|
|
WE AVOW OURSELVES TO THE DIVINE RACISM OF THE GERMANIC PEOPLESBelow is my translation of a piece by contemporary German National Socialist (and former supporter of the Communist terror group Red Army Faction) Horst Mahler. While I disagree with a lot of what Mahler espouses (not necessarily only in this essay but also in some of his other writings), I nevertheless find his views refreshingly unorthodox. People like Mahler are sorely needed in the bastard state that calls itself the Federal Republic of Germany (FRG). After all, it is people like him, with the necessary reputation and ferocious tenacity, that are able to break through the state-imposed atmosphere of intellectual sterility. Dr. Reinhold Oberlercher, another ex-Red and former comrade of Mahler’s, famous theoretician of the 1968 student revolt and a self-avowed National Marxist (according to Oberlercher, the Third Reich was the perfect realization of Marx’s teachings - a real brown dictatorship of the proletariat!), correctly says, “The FRG is the waking coma of the Third Reich.” The Third Reich has not been relegated to history. The FRG, in a perversely inverted form, is the continuation of the Third Reich. Everything that was deemed “good for the folk” in the Third Reich (like healthy families and the promotion of procreation) has to be utterly vilified in the FRG. This state of affairs has to end. The Third Reich desperately needs closure. Germans must radicalize themselves and force a new awakening of Furor Teutonicus! Regardless of what one’s views are on this matter, Mahler is justified in his ongoing crusade against the political repression of the German puppet regime against “Germans that still want to be Germans” (to use a phrase the NPD often employs). The German government, like the governments of ALL White countries, is waging an aggressive war against its own people! No matter what philosophical side one is on, one must still choose between US and THEM! Mahler, whatever intellectual differences one may have with him, is clearly on OUR side. I admire Mahler’s courage which, in my opinion, is beautifully expressed in the piece below. Constantin
WE AVOW OURSELVES TO THE DIVINE RACISM OF THE GERMANIC PEOPLES by Horst Mahler
Hitler definitely thought that the Nordic race was superior - and he was right. Perhaps it is a long time ago since you read chapter 11, “Volk und Rasse” (People and Race), in MEIN KAMPF. Just read it again, now. If somebody comes along and says that he does not differentiate between races and does not put them into perspective with one another, he is a liar. He wants to trap you. It depends on the measure of the valuation. Hitler was thinking about the higher development of humanity. The peoples are not like exotic animals in a zoo. These are displayed without inner relations to another, only displayed for external viewing. We go there and find some of them beautiful, some of them ugly. These valuations are inane. In contrast, the concept of the development of spiritual beings - therefore including the peoples - contains differences that are related to each other - earlier and later stages, lower and higher forms of the developing substance. To take away from the peoples the consciousness of this differentiation and the related valuation is part of the annihilation program of our enemies. A people that, in relation to another people, sees itself as occupying a higher stage of development, is hardly going to develop the will or the willingness to step down from the higher stage in order to occupy a level that it thought overcome long ago. This people you would have to show me. Clauss reacts in the wrong way to the attacks of the enemy. He accepts the enemy’s hypocritical pretense that racism is of the devil. He tries - in vain - to exonerate the Nazis of the charge of racism. Right would have been to show the dual nature of racism. He who tries to use the difference between himself and the kaffirs as a justification for enslaving the kaffirs, is of the devil. But he who, by realizing the difference, gains the conviction that the kaffir cannot be our teacher and judge, hears the will of God and executes it. Upon this reflection, it is a must to declare oneself to be against Jewish and for Germanic racism. Of course, the Nazis were/are racists - God-pleasing racists. They understand their higher being as a responsibility for the whole, including a responsibility for the lower being. They foster their status and help the lower races to live lives free from slavery, according to their characters. Also, it cannot be doubted that the Jews, who think of themselves as being chosen by Yahweh, are racists - Satan-serving racists. They think of themselves as gods and feel they have the right to enslave (Isa 60, 12) and slaughter (Isa 34, 2) all non-Jewish peoples. Since the Jews do not know any other racism but their own - the Satanic one - they believe that they can, through the accusation of racism, shoot down the bearers of the divine racism. There is a simple cure against that: one simply has to recognize both racisms as aspects of the divine being and articulate them. It then suffices, whenever they accuse us of racism, to hold a mirror (meaning the Torah [Old Testament]) in front of the Jews and laugh at them because of their simple-mindedness. We avow ourselves to our divine racism through which the world will recuperate one day.
Posted by Constantin von Hoffmeister on Monday, October 15, 2007 at 06:31 AM in Comments:2
Posted by arlette baldacchino on October 15, 2007, 09:27 AM | # yes i suppose Mahler could contest the elections, MEP or regional - as Norman suggested, however it doesn’t seem to me that he’s after our vote. Mahler is only interested in “nordic” europeans. Personally i consider myself maltese and european, definitely not nordic. whatever happened to europeans? latins, anglo saxons ..... are they not european too? it is indeed ironic that the germans are so preoccupied with their nordic superiority yet do not seem to realise what is happening in their own backyard. How many turks did your country welcome mr mahler and mr von hoffmeister? we didnt welcome any. in fact we fought and stopped the turks way back in 1565 and we will continue to fight them forever. kind regards from a half maltese / quarter german / quarter scottish european arlette. 3
Posted by Constantin von Hoffmeister on October 15, 2007, 09:37 AM | # “Mahler is only interested in “nordic” europeans.” This is certainly not true. Mahler is merely MORE interested in what concerns German people. This is due to the fact that he is a German NATIONALIST. There is nothing inherently wrong with that. While I am personally opposed to petty nationalism, it is still vastly preferable to petty liberalism. At least, nationalists (of whatever stripe) actually care about the survival of the race that their particular tribe (in Mahler’s case, Germans) is a part of. Mahler has on several occasions expressed his support for a EUROPEAN EUROPE. This, of course, includes a GERMAN GERMANY, just like it includes a MALTESE MALTA. It is quite clear that our goal (IMPERIUM EUROPA) can only be realized with the support of nationalists. Constantin 4
Posted by arlette baldacchino on October 15, 2007, 09:51 AM | # Thank you for the clarification Constantin. I appreciate. to be honest i knew - more or less - what your answer would be, however it is good to have a black on white clarification. here’s to germany for germans, malta for maltese and to united but separate regions and peoples. A europe that is distinct in its unique culture and heritage yet as diverse as the people who are proud to be european - true europeans. regards 5
Posted by Melba Peachtoast on October 15, 2007, 11:01 AM | # This post shows clearly why Constantin is an asset to Majority Rights. 6
Posted by John de Nugent on October 15, 2007, 11:43 AM | # Thank you, Constantin, for this translation. I have met and interviewed Horst Mahler, who is a deeply spiritual and fearless man. He has been in effect disbarred for years now (hence canot work and make any decent money), he has done prison time and now faces even more prison—without ever backing down one iota—and his lady, Sylvia Stolz, is another paragon of courage and serious commitment. Mahler sees Nordics as bearing a special responsiblity for the genetic gifts God has given them. He does not see a mere struggle among white, brown, yellow and black animals. He sees our mission in life as humans as dharma, the fulfillment of the personal spiritual quest each of us undertakes when we enter this world. As a side comment, Horst himself is not Nordic in physical appearance. But he admires the Nordic and selflessly supports it. Horst Mahler is a uniqe comrade in many, many ways, a man who lives life without compromise. 7
Posted by Oliver Cromwell on October 15, 2007, 02:56 PM | # Why do these discussions always get lost in romantic nostalgia for that Austrian paper hanger? 8
Posted by Guessedworker on October 15, 2007, 04:19 PM | # The great difficulty with Mahler’s approach is that the spirit of race does not actually exist, and neither do “high stages of development”. We live in a scientifically materialist age when such rhetorical devices, whilst entertainingly poetic, do not impress thinking people. We can talk to them about the adaptiveness of distinctive genes, which properly explains what is different about us. We can discuss sociobiology which explains the phenotype of behaviour. But the Nordic spirit, no. It is a dreamworld of the past. 9
Posted by Fred Scrooby on October 15, 2007, 04:20 PM | #
Horst Mahler. Great man. Great log entry. Bravo, Constantin! 11
Posted by Astrid on October 15, 2007, 10:47 PM | # I don’t know what you mean, GW. Firstly, isn’t another term for ‘rhetorical devices’ SPIN? Isn’t that what is surounds us at this time? Also, examples of: “Higher stage of development” - being concerned about suffering animals or vanishing species of animals. (Many Tibetans escaping the Chinese by treking through snow covered mountains survived for weeks on scanty rations rather than kill animals for food.) lower stage of development - killing elephants for food after taking farms away from productive farmers. Astrid 13
Posted by Oliver Cromwell on October 16, 2007, 01:05 AM | # “scanty rations rather than kill animals for food” Why on Earth is that virtuous? 14
Posted by Guessedworker on October 16, 2007, 02:19 AM | # Astrid, There is no higher and lower stage of development. Man is not treading some upward shining path along which the saintly Tibetans lead humanity race by race, with the ignoble negro, covered in licentiousness and bling, bringing up the rear. There is no such connection, and no such moral judgment to be made. There is only adaptivity to environment. We Europeans are as we are, with all our talents, because we have adapted to exploit a particular cold-climate niche. Other races are not going to become like us one fine day. The races of Man diverge over evolutionary time as they adapt and specialise. 15
Posted by Constantin von Hoffmeister on October 16, 2007, 03:30 AM | # “the spirit of race does not actually exist” I think that “the spirit of the race” (or race soul) is merely one way to describe the physical expressions of a race, be it in art or politics. In this regard, “the spirit of the race” is quite real. Constantin 16
Posted by Constantin von Hoffmeister on October 16, 2007, 03:35 AM | # HORST MAHLER AND HIS GLOBAL CONSPIRACY translated by Constantin von Hoffmeister It is obvious that the anti-Semite Mahler, in his paranoid fixation on “Jewry,” has ceased to be capable of identifying and naming circumstances like clericalism, the functions of a police state, social reaction and social Darwinism. We therefore want to vehemently point out that anti-Semitism is in the end nothing more than a substitute war which distracts from the all-important assault against the capitalism and imperialism of the Federal Republic of Germany, an assault that is necessary for social and national liberation. There is no good “German capitalism” and a bad “Jewish capitalism,” but the capitalist system of the state, society and economy is to be discarded altogether. The words of Lenin must remain valid: Religion is a private matter. With their fixation on the “Jewish enemy,” as well as with their pathological obsession with Auschwitz, the faction of the anti-Semites achieves nothing but the discrediting of all efforts to construct an alternative system of values. Inside the political spectrum of the political “right,” the anti-Semites act as mirror images of the anti-Germans on the left. Mahler’s race materialism and his theory of a Jewish world conspiracy are a disgrace for the soul of the future Reich that he tries to elaborate on. The enemy of all free peoples is the international capitalist, and the enemy of international capitalism is revolutionary Folk Socialism! 17
Posted by Fred Scrooby on October 16, 2007, 04:56 AM | # Regarding Constantin’s last thread comment above: a mistake he makes is in being too quick to dismiss as “illegitimate anti-Semitism” perfectly legitimate exposure of Jewish tribal warfare waged under camouflage. At present I probably post this sort of exposure of (what I see as) Jewish tribal warfare the most of any MR.com regular yet I harbor zero “anti-Semitism.” C may not see that 1) the Jews are a tribe, and 2) they are waging a very tough, tenacious tribal war against Euros and have been for at least a hundred and fifty years (certainly ever since they as a tribe began attacking Euros in earnest in Russia at the start of the 1860s; 1917 was a Jewish takeover of the Russian Empire). In America they began organizing for this attack on Euros in the 1880s and they achieved hegemony here during the 1960s — which in large part is what the “revolution of the Sixties” was: U.S. Jews achieving hegemony and beginning to insist on “having things their way.” It appears as if Constantin rejects much of this view, chalking much of it up to “anti-Semitism.” 18
Posted by Constantin von Hoffmeister on October 16, 2007, 05:08 AM | # “Regarding Constantin’s last thread comment above” The comment is not mine. It is from a German National Revolutionary website. I merely posted it to show that not all German nationalists are fans of Horst Mahler. Mahler, due to the extreme nature of his views, has polarized the German nationalist scene. As I have already stated, I admire Mahler and do not condemn him. I merely disagree with him on SOME matters. “1917 was a Jewish takeover of the Russian Empire” No, it was not. I wish you would stop saying that. And let us please not derail this thread by debating this issue. Constantin 19
Posted by Fred Scrooby on October 16, 2007, 05:17 AM | #
OK, sorry — I assumed that in posting it without further comment you were endorsing it (and yes, such an “endorsement” did come as a surprise considering the log entry itself, but I said to myself, “Well, that’s just Constantin — he’s all over the map in his views!”). Please pardon my mistake. And OK I won’t insist on the “1917 Jewish take-over” thing here, and I hope no one else will chime in on that, if you prefer. (But I make no promises for any other MR threads.) 20
Posted by Constantin von Hoffmeister on October 16, 2007, 05:46 AM | # “OK, sorry — I assumed that in posting it without further comment you were endorsing it (and yes, such an “endorsement” did come as a surprise considering the log entry itself, but I said to myself, “Well, that’s just Constantin — he’s all over the map in his views!”). Please pardon my mistake.” Like Ralph Fiennes as Amon Goeth in SCHINDLER’S LIST said, “I pardon you.” Constantin 21
Posted by Guessedworker on October 16, 2007, 05:47 AM | # Constantin: I think that “the spirit of the race” (or race soul) is merely one way to describe the physical expressions of a race, be it in art or politics. In this regard, “the spirit of the race” is quite real. Well, if we are discussing semantics rather than philosophy, the correct term for any behavioural “physical expression of race” is sociobiology. I am, I will admit, troubled by the palingenesis that informs 19th and 20th Century reifications of the European spirit. They encourage intoxicated talk about a “high destiny” born in the misty depths of a knightly Teutonic past but subverted in the all too Judaic present. This sort of stuff is no more sustainable or honest than the Soviet iconography of the heroic worker. As it happens, Europeans are the most creative and adventurous of all peoples. We don’t have to make anything up. We have only to cleanse our history of the faeces that have been smeared over it in the postmodern age, and to tell the truth about ourselves. And it is now, fundamentally, a scientific truth. 22
Posted by Guessedworker on October 16, 2007, 08:14 AM | # Constantin, why do you insist that Marx was not Jewish? His family was Jewish. The form of his critique was classically Jewish. Does his occasional anti-Semitism and his “German chauvinism” nullify that? 23
Posted by Fred Scrooby on October 17, 2007, 02:04 AM | # U.K. race-replacers explore going after J.D. Watson, Nobel Prize winner and DNA pioneer, for the crime of hate-speech (see article’s last paragraph) for saying Negroes and Euros aren’t equally smart. 24
Posted by Constantin von Hoffmeister on October 17, 2007, 02:06 AM | # “Constantin, why do you insist that Marx was not Jewish? His family was Jewish. The form of his critique was classically Jewish.” Marx’s parents were not Jewish but Lutheran. Hence, Marx was not Jewish. What exactly made his “form of critique” “Jewish”? Marx was very much influenced by Hegel who was not Jewish at all. Hegel, Marx’s associate and patron, was also not Jewish. Constantin 25
Posted by Fred Scrooby on October 17, 2007, 02:07 AM | # You wonder why he waited until he was 79 but then you remember Copernicus (didn’t publish his book till he was literally on his death-bed) and it becomes clear. 26
Posted by Constantin von Hoffmeister on October 17, 2007, 02:08 AM | # I meant Engels in my last sentence. Constantin 27
Posted by Fred Scrooby on October 17, 2007, 02:08 AM | # (I was referring to Prof. Watson in my comment just above.) 28
Posted by Guessedworker on October 17, 2007, 02:47 AM | # From Wikipedia:-
Engels was not Jewish, merely psychologically damaged by his relationship with his wealthy father. 29
Posted by Constantin von Hoffmeister on October 17, 2007, 02:56 AM | # The wikipedia extract you posted states that Marx’s parents converted to Lutheranism! Hence, Marx was born a Lutheran and not a Jew. In what way exactly was Engels “psychologically damaged”? And how did this “psychological damage” affect his theories? How was Marx’s “form of critique” “Jewish”? Constantin 30
Posted by Guessedworker on October 17, 2007, 03:12 AM | # What exactly made his “form of critique” “Jewish”? 1) The prescription of division, the sowing of hatred, the tearing down of the organically arisen order. 2) Its replacement with a system, based on abstract values, that was more amenable to Jews and Jewish interests. This is blindingly obvious. Why am I having to state it? 31
Posted by Guessedworker on October 17, 2007, 03:14 AM | # Jewish is racial/ethnic. No, wait ... Jewish is religious. No, wait! Jewish is a cultural heritage. No, no, wait ... 32
Posted by Guessedworker on October 17, 2007, 03:18 AM | # Engels was an unhappy rich boy who was driven to do ridiculously childish things and call it radicalism. Psychological flaws underpin a great deal of leftism among European revolutionary types. Self-hatred lies at the bottom of most of it. Our slippery pschoanalytic “friend” formulated the Theory of Projection. It was one of the truer things he came up with. Read about it. Also read another Jew, Emile Durkheim, on suicide. Why do you think my sixties generation embarked upon it so assiduously? 33
Posted by Constantin von Hoffmeister on October 17, 2007, 04:28 AM | # “1) The prescription of division, the sowing of hatred, the tearing down of the organically arisen order. 2) Its replacement with a system, based on abstract values, that was more amenable to Jews and Jewish interests. This is blindingly obvious.” It is not obvious at all, “blindingly” or otherwise. There was nothing “organic” about the capitalist structure that Marx attacked. As a matter of fact, Marx’s vision of society is probably more “organic” than the bourgeois society that he criticized. Many of Marx’s theses are right on the money. Besides, there were many non-Jews who also tried to “tear down the organically arisen order” (which was not “organic” at all if you are talking about the feudalist/capitalist “order”). Were they paid by “the Jews” to do so? How is a Marxist system “more amenable to Jews and Jewish interests”? For example, what role did “Jewish interests” play in the formation of the Soviet Union? I cannot follow your logic. I understand what you are trying to say and where you are coming from. I simply disagree. You are seeing things differently than I do. Considering that Marx was not a Jew, I find the assumption that he was pandering to “Jewish interests” a bit farfetched. Can we please discuss Horst Mahler and not Karl Marx in this thread? Why does every discussion always have to lead to the argument of whether Marxism/Communism/Bolshevism was/is Jewish? This really bores me. Are there not countless threads already where this was discussed ad nauseam? Constantin 34
Posted by Constantin von Hoffmeister on October 17, 2007, 04:32 AM | # “Why do you think my sixties generation embarked upon it so assiduously?” I do not know. Sick of life? Too many drugs? A combination of both? Suffering from Sartrean nausea? Existential angst in a decadent and perverse capitalist system? Not getting laid enough? You tell me. Constantin 35
Posted by Constantin von Hoffmeister on October 17, 2007, 04:38 AM | # “Jewish is racial/ethnic. No, wait ... Jewish is religious. No, wait! Jewish is a cultural heritage. No, no, wait ...” I think it is a combination of all three. However, any gentile can convert to Judaism and thus become a full Jew. Also, a Jewish convert to Christianity is not considered a Jew anymore by the Jewish community at large (and the law of Israel). That is why the religious element carries the most weight. And that is also why Karl Marx was not a Jew. Constantin 36
Posted by Guessedworker on October 17, 2007, 05:09 AM | # Constantin, “Organic society” in the European sense is a society which flows from the evolved sociobiology of European Man. This is the measure for determining whether, say, feudalism is more organic than, say, communism. Since both Marxism and capitalism are concerned principally with the extra-tribal dispensation of power and resources, and not with the greater life we hold in common, it is immediately clear that neither refer in any way to the “organic”. 37
Posted by Guessedworker on October 17, 2007, 05:58 AM | # “any gentile can convert to Judaism” Judaism is a small, highly exclusive, non-evangelistic religion, membership of which is determined through:- a) Jewishness by the matrilinear blood-line. Non-marital conversion is highly infrequent and, from I can see, not received with the same communal rapture that accompanies Christian conversion. In any case, I believe - can’t prove, of course - that Jewishness is genetic in the same sense that cultural criticism and “perfection” of host society is a genetically-driven behaviour. I am with MacDonald on that one. 38
Posted by Guessedworker on October 17, 2007, 06:23 AM | # On Marx’s Jewishness ... 1) He was genetically ethnic-Jewish. 2) He indulged in the destructive critique of his host society, a critique which, if actualised, would benefit his co-ethnics (and was supported by them as such). 3) Herschel Mordechai (“descended from a long line of rabbis”) converted in order to be allowed to continue practising law, but held on to “his many deistic tendencies” in the manner of a Marrano crypto-Jew. Marx himself was anti-religious, and by no means a Lutheran, sincere or otherwise. Indeed, he reduced religion - meaning the Christian faith of his host - to a non-material compensation for material poverty. So here is an ethnic Jew of secular mein, rejecting the (probably falsely proclaimed) Lutheran religion of his father and propagating a destructive critique of host society. And you say he is one of us? 39
Posted by Constantin von Hoffmeister on October 17, 2007, 06:36 AM | # “He was genetically ethnic-Jewish.” Evidence? “He indulged in the destructive critique of his host society, a critique which, if actualised, would benefit his co-ethnics (and was supported by them as such).” Please read my previous post in which I have already responded to this allegation. “but held on to “his many deistic tendencies” in the manner of a Marrano crypto-Jew” Jews do not practice Deism. “Marx himself was anti-religious, and by no means a Lutheran, sincere or otherwise.” I did not say that he was a practicing Lutheran. I merely said that he was born a Lutheran. Marx also was not a practicing Jew. There is absolutely nothing Jewish about Karl Marx whatosever. Constantin 40
Posted by Guessedworker on October 17, 2007, 07:53 AM | # 1. Evidence enough:- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Karl_Marx 2. “Please read my previous post in which I have already responded to this allegation.” There, you write:-
a) Oh really! Jewish ethnic interests are served by breaking down the bonds, strengths and structure of host society. The very strong Jewish support for the cosmopolitanisation of the host and their almost as strong support for the schismatic agitation on behalf of oppressed classes - social, gender or “minority” - are well-understood in this respect. I thought you had read CoC. b) Did Julius Hammer and Jacob Schiff support the 1917 revolutionaries for humanistic reasons, and entirely without reference to their own ethnic anti-Tsarist interests? How about the assassination of the Tsar and his family, the order for which was signed by Yakov Mikhaylovich Sverdlov (Yankel Movshevich Eiman), and the undertaking of which was entrusted to Yakov Yurovsky. Entirely coincidental that these men were not Russian-descended? Really, this is such a regularly illuminated area that I cannot understand why you choose to ignore it. 3. Herschel was not a sincere Lutheran, but held to his enlightenment ideas - these being perfectly suited to Jewish interests (was not Spinoza called both the greatest atheist and the greatest Jew)? As regards the Marranos, the link to Herschel is the coercion of the state. Sorry if that wasn’t clearer. 4. “There is absolutely nothing Jewish about Karl Marx whatsoever.” Apart from his ethnic Jewishness and his anti-host socio-economic critique. 41
Posted by Fred Scrooby on October 17, 2007, 08:32 AM | #
Just for the record: if memory serves, Marx’s father converted the family to Christianity when Karl was a young child, something like three or four or five years old (I’m not saying that weakens C’s argument, just clarifying a detail — correct me if I’m wrong: am in a particular rush at the moment and haven’t gone back and looked it up. Also haven’t read the rest of this thread exchange, which I’ll do later today). My view? Karl Marx should be considered Jewish, not “Christian,” and not “no religion.” I’ve disputed other claims of “hereditary Jewishness” at MR, claims made in regard to part-Jews, or offspring of converts, and so on (for example, it’s absolutely ludicrous to call Sarkozy, or the Hitchenses, or Senator John Kerry, or even Ludwig Wittgenstein “Jews” (notwithstanding that Hitchens calls himself that — he does it because he’s some sort of extremely odd duck); but in Karl Marx’s case it’s clear to me he has to be considered a Jew. 42
Posted by Astrid on October 17, 2007, 10:31 AM | # GW, “There is no higher and lower stage of development.” I’m having trouble ridding myself of the notion. A human is a more highly developed organism than an amoeba. It’s physiological - more parts, more connections between parts, etc. This increase in physiological development (The cause of this development, whether it be climate or divine doing or something in the water, is irrelevant to the point.) is something to which we humans routinely assign value. “Higher” IQ. Why not just say ‘different’ IQ? Is smarter always better? I wouldn’t say that. Lower forms of life don’t damage the planet the way humans do. But at this point humans are the only creatures who have the power to affect its future. I’d rather see those with more synapses in power than those with fewer. “Man is not treading some upward shining path along which the saintly Tibetans lead humanity race by race, with the ignoble negro, covered in licentiousness and bling, bringing up the rear. There is no such connection, and no such moral judgment to be made.” Very true about the path. But now, with races and cultures intermingling, there is a ‘connection.’ Also we make moral judgements all the time. Valuing seems to be part of our nature (Apparently it began with mammals, which is interesting but not really relevant either.) and we may as well use it to serve our survival. “There is only adaptivity to environment.” A flower is only what results from some natural processes. Both these statements are meaningless. As opposed to? Do you mean to explain differences? Fine, but who’s trying to explain them? As far as not eating animals unnecessarily being virtuous - Tibet, before the Chinese invaded, was, for hundreds of years, a quite peaceful society where no one went hungry. It was ecologically pristine. In my valuing way, I give that high marks. Respect for all creatures was an important part of the country’s philosophy and it worked. Astrid 43
Posted by JLH on October 17, 2007, 11:37 AM | # re CvH’s dissembling about the purposes of Marx:
from the horse’s mouth as it were. 44
Posted by A son of Arminius on October 17, 2007, 11:37 AM | # I’m not a MacDonald man but I don’t think the likes of Auster and Gottfried would deny that Jews have an essence (something that CvH seems to be doing). They certainly have an essense whether or not they’re religiously observant or 100% ancestrally semetic or ashkenazi or whatever. The source of that essense is disputable and I tend to think there’s more to it than the MacDonald-ites (who seem to see nothing but EGI and tribal war). But there’s certainly a Jewish “soul” (GW would locate it in the brain). Auster definitely has one even though he’s a devout Christian (not out of convenience). If a person like Marx wasn’t very far removed from his Jewish roots, it wouldn’t be hard to imagine him sharing this jewish essence. Here’s a review of CoC over at Occidental Quarterly that’s not too anti or philo-semetic for me: http://theoccidentalquarterly.com/archives/vol1no2/hp-macdonald.html This is about where I’ve settled at on the JQ. Oddly enough, I’m to the right of a MR poster. CvH seems to relish creating obfuscation on this topic. 45
Posted by Guessedworker on October 17, 2007, 01:49 PM | # A son of Arminius, I can just about live with the idea of a Jewish essence if we are talking about what is irreducible, when all worldly peripherality, all artifice has been swept away. The Jewish essence I would locate in the genome, of course - and instrumentationally, yes, it must express through the synapses. At the beginning of that TOQ article (many thanks for the link) Hugh Perry states:-
But that isn’t the Jewish Question at all. The JQ is perfectly clear as a practical existential problem for the European host. It cannot be left in abeyance precisely because the Jewish - or, to be more particular, Ashkenazic - “role in societies in which they are a minority” is all too well understood, which role Perry then goes on to illuminate. Very strange. Some passages I particularly liked. This is good: “What gentile society encounters is something perhaps even more troubling, an almost subconscious yet instinctive loyalty to Jewish self-interest utterly oblivious to the similar needs of others.” But he prefaces it with the observation that there is no monolith. And indeed a superficial judgement based on express opinion evinces no monolith. But at the level of EGI there is an almighty monolith. The several observations that Perry makes about the cohesiveness of the tribe are near to meaningless unless one understands that. The TOQ editorial sign-off at the end of the article reads:-
I long for it, but on terms moral and intellectual dictated by European survivalists. In conclusion, I would like to learn more, over time, of your general position “to the right of an MR poster”. 46
Posted by Scimitar on October 17, 2007, 03:36 PM | # The term ‘racism’ should be jettisoned from our discourse. ‘Racism’ is a critique of racialism, hereditarianism, eugenics, nationalism, etc. It conjurs up all sorts of negative images in the minds of the audience we are targeting. 47
Posted by Guessedworker on October 17, 2007, 03:42 PM | # That’s a good rejoinder to the racism! screech. I have fallen into the habit of accusing my accusers of racism on the grounds that, alone among all the peoples of the world, we are denied a place of our own in which to live. This works well - has been tried at the Guardian - and as yet nobody has come back with a meaningful response. However, that leaves us still searching for an acceptable term for racialism. This is the wrong thread to discuss that, though. 48
Posted by Scimitar on October 17, 2007, 04:03 PM | #
The solution to the Jewish Question is Israel. Aren’t they in need of ‘good Jews’ over there? Is there some reason why we can’t enjoy these incredible Jewish insights from a distance? 49
Posted by Red Baron on October 17, 2007, 09:25 PM | # Horst Mahler is a fascinating political figure. The ridiculous characterization of Mahler in this bizarre post in no frames the man. The Ideological Evolution of Horst Mahler: The Far Left-Extreme Right Synthesis: 50
Posted by A Son of Hermann on December 29, 2007, 07:26 AM | # Guessedworker, From the Hugh Perry piece at TOQ: “Indeed, this self-absorption affects even Jewry. Large numbers of Jews now simply marry outside their group and are lost to it. Current estimates run as high as 50 percent” He doesn’t provide documentation, but his statement tracks pretty well with what I see. I observe a lot of Jewish miscegenation (commonly with Europeans, east Asians and even Hispanics) and I believe my observations represent a reasonable sample size. So I wonder about locating it “in the genome.” 51
Posted by Fred Scrooby on April 17, 2010, 08:08 PM | # On Horst Mahler’s discussion of “racism” in the log entry: There is no such thing as “racism” in the sense meant by this Jewish-invented-and-promulgated term. What the Jews call “racist” is when someone not Jewish questions the annihilation of his own race: “OK, we’re annihilating your race. Any questions? If so, you’re a racist. The only way you can not be a racist is to not question it and willingly die along with the rest of your damned race. We Jews don’t like you or your race and want you out of existence.” Do you have any questions whatsoever about any of that? Then according to Jewish columnist Frank Rich and The Jew York Times which adores publishing his and all other Jewish anti-Euro hate, you’re a racist. Actually it’s worse than that — the Jews call “racist” anyone not Jewish who even thinks he belongs to a race, or who even thinks there are races at all. “You think there are races? You think you belong to one? OK, you’re a racist and deserve the treatment meted out to Randy Weaver’s wife and son at Ruby Ridge and the people in the Branch Davidian compound at Waco. Our Jewish prosecutors, judges, and bought-and-owned politicians and chiefs of police will see you get it.” But even though the Jews will make sure you receive the Ruby Ridge and Waco treatment for it, questioning the annihilation of your race is normal. Calling it “racism” is like calling breathing, eating, or walking “breathism,” “eatism,” or “walkism”: makes no sense. It’s normal to do these things, everybody does them, failing to do them isn’t normal, and it’s senseless to 1) call them by some special name as if they were other than perfectly normal, or 2) condemn them. Senseless or evil. As Joe Sobran has written, the “anti-Semite” is anyone the Jews don’t like. In similar fashion, the “racist” is anyone whom the Jews’ guilty conscience makes them fear: “A wicked man fleeeth when no man pursueth, but a just man as a lion trusting shall be without fearfulness.” —Proverbs 28:1 ( http://www.sbible.boom.ru/wyc/pro28.htm ) (In the Book of Proverbs, same chapter, we also read, “He who deceiveth just men in an evil way shall fall in his perishing, and just men shall wield his goods.” —Proverbs 28:10. Jews, take note.) 52
Posted by C. M. IDEVS on January 16, 2012, 09:50 AM | # Well, Red Army Faction or not, I agree with him. In my 2nd Edition I distinguish between Bolshevism and orthodox Marxism. Marx was an economic theorist, not a statesman or even a political theorist. His political conception went as far as the ‘dictatorship of the prolies.’ It can be argued that Bolshevism even ran counter to Marxist orthodoxy in its promulgation of an agressive ‘state capitalist’ system (to use a Trotskyite phrase) and also in its highly nationalistic/traditionalist/historic-mythological jingoism during times of war and national necessity. From the brief excerpt you translated, my impression is that Mahler is a National Socialist’s NATIONAL SOCIALIST. Next entry: Measuring national suicide Previous entry: The Trillion Dollar Tax “Reform” and the Ron Paul Revolution |
|
Existential IssuesWhite Genocide ProjectOf note
Recent CommentsAlso see trash folder. DateSoaxiaDot commented in entry 'Why Hitler hated Jews' on 05/25/12, 04:28 AM. (go) (view) UK Dissertations Help commented in entry 'A small anecdote and some reflections on race and culture' on 05/25/12, 02:14 AM. (go) (view) Roof Leaks commented in entry 'YOBS' on 05/25/12, 01:16 AM. (go) (view) 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) 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 norman lowell on October 15, 2007, 08:37 AM | #
Horst Mahler should contest the European elections - either Independently or within the NPD.
These will be held sometime in 2008 and any EU citizen is eligible.
From Brussels, Mahler would be able to cock-a-snoot at his enemies.
Norman Lowell