Counter-Currents
1,582 words 
I enjoyed the discussion between Dr. Greg Johnson and Joel Davis about the NS question in White Nationalism. I strongly recommend that you listen to it. Here is my reaction to it.
The first issue I want to address is National Socialist nordicism and chauvinism. Trying to deny or minimize the Third Reich’s treatment of the conquered Slavs is a lost cause. It was a stupid policy that made enemies of people who should have been friends. However, it was never sustainable.
Since Hitler wasn’t trying to conquer the world, to say nothing of logistical issues, a German victory in WWII almost certainly would not have encompassed conquering the US or other far flung Anglosphere colonies. And that was before the US dropped the atomic bomb. Thus, Europe under German leadership would have had to confront the US and its allies in a Cold War.
A Cold War is fought more by non-kinetic means, principally economics and propaganda. Germany would have wanted to maximize the loyalty and productivity of conquered Europe, and thus reform would have been all but guaranteed because petty chauvinism and brutalizing the conquered peoples would have been grossly inefficient and unsustainable. The USSR ruled with a lighter hand after the 1956 Hungarian Uprising because they realized it had cost them dearly in international sympathy (the term “tankie” came into use as a Western reaction to 1956) and internal legitimacy, and so could not risk another such uprising.
However, the fact that such reform would have been inevitable points to the original gravity of the problem of NS nordicism and chauvinism.
Imagine if Germany had been able to raise a fanatical Polish SS division instead of having to divert manpower to anti-partisan activities. Now imagine if that change in manpower allowed Army Group Center to retreat in good order instead of being surrounded and destroyed, providing even more manpower. The strategic ripples would have been immense.
This is an important lesson because petty chauvinism is once again threatening to derail nationalism. The Trump administration has voiced support for those resisting the Great Replacement in Europe, such as the AfD. In fact, this seems to be a major foreign policy objective of the administration. But despite Denmark having some of the most restrictive immigration policies in Europe, Trump has made fantastical threats to annex Greenland. JD Vance has even denounced Denmark as “not doing its job” and “not being a good ally” in connection to taking “more territorial interests in Greenland.” If this is about not meeting the NATO goal of spending 2% of GDP on defense, that’s par for the course.
Trump’s incoherent and abrasive foreign policy towards Europe is undermining support for the AfD and other identitarian forces. And there is no logical explanation except petty chauvinism.
This flows into the second issue: the clash between theory and practice in international affairs. This apparent clash can be resolved through game theory.
I wholly agree with Greg Johnson’s principle of ethnonationalism for all, self-determination, and international norms. However, I do not adhere to these ideas as a categorical imperative as boomer conservatives do to their vaunted principles.
The key to any normative system is reciprocity. If another nation or state is unwilling to reciprocate, we do not owe them any respect. The truth is that most countries cannot reciprocate because of their very nature. Those who can’t reciprocate also usually can’t govern themselves, and so it also becomes a question not of if they should be ruled by outsiders (even if indirectly), but by which outsiders—and if it’s not us, it will probably be China or Russia.
As President Nixon said: “Asians are capable of governing themselves, one way or another. We Caucasians have learned it after slaughtering each other in religious wars and other wars, including in the last century. The Latins do it in a miserable way, but they do it. But the Africans just can’t run things.”
There is a sliding scale for the capability of peoples’ ability to reciprocate in international affairs and to govern themselves internally. Thus there is no contradiction in re-founding Rhodesia, throwing sharp elbows at China, and treating Denmark with respect rather than unilaterally annexing Greenland.
Joel makes a strong point that as explained by Carl Schmitt, trying to end the friend-enemy distinction is an impossible endeavor because it makes enemies of everyone who won’t submit. But that is not what we are aiming to do. I am wholly aware that world peace is impossible.
This isn’t kumbaya cuckoldry. It is following Francis Parker Yockey’s admonition to only fight “a true enemy.” A true enemy is someone who chooses to be your enemy, or someone with an irreconcilable conflict of interest. To wage war or otherwise compete against someone who is not a true enemy simply weakens both parties. And because modern wars typically don’t pay for themselves, and because your conflict is not isolated from broader geopolitics, this means that everyone else becomes relatively more powerful as a result. For example, if Hungary and Serbia had an unnecessary border dispute, the EU, which is an enemy of both sides and wants to subvert them, would become more powerful simply by virtue of doing nothing.
Furthermore, the gravest threats in the modern world rarely come from other nation states. They almost exclusively come from sub-national or supra-national forces. This includes dysgenics, feminism, white guilt, “the woke mind virus,” slave morality, ethnic and especially Jewish nepotism, invasive migration, low birth rates, nihilism, pollution, NGOs, and corporate greed. The civilized nations of the world should be uniting against these forces of entropy and destruction instead of weakening themselves in pointless conflicts while Cthulhu laughs. Perhaps one day it will make sense for the civilized European and Asian nations to massacre each other in trench warfare. But that day is not coming anytime soon, and hopefully never again
Pursuing peace when possible isn’t cucked. It is preserving one’s strength for the wars which truly matter. This was the policy of ancient Sparta, which was anything but a hippy commune.
A major point of contention for Joel Davis was how the aboriginal population of Australia fit into the scheme of respecting national self-determination. Similar to the issues of reciprocity and self-governance, the right to national self-determination for all peoples does not encompass the right to parasitically leech off of other nations. To put it bluntly, the abbos have what gamers call a “skill issue” because they are unevolved hominids. In fact, the Australian government recently buried rare gigantic bones, probably because they undermined the humanitarian world view of racial equality and descent from a common ancestor.[1]
The abbos are essentially a nation within a nation, as the American Indians are. Races and nations that cannot sustain a modern life on their own once exposed to modern technology should not live a modern life. They will invariably need other races and nations to prop them up for eternity. For example, building wells for sub-Saharan Africans who are too stupid and lazy to build their own has practically become a religious sacrament for Christians and secular humanists. All this does is create an artificial population boom which then requires even more free handouts. It’s not like helping blacks has ever made them happy as they are incompatible with a white society and civilization in general. Long-term, the best course of action would be to sever all aid, let nature take its course, and recolonize Africa. We can grant the primitive peoples of the world reservations where they can live the primitive life they are suited for.
I might believe in human rights, but humanity is a sliding scale and access to white people and our wallets isn’t a human right. And having principles in international affairs is not the same as adhering to them blindly. They should serve as aspirational goals, not categorical imperatives.
Joel argues that National Socialism is unique and thus worth adopting because it purges nationalism of liberalism. But this isn’t really true. For one thing, Joel is referring to arguments made by Carl Schmitt in the 1920s, long before he became involved in National Socialism. Beyond that, National Socialism doesn’t have a monopoly on anti-liberalism. And with 109 political units having expelled Jews, National Socialism isn’t unique in being counter-Semitic either.
Probably the biggest issue though is practical. Focusing on National Socialism overcomplicates things. The best arguments are clear, direct, and concise. The more moving parts an argument has, the weaker it is, because (1) there are more critical points for opponents to attack and (2) the harder they are to follow, the less persuasive they seem. It also risks confusing the issues and diverting energy. Is it more important to hash out the logistics behind a pile of shoes in Poland, or the logistics of ICE deportations? The average “juror” in the court of public opinion has an IQ of 100 and a very short attention span, even before TV and smart phones. Keep it simple, stupid.
While I prefer more of an elite and upper middle-class strategy, even elites resist ideas that they think are not persuasive to the masses. It is better to make our pro-white arguments, let the enemy spend their capital inserting WWII, and then let that undermine their credibility, the Nuremberg paradigm, or maybe both. Sometimes its best to let your enemy make your argument for you.
I am inclined to prioritize policy in the here and now because so much is at stake and we have a narrow window to act.
Notes
Enjoyed this article?
Be the first to leave a tip in the jar!
34 comments
Yes. An inevitable “Scramble for Africa” will take place between Mr. Johnson’s League of White Nations and China+.
I don’t see how what are essentially Westphalian principles between self-consciously White nations will hinder that effort in any way. White Nationalism means that we are aware of the inherent differences between peoples, and a different set of rules and expectations need apply when dealing with other than our own.
There are many ways in which you can respect the right to be of primitive peoples while also accessing the natural resources they happen to have. Writ large, this was the intent of British colonialism and I don’t see how it conflicts with Greg Johnson’s view.
Trump’s incoherent and abrasive foreign policy towards Europe is undermining support for the AfD and other identitarian forces. And there is no logical explanation except petty chauvinism.
This analysis is incorrect.
‘Trump’ has a coherent foreign policy. It’s pro-jew and – more specifically – pro-Zionism.
Trump is ‘supporting’ the AfD precisely because it will hurt them.
White Nationalists can use the same tactic. If WNs open support a candidate, the media can use that information to damage the reputation of virtually any mainstream politician.
Such is the same here.
The AfD is a largely Zionist party, but it offers more value to non-jews than it offers value to Zionists, so hurting its electoral chances by pretending to support the party is part of jewish tactics.
The idea is to drive AfD out of politics because of the more non-Zionist elements in the party to make room for a more Zionist party that drives off anti-Zionist voters.
“The AfD is a largely Zionist party, but it offers more value to non-jews than it offers value to Zionists”
Huh?
The lesbian in a mixed-race ‘homosexual marriage’ who is the ‘Chairperson’ of the AfD is wholly supportive of Israel and Germany giving Israel weapons. As always, the jew plays the game of pretending something is worse than it is in order to manipulate the non-jews into thinking they’re getting something they’re not. Notice the schizophrenic commentary in this article. The AfD is both ‘pro-Israel’ and ‘anti-Semitic’ at the same time. This is jewish programming at its finest: You can see what you want to see.
https://themedialine.org/by-region/germanys-identity-at-a-crossroads-as-far-right-afd-party-surges-in-polls/
Would it blow your mind if I told you that I think Muslims are, in fact, worse than Jews?
Anyway, my point was that saying a party is “largely Zionist” while “offering more value to non-Jews” seems… well, I guess it could be logically consistent, but who ever heard of a Jew offering more value than he gets in return?
I came to white nationalism via the counter-jihad movement, so it doesn’t blow my mind. People on our side have a tendency to focus on Jewish ‘power’ to the point where it seems whites have no more agency than blacks. Whereas the shameful truth is that Jews have no more power than whites are prepared to allow them.
Despite their generally poor genetic health and so-so intelligence, Muslims are a physical and demographic threat to whites (in Europe, anyway) in a way Jews are not, and would be so even if Jews were to withdraw their sponsorship of non-white immigration. I suspect there will be an increasing transatlantic divide on this issue, as long as the Muslim population in America remains fairly low. I await correction!
The statement of jewish apologists rarely surprise me. Are you a jew or related to a jew or work for a jew? If so, you appear motivated to downplay the baleful role of jews in White societies (including importing the very Muslims about which you’re so concerned). If not, then why are you carrying water for the jews? Do the jews carry water for White advocates? (They do not.)
The jews created and remain the primary engine of mass immigration (including Muslim immigration). If you’re against Muslims, then it seems to me that you need to be against jewish influence in White societies as well.
Either way, my point was that Trump and Musk are not ‘helping’ AfD except to drive out the anti-Zionists, so that the AfD can be more acceptable to international jewry. If you think the AfD is ‘based’, then you’re not paying attention. As soon as the party leadership takes the knee to the jews and purges its rolls of ‘anti-Semite’, AfD will be magically become a ‘normal party’ and the cordon sanitaire will magically disappear.
The only way for Whites to win this kind of ‘three-card Monte’ political flummery is to not play. To go our own way. To stop worrying about the jews and the Muslims and start caring about one another because we are White and no other reason.
Trump is ‘supporting’ the AfD preciselybecause it will hurt them.
Doesn’t this also apply to his support of white South Africans?
Yes. What actual benefit has been derived from Trump’s ‘offer’? None, that I can detect. But you can be sure the anti-Whites in South Africa are riled up about Trump taking the Boer’s side (however temporarily) and this will make things worse for them in the long run. Trump is a distraction, not a solution.
Like the author, I’m basically indifferent as to whether different African ethnicities get to exercise self-determination. I don’t like Putin’s imperialism in Eastern Europe, but if Putin was instead trying to build an empire in Africa, I wouldn’t necessarily support it, but it also wouldn’t bother me all that much. They’re not my people.
I also think that Rhodesia and the old Republic of South Africa were impressive states built by impressive people, and Whites should not apologize for them.
However, recolonizing Africa would be more trouble than it’s worth. If China wants to try ruling over a continent of 1.5 billion (and growing) people of a foreign race, they can have it. Other than supporting an independent state for Boers somewhere in Southern Africa should they want it, Whites need to avoid that continent like the plague.
The interesting discussion between Greg and Joel does not merit this tedious and stale response.
His first issue, The “Third Reich’s treatment of the conquered Slavs” cannot be judged disconnected from the Slav’s treatment of the conquered Germans (Blomberg bloody Sunday, anyone?) and the push for Slav Lebensraum in the West after WWI. Everything else is dishonest regurgitating mainstream history and “a lost cause”.
The rest of the article seems pretty unconnected to the discussion’s main theme, National Socialism, but could have been related to it easily:
As stated many times by Hitler and NS politicians: National Socialism is not for export.
If “Asians are capable of governing themselves” of “Africans just can’t run things.” was never a concern for NS Germany.
So NS nationalism’s concept was exactly what Dr. Johnson preaches: a homeland for every ethnicity to govern itself, but contrary to Wilson, including the 3.5 million Germans in Sudeten and 2.5 million in Poland.
No, the NS concept was not “a homeland for every ethnicity to govern itself.” When I got involved with White Nationalism, I was told that by many people. But it was simply wrong, and when I started looking into things, it was easy to find that out. Many of Hitler’s advisors advocated such ideas. But he was not willing to. There’s every reason to think that he lost the war because he would rather treat fellow Europeans as enemies than friends.
There is ample evidence that Hitler, who was running things after all, did not envision anything other than a German colonial empire in Europe. From the start of the party, they envisioned colonizing European lands to the East. It is part of the original 25 points. Part of Hitler’s disagreement with the Strasserites is that they wanted to ally themselves with non-whites who were opposed to the British Empire. Hitler was too racist and too imperialist to contemplate that, even for practical reasons. Even after Stalingrad, when Hitler needed all the friends he could get, he was still opposed to the idea.
Look at Nativist Concern’s essay on this issue (https://nativistconcern.substack.com/p/why-im-not-a-national-socialist):
“In March 1943, von Ribbentrop proposed a European Confederation that was met with enthusiasm and the offer of territorial concessions by Vichy Prime Minister Pierre Laval. Hitler flatly refused the idea envisioning total German hegemony.
“Ernst von Weizsacker, Secretary of State at the Foreign Office, recorded in his diaries Hitler’s position on the matter.
“On May 5, 1943, he wrote,
‘The reason why we are not to be drawn into a conversation about the “New Order” in Europe is indicated confidentially by the Führer: our neighbours are all our enemies; we must get all we can out of them, but cannot and must not promise them anything’.”
Rhetorically, Hitler claimed to be fighting for all of Europe. That was true, but it would be a Europe under German domination. To the extent that any of his allies or followers believed that NS implied a vision of a Europe of different autonomous peoples, they were deceiving themselves or being deceived by the Germans.
National Socialism is largely kept alive in our circles because these same deceptions continue to circulate. Once these falsehoods evaporate, NS is just another form of the bad old “brother wars” nationalism that people in our circles profess to oppose. We can learn things from it, of course, as we can learn from all other forms of government. But much of what we learn is what NOT to do.
“We can learn things from it, of course, as we can learn from all other forms of government. But much of what we learn is what NOT to do.”
Greg, do you at least defend the Third Reich’s domestic policies? Especially with respect to Jews and the Nuremburg Laws. This is the most important lesson from their regime, because they gave us a concrete example of not only how to handle the Jewish Question in the modern era (i.e. from a solely racial perspective), but how to humanely create a homogeneous nation state and make reasonable accommodations when it comes to mixed race people. This is the most relevant policy the National Socialists implemented that’s so necessary today. There are other models people can put forward, like how the Baltic states treat their Russian minority populations today, but these don’t go nearly far enough. There are also more extreme historical examples like the ‘one drop rule’ which most people would consider unreasonable. The Nuremburg Laws aren’t that hard to defend, and on the topic of “rehabilitating” the National Socialists, it’s absolutely necessary to defend them if we’re at all serious about undoing the effects of mass immigration. We can’t magically do what the National Socialists did while also upholding that what they did is the ultimate evil and distance ourselves from it. During Trump’s first term there was a scandal surrounding Candace Owens because she said something along the lines of “what Hitler did was fine until he decided to invade other countries” – we need to at least uphold that position and defend their domestic policies.
As far as I’m concerned, it’s pointless relitigating grievances about a war 80 years ago, and when people do try to do this I’m 99% of the time going to come down far more on the side of Germans simply because it’s incredibly dishonest and abusive when Poles cry crocodile tears and pretend they’re still outraged over WW2 just to get some petty dig in on the Germans. It’s even far less believable than Jews who pretend the Holocaust is still relevant. When Poles do this they should be called out and criticized. No German is advocating genociding Poles – they need to shut up about it.
Germany invaded Poland planning to wipe it off the map and depopulate it for German settlers, and Poles are crying “crocodile tears” about that today? They are “pretending” to be outraged over WW2? The Germans are the real victims here, because of Polish “pettiness”?
I think there’s something wrong with your moral faculty.
The Polish “Genocide” narrative bit is overstated, just like the claim that millions and millions of “Natives” were somehow Genocided by the White Man in the Lower 48 since the time of Columbus.
The claims of special Polish victimization must be made (against the Germans) simply because the Allies arbitrarily moved their entire country 500 miles to the West. Often when you find mass graves, the pick-and-shovel researchers are disappointed to find them filled with people like German nurses and schoolteachers, not victims that can be capitalized on like Jews and to a lesser extent others.
I have no interest in minimizing the suffering of anyone in the war ─ and there was a lot of it. Poles suffered, and so did Byelorussians ─ a great deal simply because of geography and who the chief combatants were.
The Harvard Cold War Studies project whose book Redrawing Nations (the first of their series) which I reviewed for the last issue of Germar Rudolf’s The Revisionist journal just before 2005 when he was extradited to Germany to serve a few years in prison ─ the book documents deeply into this taboo subject, sans any apparent Right Wing or Anti-Communist bias. They used very conservative figures for the estimates of the death tolls of Germans, Poles, Czechs, Slovaks, Hungarians, etc. from this postwar ethnic-cleansing. The exact toll will never be known but probably in the millions.
I found it particularly interesting that they noted that the egregious postwar ethnic cleansing had the happy effect (not their words) of creating a highly-stable Eastern Europe with nearly homogenous ethnicities. Maybe it did ─ I am not an Eastern European or even a Continental, more of an Anglo “melting pot” kind of guy ─ but I would not recommend this kind of Allied or other peace-making. It’s “okay” when the Good Guys do it, though. And they also used plenty of Human Rights rhetoric.
I don’t see what good is done by waving the “Bloody Shirt” to keep up with the mythological Hollywood baddies. Too many fat lies have already been cultivated regarding the place and period in question.
With the exception of a couple of traitors like Ludwig Beck, pretty much all Conservative Germans (not just Hitlerites) were highly in agreement to settle accounts with Poland by 1939. And because the Entente and everybody else had basically already agreed that Danzig was German, Hitler thought they were bluffing. This was a big mistake because they did indeed declare war on Germany, and they would not accept peace on any terms. But Hitler knew (correctly) that they would pull out all the stops at some point anyway to shoehorn Gemany back into the international order where “all were equal but some were more equal than others,” to borrow from Orwell. Literally nobody else wanted peace ─ and the Allied Big Four had the power to make it not so.
Americans are so used to fighting wars somewhere else that they don’t understand what happens when wars are fought closer to home.
🙂
EDIT:
“Polish genocide was a goal to be carried out after the war. It is based on statements by people like Hitler and Himmler, not excavating graves.”
Enemy intellectuals can cherrypick a lot of stuff. That doesn’t make such gossip true. No non-marsupial judicial system would operate that way. The whole oeuvre is such a tissue of lies that it requires extreme skepticism. I am not saying that non-specialists should bother with that, but they should not buy into it either. It’s flawed if not wrong, and it gains us nothing.
Polish genocide was a goal to be carried out after the war. It is based on statements by people like Hitler and Himmler, not excavating graves.
It’s kind of suspicious that you didn’t reply with your thoughts on the Nuremburg Laws, which was the main thrust of my reply. Please respond.
“Germany invaded Poland planning to wipe it off the map and depopulate it for German settlers, and Poles are crying “crocodile tears” about that today?”
Greg, Germans today aren’t crying about territories they lost 80 years ago, or about the 14 million Germans who were ethnically cleansed after the war. That’s what’s meant by the “crocodile tears” of Poles today. They only bring up mistreatment by Germans 80 years ago when it’s being used as some petty political weapon that’s just used to divide Europeans, and it’s so transparently dishonest that they’re pretending to be outraged that yes, they should be called out about it. For all your preaching about “stepping over it” or whatever, you seem fixated on constantly dwelling over petty nationalist grievances from 80 years ago that shouldn’t be relevant any longer.
You apparently don’t understand how bad you look, and it concerns me.
You use “mistreatment” to refer to an invasion (along with Stalin) of Poland and plans to depopulate it (you know what that means) and resettle it with Germans. Genocide, in other words. That’s deeply dishonest.
Then you pretend that it is somehow normal to forget all about that and “petty” not to. You pretend that German losses are somehow on the same moral level as Polish losses, which omits the question of who started the war.
As for “dividing” Europeans: surely you’ve noticed that whenever someone in our movement does something flagrantly stupid, their defenders always say, “You shouldn’t talk about that. It is divisive [although when they point this out, it is somehow not divisive]. It is infighting [although pointing this out is not infighting]. We are stronger through unity [with people who do stupid things, not with people who have standards and demand accountability].”
I don’t care about “dividing” Europeans today. I am all for it. I don’t believe in unity if that requires pretending that people aren’t disastrously wrong or, worse, dishonest, especially about things that materially affect the future of European nationalism. I am also perfectly happy that Europeans have their own borders, for instance.
Titus, why do you believe in the modern ideology of human rights when that very ideology provides the logic for supporting the entry of non-white military-age male invaders (who are labeled refugees) into European countries, the transfer of wealth from European countries to non-European countries through state foreign aid and private voluntary donations, the promotion of feminism and LGBTQ+ identities which decrease the birth rates in European countries causing European countries to have below replacement rate fertility, promotes laws that advance racial equality by eliminating racial discrimination in legal and social contexts (especially laws against miscegenation and racially discriminatory immigration laws), and promotes anti-white guilt for the alleged crimes (that is human rights violations committed by) of our (oppressor) settler-colonial ancestors? In short, if you believe in a future where there exists white nations, then you have no justification for believing in the baseless doctrines of human rights which were designed by our enemies (chief among them Eleanor Roosevelt) to weaken and destroy our nations.
The post-war ideology of human rights which is just classical liberalism codified and updated for the 20th century is not beneficial towards securing the existence of White people and was designed to destroy distinctions among races and nations to form a one world system of social and political organization now known as the United Nations. You clearly recognize this with your conditions that you place upon the ideology. The ideology does not serve the interests of white nations and should be discarded. If I have not changed your mind, then justify your belief in human rights. Demonstrate that the ideology of human rights today functions to advance the interests of white people. If this is not your criterion, then you are not a serious white nationalist.
I think you lost sight of Joel’s actual argument here.
The claim wasn’t that National Socialism is the only version of nationalism freed of liberal influence. It was that any version of nationalism that is free of liberal influence will inevitably invite comparison to National Socialism and then immediately be slandered as pure evil by association, hence the necessity of rehabilitating National Socialism. Think of the extent to which the establishment is willing to go invoking Hitler and the Nazis in attempts to discredit things, no matter how distantly adjacent. Hence the “Hitler drank water too” type memes.
I would say that all of this is a moot point because National Socialism actually is already being rehabilitated right before all of our eyes. I think people like Greg who think National Socialism is mistaken should seek to influence this rehabilitation rather than oppose it entirely.
That’s the old “They’ll call you Nazis anyway, so you might as well become them” fallacy.
They’ll call you feds, Jews, and homosexuals too.
What if you aren’t a Nazi, for a whole host of reasons that have been laid out in this recent debate?
So NS is coming back, eh? If so, it is not for any good reasons. If I were a bandwagon jumper, I certainly wouldn’t jump on that bandwagon. Why? Because it isn’t going anywhere.
I chuckled years ago when Anglin was touting the enormous growth of the Daily Stormer. Yep, it rapidly grew to the .0001 percent of the reading public susceptible to its message. Then it stopped.
Again, Dr J, doesn’t the identity of “they” change midsentence here? The far left will call us Nazis, but it is the far right who will call us Jews, homosexuals or feds. That’s not the same people, unless “they” constitutes some kind of super-category that includes “everyone but us”
I am btw calling for a 1000 year moratorium on calling anyone on our side a ”fed,” tbh, or for that matter a “subversive element.” It is true probably less than 1% of the time
That’s obviously irrelevant to the point I am making.
Fair play, and I apologise for the quibble… The problem with Anglin anyway (who is still poasting under Daily Stormer moniker, is he not)… is that a “satirist” can always have the escape of saying he was “only doing a bit.” Anglin is an entertaining writer but I find his views increasingly disgusting, especially when he seems to advocate for global Chinese hegemony. What’s up with that?
I stopped following Anglin years ago. He’s wrong on almost everything, but beyond that, it is clear to me that he doesn’t even care about the truth. I don’t have time for people like that.
It’s not that you have to be a Nazi or that NS is coming back necessarily, it’s that their political thought is being recontextualized and finding admittance to the realm of popular discourse rather than being an unspeakable no-go zone. That’s what I mean by rehabilitation.
In the post-war era, which was otherwise developed as an era of moral relativism and tolerance-as-virtue, the national socialists served the role of axiomatic evil, an absolute orienting compass, pulling all related acts into it like a void. For the modern liberal, opposition to the national socialists has taken on a religious significance. Such a status quo is self-defeating to the extent you consider yourself a white nationalist.
This is the old “sneak up and put a bag on their head” for the win.
Reality is that the HolyHoax is used to mentally abuse German and by extension all white children and adults into moral weakness and a passive acceptance of White Genocide / Replacement / Jew domination.
(Because white race has a conscience while the others largely don’t. This conscience is not a weakness but the greatest strength — but it requires Truth. We are stuck with this and wouldn’t want to have it any other way. We cannot become the Jew or the others and wouldn’t want to. We must recover the truth and build on that — just swallowing all those Jew-lies and white traitors who try to profit from them is poison we cannot survive without dying inside)
And the Jew-serving efforts to profit from their genocide and genocidal lies diseases the souls of nations like Poland and Russia (for only two examples).
You advocate just looking the other way while this fatal wound in our folk goes on bleeding and betraying white blood. That is mere paint over rotten wood. Academic argument facing deeper realities they cannot master.
To “step over it” is to divide and betray our race by demonizing the innocent, rewarding the guilty, making scapegoats of some white folk and lying parasites of others. This is not a solution that can last.
The spiritual wound must be healed and only the truth, inconvenient or not, can cure the cancer on creation.
We cannot build on academic sand, on “one simple trick” to make it all work, we have to clean the wounds and heal them or the white race will remain diseased with the Jewish cancer of lies.
It is a spiritual necessity to do this (the “hard way” as some would say), or it won’t last — if it even begins. Truth is necessary. It alone will defeat our enemies completely and save our race forever.
I am sure that you sincerely believe that the Holocaust is all a hoax, and Truth is on your side, which explains what you write here.
I don’t look at it that way. I don’t think that Truth is on your side. And yet somehow I am still a nationalist. I think there’s a lesson in there.
“Reality is that the HolyHoax is used to mentally abuse German and by extension all white children and adults into moral weakness and a passive acceptance of White Genocide / Replacement / Jew domination.”
That’s true, and we should have said “no” to that a long time ago. But saying no to that is still consistent with believing that yes, the Germans committed the worst massacre in Jewish history. Also, if you are into “per capita,” I am pretty sure that the Jews experienced the worst losses of any nation during that war. So it isn’t just histrionics and political manipulation on their part that they keep bringing it up.
There’s nothing wrong with acknowledging that there have been bad forms of nationalism, then going back to the drawing board to come up with better versions.
>> The first issue I want to address is National Socialist nordicism and chauvinism. Trying to deny or minimize the Third Reich’s treatment of the conquered Slavs is a lost cause. It was a stupid policy that made enemies of people who should have been friends. However, it was never sustainable. <<
Okay, let me get this straight.
We have had 80 years of Bovine Scatology, i.e., Jewish History passing as our History. And this hill is too hard to climb now so we should just ignore Real History?
The Israeli historian (((Omer Bartov))) has written much, basically arguing that WWII was a war-of-extermination against Jews and Slavs. I strongly disagree with that thesis.
For example, the Partisan War was not fought because of anything that Hitler or National Socialism thought about Slavs. It had nothing to do with Imperialism or chauvinism.
The Partisan War took the (unavoidable) character that it did because that was the Judeo-Bolshevik way of war ─ a method of “taking the fight to the enemy,” as Churchill would have gushed ecstatically.
The idea of a brutal Insurgent War against Fascism (or whatever Gentile power on the burner) was in fact supported both morally and materially by the West, and the concept is still popular with Globalists and Interventionists today. The Germans had to react to it. I’m not sure what else that they could have done other than to quit. This suits Leftists fine, I suppose.
Both Drang nach Osten and German overseas colonies were legacy Second Reich goals not Third Reich goals. Hitler was not interested in ruling over non-German peoples, if possible, but Germany was forced to adopt imperialist strategies to materially fight the war. These were sometimes ad hoc, awkward, even inchoate, a cacophony of patriotic views, but Hitler had fewer options to choose from ─ especially few good options ─ than Germany’s mortal enemies.
And any “Germany” other than one that perhaps unilaterally submitted would have been the mortal enemy. So yes, we are all Nazis.
Forget Adolf Hitler, George Washington would be a War Criminal if the you-know-whos were writing the history and it so served their purposes.
Is this really so difficult to understand?
Let’s bring in a little military history. On the Eastern Front the treatment of both Soviet and Axis prisoners was atrocious. The Court Historians would tell you that this was due to Der Führer, somehow, not being enough of a lofty Liberal Internationalist or a practicing Catholic, perhaps.
The reality is that the Soviets refused to sign the Geneva Convention, so Hitler refused to unilaterally follow it in the East. With the Bolsheviks you fight fire with fire. Or you can give up.
On the other hand, the Western Allies had, along with Germany, signed the Geneva Convention agreement, and therefore both sets of Prisoners of War in those theaters were treated (for the most part) decently and with RECIPROCITY, a term that we have heard a few times recently.
What this means is not that the treaty agreements are Holy writs of sanctimony and utopian lore, but that the fighting customs and now the concrete expectation, is that enemy prisoners will be treated to certain terms, just as they hope their own prisoners will be treated.
The North Vietnamese signed the Geneva Convention but they followed it according to their own Marxist interpretations. Great. We had little to hold over them but to send B-52 strikes to Hanoi, rarely done even at the last, and with zero element of surprise for PR reasons. Nixon is a War Criminal for finally blockading Hanoi Harbor and for widening the war to Laos and Cambodia to hit Communist materiel staging points.
But really, nobody running the United States was willing to “fight fire with fire,” although there were some proposals such as the Phoenix Program. It is good that they did not fully go there since ─ unlike the war that Hitler was forced to fight ─ Indochina was never an existential struggle for the United States against Communism.
There is no reason to suggest that had the Soviets at least signed the Geneva Convention agreement that the Germans and Hitler would not have at least reciprocated the treatment the way that they did with other Allied PoWs.
In fact, if this had happened before Operation Barbarossa, it would have bumped up the matter of PoWs to priority General Staff planning, whereas in the event the millions of Soviet prisoners captured in the intial phases of Operation Barbarossa were an afterthought of a chaotic logistical situation, where German forces themselves were nearly broken.
Hitler had to replace scores of defeatist Generals and is justifiably credited for preventing an outright military collapse in the Winter of 1941-42.
Well, maybe Hitler should have stayed painting watercolors than leading German armies in an existential fight. But this was not a viable choice as so many seem to think.
Hitler admitted ─ caught in a secret Finnish recording ─ to Field Marshal Mannerheim that actual Soviet strength had been found to far exceed even the most pessimistic German intelligence estimates of the threat, and that he hoped their Finnish allies would keep the faith and stay in the fight.
Some argue that the Germans should have just dumped Hitler and caved in. I’m not one of those. Unlike the Finns, Germany would have been given no quarter; that is not what Liberals in the West wanted. It seems clear to me that if this was a Race War, then the Judeo-Bolshevik side was not the right one for the White Man. And rarely is anything in history tidy and perfect or absolute.
The Western powers were not so shy about exterminating Germans ─ the cousins of the Anglo-Saxons ─ for the likes of the Roosevelt trust, the Churchill cabal, and the you-know whos.
Perhaps if Germany had been able to inflict more punishment on the West than was possible without atomic bombs, then these New World Order malevolencies would have been discredited and authentic American patriotic and Nationalist positions like Charles Lindbergh might have become more credible, and the Hollywood narrative far less so.
In 1941 at the time of Lend-Lease and the American shoot-on-sight naval policy, but before the Pearl Harbor attack, a supermajority of Americans did not want their President to fight Germany or Nazis.
Roosevelt portrayed himself as a humble peacemaker, when he was exactly the opposite. It took a sneak attack at Pearl Harbor by the Empire of Japan to change that American populist attitude.
In American newspapers and news magazines during the war discussing German PoWs and why they were being kept alive at all, the editors calmly explained to the folks on the Home Front that they are treating those gawdawful Nazis like human beings only because the Nazi regime also had many American prisoners held as hostages, and we surely don’t want them to be harmed. Reciprocity, or classic Realpolitik.
I used to live next door to the Papago Park PoW complex in Arizona, now a Scottsdale housing subdivision bordering citrus groves, where a real Great Escape of German sailors occurred on Christmas Eve in 1944. There is a small memorial there now where the exit of the “Faustball Tunnel” once was, and the owner of a nearby house once joked years ago that a German Admiral had dug his basement.
The United States is a massive place and within a month all of the escaped German prisoners had been recaptured. Generally the German Prisoners of War worked on American farms and didn’t have to be guarded much. The Germans were just not the vicious killers portrayed in the media.
One of my Dad’s earliest memories as a boy was when an “incorrigible” German PoW escaped from Camp Hale in Colorado. The nearby Vail ski resort, where President Ford used to play golf in the Rocky Mountains, and the late Negro basketball player Kobe Bryant raped some Ho, was founded after the war by former 10th Mountain Division ski troops stationed at Camp Hale during WWII.
Camp Hale had a large German PoW contingent and once the military police on high alert drove up to the family cabin guns akimbo to talk to my Grandfather who was employed as a government trapper to see if he had seen anything. The family hadn’t. They were safe. The soldiers had a two-way radio and offered to let my Dad talk on it. My Dad had barely seen a hand-cranked telephone and was wary of the imperious squawks coming out of the box on the formidable combat vehicle.
Anyhow, back in Arizona, some of the old Papago Park prisoner barracks were still standing around a couple of decades ago and were rented out to University students. And in the 1990s, some of the former Kriegsmarine prisoners came back to Arizona for a reunion, including the former U-Boat commander who had led the Great Escape and was the last one to be captured at a hotel in downtown Phoenix. There was still a spirit of peace and reconciliation in the air during the reunion. You weren’t a freak to be interested in Real History, and David Irving was not yet a universal pariah dedicated to corrupting Gentile youth.
Apart from media caricatures, Americans never saw the Germans during the war in quite the same way as the Japanese who had perpetrated a sneak attack. It was recognized by many, that the Germans had not wanted to fight a second world war. It was not claimed that the German prisoners working on farms all over the country during the war were anti-Hitler, and the American people could respect that. These were not the soft, fawning Germans of today who want to convince you of their Liberal-Democracy virtues.
Yes, we can reframe these rare German PoW escapes as attempts to slash the throats of Americans in their beds, but we have not come that far quite yet.
However, with increasing time, the Good War has became an Existential War ─ it is now about Genocide, never about fighting the Judeo-Bolsheviks. And I am wondering why we as White Nationalists want to wallow in that mindspace. What do we really gain by that?
Hatred of our Race and our kinsmen is the war that (((Hollywood))) has created and tried to sell for the last 80 years.
For example, one almost never found a reference to the term “Holocaust” in its modern Jewish context in the media ─ in fact, not until AFTER the eponymous 1978 NBC TV miniseries aired.
I did a systematic Library search at about the turn of the 21st century and found a reference to the term in this context in Manchester Guardian from 1968, and again in a few Jewish periodicals from 1945, but otherwise almost never. Novelist Frederick Forsyth used the term in 1972. German history is not the only one that has been novelized and hijacked.
Now it is a Hate Crime just to use the term Holocaust in any other context beside the sacred drama of the Jews. That is what passes for History these days.
Yeah, Hitler had blood on his hands. Who doesn’t? Jesus?
Unfortunately, Stalin did not sign the Geneva Convention. That is just not how Bolsheviks fight wars. There were some existential things going on, but many seem to get this all mixed up. Hitler started it, the Big Four finished it. Hosanna!
As far as referencing Anglin, I don’t think anybody here is advocating anything like Hollywood Nazis, boneheaded Skinhead aesthetics, or anything remotely like that. “Esoteric Hitler is not the Tao of Whiteness.” You can quote me on that.
It might not be the vanguard marketing plank for White Nationalism either, but I don’t think it is wrong to admit that Uncle Adi fought the good fight, and ultimately our fight. What respectable Nationalist would not have so fought? The word “Nazi” itself is derived from National in National Socialist. How does 20th century history get more authentic?
I found Mr. Joel Davis to be highly intelligent and his case to be clearly and soberly stated. I don’t know anything about Mr. Davis, but I thought that he acquitted himself quite well in the debate, and I congratulate both sides for the effort. These are the kinds of discussions that we need. We all learn things, and we do not have to agree on all points. My view is that Nationalism is learned with a vision and an entrenching tool. American Minutemen on Lexington Green in 1775 would have agreed.
I think we do need to ask ourselves to ponder how much is really understood about Nationalism in our modern age and in our circles these days.
Maybe we should trust lofty UN missives and amp up the anti-Hitler rhetoric to protect our rights. But we also know, as George Orwell noted, that “all are equal but some are more equal than others.” So keep a low profile. We have no power.
We can become Righteous Gentiles like Raoul Wallenberg (the neutral Swede killed by the Soviets while “saving” the Jews) or we can venerate saints and martyrs like Kurt Gerstein, the Evangelical Lutheran and SS hygiene engineer who immediately after the war bore witness to the eternal sins of the White Man before hanging himself in a marsupial French prison.
I don’t think that our enemies are really going to give us any quarter; they are not playing that kind of game. Whitey is not going to be the party that is “more equal” until we actually hold some reins ourselves.
Robert E. Lee has already had his likeness toppled, and George Washington, likewise a major war criminal in the rogue pantheon. Who else could would have founded our Republic of Hate? Like the Natzees…
Soon the truth won’t matter at all.
Yours in Doctor King.
LINK
🙂
Herr Hilter started the war on January 30, 1933 when he was sworn in as Chancellor.
I’m sorry if that makes us “look bad” or keeps us from being able to twirl our pasta with a fork like David Duke without the pointed hood.
The facts remain, which every White Liberal worth saving should understand, that:
1) the Allied cause deliberately chose to fight Germany ─ which had little choice ─ and 2) the Allies deliberately and decidedly chose to hitch their wagon with the Bolsheviks, even later arming them with atomic bombs.
🙂
I don’t know if the moderator will allow this comment to pass, but here are my two cents on the matter.
Why wouldn’t I? You are the fullest and purest embodiment of everything I reject.
I’ll take that as a compliment. Cheers 🙂
Do you believe the white race would be worse off than it is today if Hitler had won?
If you have a Subscriber access,
simply login first to see your comment auto-approved.
Note on comments privacy & moderation
Your email is never published nor shared.
Comments are moderated. If you don't see your comment, please be patient. If approved, it will appear here soon. Do not post your comment a second time.
Paywall Access
Lost your password?Edit your comment