Like or Dislike: 0  0

I think you still represent the Estalishment standard view on things, though you have surmounted the worst Pavlovian conditioning that “Hitler-was-the-evillest-man-who-ever-lived-because-he-gassed-six-million-Jews-and-started-WWII.” But you have to get totally deprogrammed. And in case you haven’t noticed, the Estalbishment has led the West to an economic and racial catastrophe, looming now and soon a reality.

I would also not assume that I have not examined certain issues in depth. I have, for 31 years. I speak fluent German, lived in Germany, knew people who realy knew Hitler, and I majored in German, graduating with a magna cum laude from Georgetown in 1981. (You might go to the “Wikipedia article on JdN” on me at the top of the home homepage. Wiki deleted it, just one more case of censorship.)

I think the Establishment view is now, to use the language of my minor, passé.

Something new is coming, natsoc 2.0, what I call social nationism, or Solutreanism. Taking what was best from Hitler and recalling his three great mistakes……

Like or Dislike: 0  0

As for the occupation of France, of course there were those who preferred German occupation, (they preferred right wing politics anyway in general) whilst you have the flip side of the communists, who were for the most part involved with the Resistance movement. The vast majority of French citizens were neither right wing nor left wing, they simply lived- they went to work, spent time with their family, and looked for a little recreation to liven up their monotonous lives.

They were the apathetic majority, concerned with just living to think too deeply about politics and all its ramifications.

It was this apathetic majority who were partly the reason why the German occupation was so successful. Ordinary French citzens, indeed all peoples under enemy/foreign occupation will do what they have to in order to survive, even turn on those they once called friends (including family members).

Let us not forget either that the Allied powers, whilst lending arms and support to the Resistance movements in Europe during World War Two, were very much aware of just who they were dealing with. Neither Britain nor America trusted the Resistance movements, they knew most were Communist, or at the very least were Socialists (Continental Socialism being more left wing than in Britain, and definitely America). The Resistance movements were simply convenient at the time, they fulfilled a role and could be discarded after their usefulness was over, and for the most part were.

It is important to remember that events in history do not stand alone, they flow and ebb, twisting about one another, with almost forgotten events from the distant past affecting decisions today and tomorrow.

Hitler was not the creator of the German anti-Semitic fervour of the 1930s, such hatred for the Jews had long been part of Germany, indeed all of Europe and beyond for time immemorial, Hitler merely used something in which he himself believed. The anti-Semitic sentiments of Germany had been on the increase since the mid-19th century, which reached its widest audience during the Great Depression of 1929 and beyond. This is hardly surprising though. The Nazis, and non-Nazis, complained that Jews held key positions and professions in thrall, especially banking, the law and medicine, but what many at the time either did not want to know, or conveniently forgot, was that the Jewish people had already been restricted as to their careeer choices. Many chose the law and medicine because it was some of the few professions in Germany they were allowed to practice, therefore creating a disproportionate number of Jewish people in these professions, compared to Gentiles. Banking has always been used as a stick to beat the Jews with, and has a deep root in European history, which for the Jews is unfortunate- all i will say is go and look up European medieval views on usury (and i don’t mean usury in its extreme sense) and you may just find that they got themselves pigeon-holed.

It is my opinion though that the Nazi party were voted into power less because of anti-Semite feelings, but because the NSDP represented a pratical solution to Germany’s economic woes at the time. Hitler said he would create jobs- which he did very successfully- he would give them stability in a time when Europe was in a state of politic flux- communist, socialist, liberals, conservatives, facists etc- and that Hitler and/or the NSDP appealed across the board. If a non-unionist voter didn’t care who was in power so as long as they had a job, then Hitler/NSDP looked like the better option. If you were a professional or a middle-class shop owner, why would you want to vote for a party who would take it all away? No, you would vote for a party who would create an economy of growth and with a laissez-faire, which the NSDP promised it would do. If you were wealthy and upper class then the Nazis were pretty much no different than a Conservative party (or for Americans, Republican).

Importantly, the NSDP were a vital party, they utilised new technology in their campaigning- its possible to say they employed a modern approach to poltical campaigning that most poltical parties still use today- taking advantage of the Germans love of technology (the wireless radio was proportinately owned by more Germans than by any other Europe nations’ citizenry). Besides, its so dramatic to step out of a plane to go and give a rousing speech, whether or not you believe a word the person says! Hitler cut through the tediousness of traditional parties, whilst appealing to a broader range of voters than the Communist party could ever do. He had a winning combination ultimately.

The world often forgets what it wants to, needs to or fears to remember. Hitler, the Nazis and World War Two are as much a product of past events (namely World War One- which really had nothing to do with anti-Semitic beliefs, since its best not to forget that a great many German heroes of World War One were Jewish- and the crippling Reparations enforced by the Allies at Versailles); worldwide disasters (the Wall Street Crash and the Great Depression, which crushed Germany’s fragile post-war re-builing), and of course pure circumstance- that a person can have the ideology, the will for power and the force of personality to combine these with past events, current events and widespread beliefs/myths/suspicions and create a new nation, whether that is for good or evil.

Hitler and the NSDP did do good things for the Germany of the 1930s, but its always best to remember that they tore Europe and much of the world apart. Yes, German citzens and German-occupied nations could have ‘romp’ of a war if they wished, but by the same token plenty led lives of misery and degradation during the 1930s and 1940s in Germany and German-occupied countries directly as a result of the Nazis. Again, the vast majority or Europeans affected by World War Two simply wanted to live, to live through the lack of food, to live through the fear that is wartime, and at the end of the day even in the direst of circumstances you have to laugh at some point or what’s the point in living anyway.

Phew! All that is basically to say, you need to look at the whole, and not simply what you want to look at- what is there as opposed to what you see. I feel that too many of the comments/articles found here lack a depth of knowledge and understanding of what they are reading/seeing, they are consistently using inconsistent ideas.

With regard to what we are allowed to express about the past, about accepted canon (that is historical evidence) such views are always changing. It is far more acceptable now to find merit in parts of Hitler and the NSDP, whilst also continuing to be appalled at his role in history, you merely need to do your research methodically and impartially. For instance, I believe Hitler and the NSDP did many good things for Germany, but i also believe he fostered ideas that have scarred Europe and the world for generations yet to come.

History is written by the victors and imposed upon the defeated. It is the role of historians- professional and amateur alike- to uncover the truth before that truth is lost forever, no matter how unpalatable. How we apply history to the present day is another matter entirely and one that will always be misused and twisted by those who are able to do so… even by you.

Like or Dislike: 0  0

I think the subject which will be of most importance politically is
mass psychology…. Its importance has been enormously increased by
the growth of modern methods of propaganda. Of these the most
influential is what is called ‘education.’ Religion plays a part,
though a diminishing one; the press, the cinema, and the radio play an
increasing part…. It may be hoped that in time anybody will be able
to persuade anybody of anything if he can catch the patient young and
is provided by the State with money and equipment.

Although this science will be diligently studied, it will be rigidly
confined to the governing class. The populace will not be allowed to
know how its convictions were generated. When the technique has been
perfected, every government that has been in charge of education for a
generation will be able to control its subjects securely without the
need of armies or policemen.

****

Diet, injections, and injunctions will combine, from a very early age,
to produce the sort of character and the sort of beliefs that the
authorities consider desirable, and any serious criticism of the
powers that be will become psychologically impossible.

Gradually, by selective breeding, the congenital differences between
rulers and ruled will increase until they become almost different
species. A revolt of the plebs would become as unthinkable as an
organized insurrection of sheep against the practice of eating mutton.
(The Impact of Science on Society, 1953)

Like or Dislike: 0  0

Like or Dislike: 0  0

Bertrand Russell:

On those rare occasions, when a boy or girl who has passed the age at
which it is usual to determine social status shows such marked ability
as to seem the intellectual equal of the rulers, a difficult situation
will arise, requiring serious consideration. If the youth is content
to abandon his previous associates and to throw in his lot
whole-heartedly with the rulers, he may, after suitable tests, be
promoted, but if he shows any regrettable solidarity with his previous
associates, the rulers will reluctantly conclude that there is nothing
to be done with him except to send him to the lethal chamber before
his ill-disciplined intelligence has had time to spread revolt. (The Scientific Outlook, 1931)

Like or Dislike: 1  0

Like or Dislike: 0  0

http://hr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Laval_Nugent

Like or Dislike: 1  0