the November happenings makes them feel at once that a policy of alliances which would restore the freedom of our people and awaken national sentiment might possibly ruin their own criminal existence. “
— Mein Kampf by Adolf Hitler, Vol. 2 Chap. 13
“Everybody knows that prayers will not make a nation free. “
— Mein Kampf by Adolf Hitler, Vol. 2 Chap. 15
“Now that the nation has learned to cry for bread, it may one day learn to pray for freedom.”
— Mein Kampf by Adolf Hitler, Vol. 2 Chap. 15
Shawn makes cogent points. The several substantial beliefs of Nazism that he points to (like the ones that I mentioned) are clearly non-liberal beliefs. But if we are to follow Matt’s logic, these beliefs are all exceptions to the _essential_ Nazi belief in equality. Only the Nazi belief in equality is essential to Nazism, while all the other Nazi beliefs are mere exceptions. But, as Shawn points out, even the Nazi belief in equality is racially limited to Aryans. Clearly such “equality” is not any species of liberalism.
I respectfully submit that Matt has taken one aspect of Nazi ideology, abstracted it out from the whole, and treated it as the defining Nazi idea. Thus he arrives at his Nazism/liberalism thesis.
It’s not possible to read all of Matt’s epic-length collection of Hitler quotes right now, but I’ve read quite a few of them. Many of the quotes have absolutely nothing to do with any recognizable idea of liberalism, for example, wanting the German nation to be free of outside control. Also, a general desire to raise the working class to create more social solidarity, doesn’t exactly sound like liberalism, especially in Hitler’s treatment of it, but more like some racial massification. Also, some of his appeals to equality sound to me like political positioning. Are we really to believe that this man who believed in total power also believed in parliaments?
Also, in Matt’s statement about abortion, “It is true that American-style liberalism took a somewhat longer and slower burn to reach the point of perpetrating its massacres than some of the other liberalisms,” he’s blaming Roe v. Wade on the American founding. This is to collapse entirely different periods of history and culture and politics into one, ignoring the revolutions in thought and the outrageous perversions of the Constitution that had to be perpetuated in order for Roe v. Wade to be inflicted on the country. It supports Shawn’s idea that Matt is employing a kind of gnostic logic whereby he reduces the world to two principles, liberalism and traditionalism, then lumps all the liberalisms together in the world of darkness, and then blames the works of all the respective species of liberalism on all the other species of liberalism. I suppose there may be some value in trying to get at first principles in this radical fashion. But if it takes one beyond logic and historical reality to such assertions as “the liberalism of 1787 took two centuries to achieve ITS MASSACRES of the unborn,” then clearly the analysis is flawed somewhere.
Mr. Auster writes:
“I respectfully submit that Matt has taken one aspect of Nazi ideology, abstracted it out from the whole, and treated it as the defining Nazi idea. Thus he arrives at his Nazism/liberalism thesis.”
I think maybe Mr. Auster is not recalling what I have stipulated that I mean when I say that the Nazis were (or political group X are) liberal moderns. I have said this before, and I’ll clarify it again here because it tends to be a sticking point especially with the Nazis. Everything that a (Nazi, Marxist, Capitalist libertarian, or whatever) is politically, is not liberal. There can certainly be things about a Nazi that define him specifically as a Nazi in addition to or adjacent to his liberal alliegences, and indeed all liberal moderns have such adjacent or additional values which they use to justify the authoritative discriminations they advocate. To me, a liberal is one who has strong liberal alliegences, full stop, whatever other alliegences define his sub-type. All liberals (other than anarchists, perhaps) have other alliegences in addition to their alliegence to liberalism. That is the nature of the beast. Those other alliegences do not make one not-a-liberal, though, and in fact various types of liberal moderns can be subcategorized *based on their non-liberal alliegences*.
No liberals, under any possible circumstances, are EVER _solely_ or _purely_ or _coherently_ liberals politically. They ALWAYS necessarily have other alliegences, and indeed it is these other alliegences that I use to categorize the various sub-types.
Perhaps we can at least all agree that whatever else may be said about the Nazis, they did in fact have a strong alliegence to liberal modernism, that is, freedom and equality as primary political values; and that their other alliegences and the authoritative discriminations they entail are (as is categorically true with all liberals ever) exceptions to liberalism.
Mr. Auster writes:
“But if it takes one beyond logic and historical reality to such assertions as “the liberalism of 1787 took two centuries to achieve ITS MASSACRES of the unborn,” then clearly the analysis is flawed somewhere.”
It isn’t as though RvW was some isolated incident in an otherwise morally coherent unconflicted chain of historical development though. Different forms of liberals started killing each other off in the US much earlier than that. It is true that it wasn’t until abortion that the killing reached into the millions numerically, but I’m not sure why that point on timing demonstrates that the degeneration of capitalist libertarian society into unprecedented-scale murder of infants by parents isn’t rooted in political liberalism.
Matt’s further elucidations fail to meet my objections. Even if we were to posit some liberal aspects in Nazism (which I don’t), that would still not lead to the conclusion that Nazis are “liberals, full stop.”
While Matt and I share common understandings in so many things, on this one, weird issue we speak different languages, so there’s no point in continuing the discussion. It had been some time since I had challenged Matt’s “Nazism-is-liberalism” thesis. I had just let it be. The only reason I challenged it today was that I suddenly got a clearer view of precisely why it is wrong, and wanted to share it. Shawn’s examples are a further help in this. But now I’m going to leave this issue alone.
“It’s not possible to read all of Matt’s epic-length collection of Hitler quotes right now, …”
I apologize, I actually copied and pasted the wrong file. The list should have been shorter and better edited. But in any case Hitler’s own statements clearly show his strong alliegence to political liberalism, and I stipulate as before that (like all liberals) the Nazis had illiberal alliegences as well.
Gentlemen, I must call attention to one of Mr Auster’s above comments:
‘There is a need for more psychologists.’
True, and if we are agreed on the need to psychologize post-war Nazi sympathizers, then surely we are equally agreed on the need to psychologize Jews; the Nazis did, after all, glean their most didactic principles from - the Jews.
1. The firm and all-consuming belief in the superiority of the group (the Aryan in the case of the Nazi, the Jew in the case of the Jew himself), and specifically in the case of the Jews the warranty that this superiority grants the use of (how shall it be said?) “extra-ethical exceptions”, which is to say that the Jews were exempt from the same morality which bound the gentiles together. In short: what was categorically unacceptable behaviour in a gentile was acceptable in cases of Jewish behaviour towards gentiles.
2. The demand of unquestioned tribal solidarity.
3. Obedience to the group hierarchy.
4. The use of violence - a violence without limits - against enemies. The Philistines and Canaanites swept aside by the intolerant sword of (ancient) Israel bear testament (pun not intended) to the Jewish-instigated forebear of the Nazi genocide.
‘Mein Kampf’ clearly was inspired by the Torah, but above all by the proverb: ‘fight fire with fire’.
“Every liberalism has murdered millions”
Not necessarily true, though a simple tweaking ought to suffice: “Every egalitarianism has murdered millions.”
The simplest of consultations of a history book provides ample evidence: the years 1789 and 1917, in particular. The wellspring from whence it came? A simple quote: “The people must be forced to be free”.
A few brief thoughts on what Janker has just said:
1. Not sure what this means in practical terms. Could you provide a few examples?
2. Huh? There are Jews on all sides of many questions. I don’t think Stanley Cohen or Noam Chomsky are motivated by tribal solidarity. There is a Jewish sect that believes Israel shouldn’t exist. Then there are Messianic Jews. I think that many Jews have generally held together during the Diaspora out of the need for survival, but any group that is persecuted tends to do this.
3. What kind of a hierarchy is there?
4. You have to go back some 4,000+ years for your example? Something a little more current perhaps? Notwithstanding all the criticism that modern Israel takes, her tactics have been tame by comparison the nations surrounding her.
5. You must be using a non-standard definition of the term.
“‘Mein Kampf’ clearly was inspired by the Torah”
I hadn’t realized that the Fuhrer was a student of the Torah. I thought his influences were more along the lines of Houston Stuart Chamberlain and Wagner.
Since Joel has already replied to Junker’s comment, I’ll leave it up, as an illustration of the ignorant stupid malice of the anti-Jews, and also as an illustration of how, by their sheer stupidity and bigotry, they render impossible the very thing they want most—public criticism of the role of Jews in our society.
Mr. Auster’s comment should be given serious consideration. It is unfortunate that a thoughtful criticism of the Jews is impeded by these anti-Jewish idealogues.
There is certainly criticism to be made. In cultures rooted in Christianity, whilst the Jews remain in rejection of God’s Annointed, the Jewish role has at times been problematic. An extreme example of this can be seen in how the Jewish Defense League boasts that their late chairman Irv Rubin, before his suicide (or possible murder) in jail, successfully sued the city of Burbank, CA, for having the name of Jesus mentioned in a public prayer.
The Bible itself is sometimes very harsh in its criticism of the the Jews — more in the OLD Testament than the New, according to the standards that God set for them as His own national people. And their failures are symbolic of our own — can any of us claim that we would have done any better under the yoke of the Mosaic Law than they?
And to the extent that criticism are warranted, it is not because the Jews are distinctly evil apart from the rest of the human race. It is because they are PART of the human race, imperfect people like all of us. The unique position they hold in human history makes them a peculiar target of those who hate all things that are of God.
Yes, there are valid criticisms that can be made of the Jewish role in our society. And there is much praise due them as well for the blessing they have been to our society. Let us keep all in perspective and mind our own faults before others’.
And those of us who identify as Christians, let’s remember with trembling the warning given by the Apostle Paul — “Boast not thyself against the branches…Be not highminded, but fear…For if God spared not the natural branches, take heed lest He also spare not thee.”
To the filthy Jew Epstein,
How does it feel knowing that you’re a dispised race? Or that your disgusting Talmud gives your ilk permission to rape and sodomize our Christian children? (See Aboda Sarah 37a and Sanhedrine 54a) Or how about your Kol Nidre Oath you pig-humpers take at the beginning of every year that absolves you of anything you say to a Gentile?
Your Book of Filth Talmud also gives you permission to rape our women, steal from us, murder us, enslave us and take our lands.
You and your kind are all liars, thieves, and Christian murdering, corpse-humping, baby-raping douche-bags and need to get sent to Madagascar so we can nuke it.
JEWWATCH.COM OVERTHROW.COM NATALL.COM
M Martin — You can’t be for real.
Once again I’m going to make an exception from policy and leave M. Martin’s comment on this page, as a useful example of what we’re dealing with. In the future, whenever we see Nazis or pro-Nazis complaining about the fact that our “Jew-dominated society is suppressing the real truth,” we should bring M. Martin’s comment to mind and remember that this sort of filth is the “real truth” that the pro-Nazis want society to acknowledge—the “real truth” that it is such a crime for us to suppress and refuse to discuss.
This is not an invitation to the Nazis to send additional comments to “explain” their position further. Any future posts by them will be deleted.
Another Nazi-defender named BD posted here and challenged me on what he saw as a double standard between my condemnation of Nazi anti-Semitism and my support of expelling Arabs from West of the Jordan. I would have answered him, except for two problems: (1) he engaged in name-calling that disqualified his message from any response; (2) as I explained above, even if they don’t include name-calling, messages from persons defending the Nazi side or identifying themselves as on that side will be deleted from this site.
Re: Aug 23, 2003, support for expelling Arabs from West of the Jordan, why, Mr. Auster, do you support doing that? (if you don’t mind me going back in time six months)
Bcause it represents the only hope—hope, not certainty—of Israel’s longterm survival.