|
|
Hitler again: Myths versus factNazism was a popular, working-class movement but it was Green/Left, not “Rightist” The fact that the recent Minnesota school massacre was done by a young admirer of Hitler will of course have the Leftist bloggers frothing at the mouth and trying to prove that conservatives are to blame—because Hitler was “Rightist”, you see. The fact that Hitler’s most unrelenting opponent was the arch-Conservative Winston Churchill and the fact that Hitler started out his war in alliance with the Communist Stalin will not be mentioned of course. Leftists have no trouble ignoring even the most basic facts of history. And it has always been a mystery how Leftists can call “conservative” a man who imposed such vast changes on Germany—considering that Leftists define conservatism as “opposition to change”! What the media is notably ignoring is that, although he was no conservative, Hitler WAS a Greenie—and the Hitler-admiring groups that the shooter was linked to were environmental extremists. That Hitler was far closer to Communism than conservatism and that he shared almost all of his ideas with Marx & Engels is also rarely acknowledged. When Henry Ford said that “history is bunk” he could well have been describing history as it is generally taught in the schools today. But little bits of information do leak out to the public occasionally. The latest comes in the form of a book recently released in Germany. Excerpt from a review of it:
In saying “most Germans saw Nazism as a “warm-hearted” protector”, the author in fact tells only half the story. As anybody who has read much of Mein Kampf should be aware, the whole book is essentially a love-song to the German people. Hitler loved his German nation and was deeply troubled by the big political divisions among them—until he “discovered” that the divisions were not the fault of Germans themselves but rather the fault of Jewish agitators who were misleading many of them. Since many of the Communist agitators in Hitler’s Vienna immediately after World War I do in fact appear to have been Jews, his explanation had some plausibility. So Hitler told the German people that they were wonderful (a Herrenvolk or “master people”), that he would fight their enemies (the Jews), and that he would look after them in the usual paternalistic socialist way. So the German people loved him back and fought to the death for him. Simple, isn’t it? There is nothing conservative about it, though. Collectivism and treating people primarily as members of groups is Leftist. Conservatives stand for individualism. The last desperate scream of the Leftist history teachers in trying to portray Nazism as “rightist” is their accusation that Nazism was not working-class but rather “bourgeois” (middle class). I have always found this claim amusing. As Heiden (1939) and others point out at length, Hitler was a hobo until 1914 so how does a hobo get to lead a middle-class movement? And both Roberts (1938) and Heiden (1939)—prewar anti-Nazi writers— portray Hitler as widely revered and popular among the Germans of their day. As Heiden (1939, p. 98) put it: “The great masses of the people did not merely put up with National Socialism. They welcomed it”. And Madden (1987) presents modern-day scholarly evidence derived from archival research to show that Nazis came from all social classes in large numbers. Perhaps most useful is the work of Fischer (1978), who looked at the class composition of the most active and committed Nazi group—the members of the Sturm Abteilung (S.A., Stormtroopers, Brownshirts). He found that “the workers are over-represented in the S.A.” (p. 140). In fact, in the 1933-1934 period, 69.9% of the S.A. were working class compared to 53.2% in the overall German population of that time. The Marxist claim is, then, utter nonsense and, as usual, the opposite of the truth. Mussolini, too, found supporters and adversaries in all social classes (De Felice, 1977, p. 176). And particularly in the early years of Fascism, Mussolini often attacked the bourgeoisie in his speeches! And as Von Mises wrote in 1940:
It is in fact Communist movements that always have bourgeois leaders and mostly bourgeois supporters. The workers usually vote for more moderate Leftists. So once again we see Leftists projecting onto others things that are really true of themselves. References: (I put up an earlier version of this post on Blogger News)
Posted by jonjayray on Tuesday, March 22, 2005 at 10:46 PM in National Socialism Comments:2
Posted by Geoff Beck on March 22, 2005, 11:03 PM | # > Leftist bloggers frothing at the mouth and trying to prove that conservatives are to blame…. Predictable of the left… but since there are no conservatives in America its a bit of stretch. 3
Posted by Stuka on March 22, 2005, 11:47 PM | # What’s your point? So what if National Socialism had “leftist” tendencies. Keuhnelt-Leddihn said the same thing in ‘Leftism Revisited.’ But Nazism was, in many ways, profoundly conservative as well. Neither of which invalidates Leftism or Conservatism. I’m certain of two (2) things. Labelling National Socialism an ideology of the Left will neither 1) force leftists to stop calling conservatives “Nazis,” nor 2) deter right-leaning youths from identifying with Nazis. 4
Posted by Stuka on March 22, 2005, 11:59 PM | # Nice pic of the Boers on the home page tonight, by the way. 5
Posted by Geoff Beck on March 23, 2005, 12:26 AM | # Hmmm… In a July 13 post, NativeNazi expressed his concern that Native Americans had turned their backs on racial purity and were being weakened by “interracial mixing”. He was particularly annoyed that young Native Americans were copying the culture of African Americans . “Where I live less than 1% of all the people on the Reservation can speak their own language, and among the youth wanting to be black has run ramped. We have kids my age killing each other over things as simple as a fight, and it’s because of the rap influence. Wannabe-gangsters everywhere, I can’t go 5 feet without hearing someone blasting some rap song over their speakers,” he complained. 6
Posted by Andrew L on March 23, 2005, 12:37 AM | # I may be loosing it, But Hitler had visions of the New third Reich, had it hit any body else , the New Third World Reich, Or diss_ Reich, Note the Third world, sounding close to home I see. Hmmmmm. First and second have all but gone, well nearly, and so will we if we dont stop Pontificating and ralley against the legalised Genoside of Anglo-Sphere, Sounds rediculess, But it is true.NAZI these days is a simple explination for out of control Gangs, lazy definition, but it has stuck.l 7
Posted by Fred Scrooby on March 23, 2005, 02:23 AM | # “Conservatives stand for individualism.” (—from the log entry) Dunno about that. To my way of thinking, traditionalist conservatives of the Turnabout View from the Right Conservative Central schools, for example, place respect for traditional communities’ legitimate interests, well-being, and preservation above “individualism,” if I’m understanding the latter term right. “Individualism” in the narcissistic sense of “me first, and the rest of it last or not at all” is not conservative (not any sort of “conservative” I’d want to be affiliated with, at any rate ...). “The last desperate scream of the Leftist history teachers in trying to portray Nazism as ‘rightist’ is their accusation that Nazism was not working-class but rather ‘bourgeois’ (middle class).” (—from the log entry) Members of the Anglosphere have a harder time than, say, Continental Europeans do in understanding the meaning of the term “bourgeois” as it is used by Marxists. Often translated as “middle class,” it doesn’t really mean that. In fact, it has no concrete meaning in the minds of most radical leftists one comes in contact with, beyond something like this: a bourgeois is anyone who excites a leftist’s jealousy by making more money than he while being, in the leftist’s opinion, less intelligent. How DARE he make more money and be less intelligent! Anyone with the effrontery to earn more income than a leftist while having, in the leftist’s judgment, lower intelligence is a member of something called “the bourgeoisie” (which must be targeted for extermination, of course, its members having gotten the leftists insanely jealous). ” ‘The fact that the capitalists and entrepreneurs, faced with the alternative of Communism or Nazism, chose the latter, does not require any further explanation. They preferred to live as shop managers under Hitler than to be “liquidated” as “bourgeois” by Stalin. Capitalists don’t like to be killed any more than other people do.’ “ (—from the log entry, where it quotes von Mises) Whatever you do where leftists are a threat, don’t get them jealous by making more money than they, or you’ll suddenly be declared something called a bourgeois, whatever that is, and be liquidated. 8
Posted by JBB on March 23, 2005, 02:30 AM | # JRay: This is where you end up when you remove ethnicity/race from politics - in a dead end of wrong dichotomies. Nazism was against individualism but was for the conservation of the german nation/race. 9
Posted by Fred Scrooby on March 23, 2005, 02:32 AM | # This link to View from the Right should work—sorry for the faulty link above.) 10
Posted by jonjayray on March 23, 2005, 06:19 AM | # “Conservatives stand for individualism.” That statement is linked to an article that gives heaps of history to support it 11
Posted by Effra on March 23, 2005, 07:13 AM | # I say chaps, I’ve got a revolutionary idea. Instead of these endless attempts to shoehorn various Isms into left-wing and right-wing pigeonholes, how about grasping that the Isms and “Left” and “Right” are a load of old academic gobshite which do not accurately characterise real people’s politics in real countries at all? How about starting from evolutionary psychology and biological reality instead? It could explain more than forcing flesh and blood members of different races and nations into categories drawn from the seating plan of the 1789 National Assembly: a meaningless taxonomy elaborated upon for 200 years by wave after wave of marxoid universalists, who thought they could stifle and reprogramme the basic drives of individual and collective human nature. Just a thought. 12
Posted by Fred Scrooby on March 23, 2005, 09:27 AM | # Talking about “conservative,” here’s my kind of conservative (the following passage is a log entry up this morning at iSteve.com , which doesn’t have its own permalink so I’ve pasted the whole thing): George F. Kennan, Realist: Kennan was a bit of a Gloomy Gus, but he was a true conservative. Here’s from David Engerman’s article “ George Kennan, a conservative’s conservative ” in The Chicago Tribune: “My one conversation with Kennan, who once was ambassador to Moscow, began with Russia and quickly turned to the depth of his conservatism. Asked what shaped his ideas about Russia, he recalled his professors at the University of Berlin in 1927. They had taught him about Realien, the givens of geography, climate and race that shaped nations and international relations. (The English ‘realities’ doesn’t suggest the word’s resonance in 18th Century German philosophy.) Realien outlasted ephemera like ideology and even political systems—and should, he believed, be the basis of any foreign policy.” [the emphasis on the words “the race” was added by Scroob] 13
Posted by Geoff Beck on March 23, 2005, 09:53 AM | # Am I a conservative? I ask what is their to conserve? I can’t think of anything, other than personal things. The universities, government, churches, have all been fused into one big evil thing, imho. No, I don’t think I’m a conservative. Maybe a restorationist, traditionalist, but I think it doubtful I’m a conservative. Martin Hutchinson’s definition is correct: “It means the preservation and where necessary restitution of the constitutional, economic and social policies of the Tory governments of 1783-1830, and in particular of the two great Tory prime ministers William Pitt and Robert, Lord Liverpool.” 14
Posted by Stuka on March 23, 2005, 09:59 AM | # I agree, today in the modern West, there’s not much in politics and society to conserve. There is, however, much to overturn, destroy, and restore. Revolutionary conservative, perhaps? We can sit around smoking cigars, drinking Scotch, discussing C.S. Lewis, and pontificating on the latest issue of The Salisbury Review, but I don’t see how it advances the cause. That is, if we have one. 15
Posted by Geoff Beck on March 23, 2005, 10:07 AM | # > The Cause Well, I argue there is no reforming what the elites have done. We must “rip the entrails out of the state,” and its sequela. To do this we have to develop a group and political consciousness in about 10% of the population. Yes, revolutionary conservatives, or perhaps at least secessionists. 16
Posted by ben tillman on March 23, 2005, 01:23 PM | # I got a kick out of the following: The fact that Hitler’s most unrelenting opponent was the arch-Conservative Winston Churchill and the fact that Hitler started out his war in alliance with the Communist Stalin will not be mentioned of course. Hitler’s brief “alliance” with Stalin qualifies him as a Leftist, but Churchill remains an arch-conservative despite his much longer alliance with Stalin. That makes a lot of sense. 17
Posted by ben tillman on March 23, 2005, 01:42 PM | # “Conservatives stand for individualism.” That statement is linked to an article that gives heaps of history to support it. Conservatives stand for the individual and the group equally, because each depends on the other. Here: [URL=http://majorityrights.com/index.php/weblog/comments/http_majorityrightscom_indexphp_guessed_fifty_eighth]Revolutionary Conservatism II[/URL] 18
Posted by ben tillman on March 23, 2005, 02:08 PM | # I say chaps, I’ve got a revolutionary idea. Instead of these endless attempts to shoehorn various Isms into left-wing and right-wing pigeonholes, how about grasping that the Isms and “Left” and “Right” are a load of old academic gobshite which do not accurately characterise real people’s politics in real countries at all? How about starting from evolutionary psychology and biological reality instead? It could explain more than forcing flesh and blood members of different races and nations into categories drawn from the seating plan of the 1789 National Assembly…. I could not agree more. This name fetish does nothing but obfuscate; the obfuscation facilitates manipulation. But if you insist on playing the game, here’s a revelation: “Nazi” is an abbreviation for “National Socialism”. Everyone who plays the game agrees that “nationalism” is on the right, and “socialism” is on the left. Until you show that the Nazis weren’t nationalist, you can’t place Nazism on the left. 19
Posted by jonjayray on March 23, 2005, 07:03 PM | # Nazi” is an abbreviation for “National Socialism”. Everyone who plays the game agrees that “nationalism” is on the right, and “socialism” is on the left. Until you show that the Nazis weren’t nationalist, you can’t place Nazism on the left.
20
Posted by jonjayray on March 23, 2005, 07:06 PM | # “Hitler’s brief “alliance” with Stalin qualifies him as a Leftist, but Churchill remains an arch-conservative despite his much longer alliance with Stalin. That makes a lot of sense” I am amazed at the lack of historical knowledge on this site. Churchill was of course also an unrelenting foe of Bolshevism. He co-operated with Stalin only after Hitler put Stalin on the same side as the British by attacking him. 21
Posted by Geoff Beck on March 23, 2005, 07:45 PM | # Leftist, rightist, national, international… fetid logochamy. 22
Posted by John S Bolton on March 23, 2005, 08:32 PM | # These categorizations are important, though, even if it were only for the fact that we are continually being given the false dilemna of the slippery slope where there are allowed only the left and right alternatives of extreme fascism and radical communism. The most distinguished scholars of the government schools are all but unanimous in invoking the slippery slope, but they, ever so conveniently, never say slippery slope hypothesis or slippery slope dilemna. It is this way because the burden of proof is entirely on those who offer such and such a dilemna or hypothesis. Generations of scholars and high officials have irrationally refused to provide any real arguments for the slippery slope hypothesis or its resulting dilemna; and this leaves no alternatives to the right of Hitler. Not only this, but the scholars had the burden of proving that the alternatives to the right of the NSDAP are more unstable than the radical fascist or communist regimes. They have not even attempted to do this, and not least because they are in abject servility to official discretion, in refusing to acknowledge these stable alternatives, which history gives superabundant examples of. 23
Posted by seelow heights on March 23, 2005, 10:11 PM | # The radical utopianism(eugenics combined with hostility to the aristocracy,bourgeoise and church)of NS disqualifies it as being in any way realted to conservatism. Hitler spoke of his “New Man” just as the Reds once spoke of the “New Soviet Man”. 24
Posted by Effra on March 24, 2005, 04:31 PM | # The only legitimate conservative position for a German after the Great War was to desire the restoration of the pre-imperial system of voluntarily confederated states, large and small. Germany, Italy and the Russian Empire all went totalitarian after WW1 partly because their natural racial, physical and cultural boundaries and heritage of division into a number of self-governing polities had been obscured by artificial conflations into quasi-empires at the hands of Bismarck, Garibaldi and the 19C Tsars. The loyalty of citizens to Savoy, to the Hanseatic cities, to Russia and Georgia and Turkestan, was deliberately obliterated. They were disorientated and fair game for charlatan leaders. France, Spain, Britain (except, possibly Ireland) on the other hand were organically evolved nation states of long standing in 1914, and were able to survive the conflagration without lurching into tyranny. When will the projectors and calculators of the atlas ever realise that we must work with the grain of people’s affinities and loyalties, and not shove them together—either by redrawing boundaries or by immigration—in the name of economic efficiency? EU, take heed. 25
Posted by Guessedworker on March 25, 2005, 01:49 PM | # Well, wherever one consider old Adolf to have stood politically, he’s becoming big news again in multicultural Germany. Pseudo-psychies always like their patients to evacuate repressed guilt. Maybe the German soul is managing it at last. Next entry: U.K. Tories take on the Gypsy problem at last Previous entry: How humans have been killing, starving and despoiling their environment for millions of years. |
|
Existential IssuesWhite Genocide ProjectOf note
Recent CommentsAlso see trash folder. Leon Haller commented in entry 'Golden Dawn - Greece' on 05/25/12, 12:41 AM. (go) (view) pletcheroka commented in entry 'A repeatable comment for mass-pasting on American public message boards' on 05/25/12, 12:36 AM. (go) (view) Graistetrisog commented in entry 'Top Wog embraces his Inner Englishman' on 05/25/12, 12:19 AM. (go) (view) BomeDeddell commented in entry 'ATTRITION THROUGH ENFORCEMENT: Government's Own Data Point to a Cost-Effective Strategy' on 05/24/12, 09:48 PM. (go) (view) indernMix commented in entry 'ATTRITION THROUGH ENFORCEMENT: Government's Own Data Point to a Cost-Effective Strategy' on 05/24/12, 09:42 PM. (go) (view) Wandrin commented in entry 'Golden Dawn - Greece' on 05/24/12, 04:44 PM. (go) (view) Lee John Barnes commented in entry 'Golden Dawn - Greece' on 05/24/12, 03:20 PM. (go) (view) grecian commented in entry 'Golden Dawn - Greece' on 05/24/12, 03:10 PM. (go) (view) Wandrin commented in entry 'Golden Dawn - Greece' on 05/24/12, 02:04 PM. (go) (view) Salvatore Quinto commented in entry 'More on the Indian beauty question' on 05/24/12, 12:47 PM. (go) (view) Classic Sparkle commented in entry 'Golden Dawn - Greece' on 05/24/12, 12:07 PM. (go) (view) Cobus commented in entry 'A genocide in South Africa' on 05/24/12, 10:14 AM. (go) (view) daniel commented in entry 'Golden Dawn - Greece' on 05/24/12, 09:49 AM. (go) (view) uh commented in entry 'Golden Dawn - Greece' on 05/24/12, 08:54 AM. (go) (view) daniel commented in entry 'Golden Dawn - Greece' on 05/24/12, 07:41 AM. (go) (view) uh commented in entry 'Golden Dawn - Greece' on 05/24/12, 07:18 AM. (go) (view) daniel commented in entry 'Golden Dawn - Greece' on 05/24/12, 06:53 AM. (go) (view) Swan commented in entry 'The facial proportions of beautiful people' on 05/24/12, 06:48 AM. (go) (view) Swan commented in entry 'The facial proportions of beautiful people' on 05/24/12, 06:47 AM. (go) (view) daniel commented in entry 'Golden Dawn - Greece' on 05/24/12, 06:32 AM. (go) (view) Guest commented in entry 'The Torment of the Mulattoes' on 05/24/12, 06:17 AM. (go) (view) daniel commented in entry 'Beyond the 14 words' on 05/24/12, 03:05 AM. (go) (view) Lee John Barnes commented in entry 'Golden Dawn - Greece' on 05/24/12, 02:31 AM. (go) (view) daniel commented in entry 'Golden Dawn - Greece' on 05/24/12, 02:03 AM. (go) (view) Captainchaos commented in entry 'Beyond the 14 words' on 05/23/12, 11:08 PM. (go) (view) Captainchaos commented in entry 'Golden Dawn - Greece' on 05/23/12, 09:13 PM. (go) (view) Leon Haller commented in entry 'Golden Dawn - Greece' on 05/23/12, 07:47 PM. (go) (view) Swan commented in entry 'Indian beauty' on 05/23/12, 12:52 PM. (go) (view) Lee John Barnes commented in entry 'Golden Dawn - Greece' on 05/23/12, 12:45 PM. (go) (view) Swan commented in entry 'More on the Indian beauty question' on 05/23/12, 12:31 PM. (go) (view) Leon Haller commented in entry 'Beyond the 14 words' on 05/23/12, 11:43 AM. (go) (view) Leon Haller commented in entry 'Golden Dawn - Greece' on 05/23/12, 11:32 AM. (go) (view) Mellaba Pechios commented in entry 'Golden Dawn - Greece' on 05/23/12, 07:55 AM. (go) (view) daniel commented in entry 'Beyond the 14 words' on 05/23/12, 03:51 AM. (go) (view) Leon Haller commented in entry 'Golden Dawn - Greece' on 05/22/12, 10:40 PM. (go) (view) Recent Posts
General NewsScience NewsScience CategoriesAll CategoriesThe WritersEach author's name links to a list of all articles posted by the writer; the hashes link to authors' homepages. LinksEndorsement not implied. Controlled Opposition Crime
General
Immigration
Islam Jews
Nationalist Political Parties
Science Whites in Africa |
Posted by John S Bolton on March 22, 2005, 11:00 PM | #
It will, of course, also not be mentioned that the communist workers in Germany in 1933, voted for Hitler’s party on the orders of Stalin.