/pol/ - Politically Incorrect

Politics, News, History


[Hide]
Posting Mode: Reply Return
Säge
Subject
Message

Max message length: 5000

Files
E-mail
Password

(used to delete files and postings)

Misc

  • Supported file types: GIF, JPG, PNG, WebM, OGG, and more
  • Max files: 5
  • Max file size: 50.00 MB
  • Read the global rules before you post, as well as the board rules found in the sticky.


02/27/20 IRC/Matrix/and Discord servers are now available, join here.
02/09/20 /ausneets/ has been added!
11/23/19 Donations can now be made via PayPal, thank you for all of your support!
11/21/19 We have successfully migrated to LynxChan 2.3.0, to see all of the changes to 16chan, click here.


[Index] [Catalog] [Archive] [Bottom] [Refresh]

The legitimacy of fascism and national socialism Anonymous 02/21/2020 (Fri) 20:12:10 ID:6a00b3 No. 23348
Since the ancient/medieval jewry thread is getting derailed into discussion about the Third Reich and many prominent fascist/national socialist philosophers, I've created this thread to discuss the genuineness of fascism/national socialism, and specifically the beliefs of Evola and a few others. >>23338 >was always anti-Jew We see this with a lot of shills. "Controlled opposition" is literally what it means, controlled opposition. It opposes jews, but that opposition is artificial, it's controlled. >his "alliance" with the Nation Of Islam was always under the pretex that they both accepted racial seperation as a nessasary part of life. The Nation of Islam didn't believe in segregation, they teach that whites are literal devils via their whole Yakub story. But that alone isn't relevant; it's the fact that he also aligned himself with a Christian Identist minister. You have one side that believes blacks are real humans and whites are devils, and one the other way around. He was serving conflicting interests, both coming from very spooky movements to begin with. >No his idealogy was not all over the place nor did he accept Jews as whites ever. I was referring to the founding fathers of the USA, because they did, and Rockwell's national socialism was still defending this tradition, as was even the German-American Bund decades before. >A part Jew who when this fact was found out was kicked from the party. Frank Collin wasn't kicked from the party by Rockwell. He was kicked out after Rockwell's death. >>23340 See second image. >>23344 I'm talking about "metaphysical egalitarianism". He believed that a jew could be a spiritual Aryan which is a gross example of this.
(41.86 KB 850x400 typicalsausagevendor.jpg)
>>23348 >Evola >Fascism >Mussolini’s treatment of Gentile was vastly different from that accorded Evola. Evola always remained marginal to Fascism. His prominence increased, as shall be argued, only when Mussolini had some tactical use for him and his ideas. Gregor, A. James. Mussolini's Intellectuals (p. 221). Princeton University Press. >The fact is that at the time of the publication of Evola’s Sintesi, the most serious students of raciation and comparative psychology in Fascist Italy dismissed his ideas as “bizarre . . . occult anti-scientific fantasies.”89 Evola had early been identified by Fascist critics as a “lucid madman,” who was not to be taken seriously. Gregor, A. James. Mussolini's Intellectuals (p. 212).
>>23352 >the most serious students of raciation and comparative psychology in Fascist Italy dismissed his ideas as “bizarre . . . occult anti-scientific fantasies.” That's the thing. The sane fascists didn't see anything of use in Evola, but despite this, Mussolini adopted Evola's doctrine as fascist Italy's official racial policy in his Manifesto della razza.
>>23353 Only for the purpose of trying to appeal to Germany. Mussolini didn't care about Evola or race really.
>>23354 Evola's racial doctrine wasn't even like that of Germany's itself, he saw it as "too materialist"; neither was the Manifesto della razza; many pro-fascist newspapers like La Civilta Cattolica even justified it by saying it wasn't like the national socialist declaration. Thus, it can't be said that Mussolini was simply trying to appeal to Germany by doing so.
>>23357 >What Mussolini needed, as the military and political alliance between Fascist Italy and National Socialist Germany became more and more intimate, was an account of how Fascism dealt with the race issue that might placate Hitler and his followers. Mussolini was always mildly contemptuous of National Socialist race theory. He mocked all of its intellectual sources and insisted that a healthy nationalism had no need for the “delirium of racism” that afflicted his German counterparts beyond the Alps.95 By 1938, however, Mussolini sought to reduce any distance that separated him from his National Socialist allies. >In retrospect, and considered in context, it appears that Mussolini used Evola’s Sintesi di dottrina della razza exclusively in an attempt to serve Fascism’s tactical purposes. Nothing of Evola’s exotic ruminations appeared in any official Fascist doctrinal pronouncements. >Evola clearly held Mussolini and Fascism to have been nothing other than a “hypnotic” side show that might be conveniently employed as a means of communicating the profound realities of a transcendent world to those capable of understanding. >In dealing with National Socialist Germany, Mussolini needed a convenient, and well-publicized, expression that might persuade the Germans that Fascist Italy entertained “appropriate” racial views. Once again, Mussolini used Evola’s writings for his own purposes. As has been indicated, he early decided that Evola was an hysteric—
>>23358 This just reiterates my point. >>Evola clearly held Mussolini and Fascism to have been nothing other than a “hypnotic” side show that might be conveniently employed as a means of communicating the profound realities of a transcendent world to those capable of understanding. He indeed did, and he viewed Germany's race theories the same. Why did Italy choose such a metaphysician as their racial theorist if it were doing so to bridge the gaps between them and Germany, instead of choosing a more materialistic racialist?
>>23357 >wasn't even like that of Germany's It didn't have to be a copy of Germany's for the Italians to use it as a way to appeal to Germany. >pro-fascist newspapers even justified it They promoted it for the reason I mentioned probably on orders of Mussolini. >Thus, it can't be said But it can, that's literally what happened. Just because Evola's racial doctrine was not exactly like Germany's doesn't mean his racial views cannot be adopted to appeal to Germany. >In fact, Evola was never a fascist, however the term is understood. Gregor, A. James. Mussolini's Intellectuals (p. 198).
>>23359 >Why did Italy choose such a metaphysician as their racial theorist if it were doing so to bridge the gaps between them and Germany, instead of choosing a more materialistic racialist? Probably because it was convenient to do so. Evola was probably more well known and had a more developed theory than other racialists in the country at the time. Besides, the very fact they chose a meta-physician who disagreed with their own ideology of fascism is evidence of the fact they didn't take it very serious. They picked a man who disagreed with them to write their racial theory. To me that speaks of someone who isn't too concerned with the actual theory/doctrine but is acting for more realpolitk reasons.
>>23360 >>23361 >Probably because it was convenient to do so. Evola was probably more well known and had a more developed theory than other racialists in the country at the time. There were several materialistic racialists at the time in Italy which is why Gentile even had to address racialism at all. Alfredo Niceforo to name one. Even if they didn't really care about racialism, they wouldn't have chosen a metaphysician to be their racialist to improve relations with Germany, they would've chosen a materialistic one that didn't literally disagree with the Reich themselves. *On a side note, it seems that Alfredo Niceforo and the early 20th century italian racialist scene in general was actually heavily influenced by Cesare Lombroso, who claimed criminality was determined by which races were closer to primates. He was not only a jew, but came from a very wealthy line of rabbis, and his Italian school of criminology was very influential during Mussolini's time. So we see yet another connection with fascist Italy's teachings and 19th century jewish thinkers, aside from Mussolini's stint as a Marxist himself.*
>Alfredo Niceforo >several materialistic racialists So if other racialists existed why choose Evola? Either: a) Those other racialists had something about them that was a turn off. b) Something about Evola was appealing to the fascists which isn't likely given what I posted. c) Something about Evola was appealing to the Germans who the fascists wanted to appeal to. d) Or they just didn't care and selected him for some trivial reason. Going through the text I found this passage, which would support option (c) above. >By 1934, with both Imperialismo pagano and Heidnischer Imperialismus behind him, Evola devoted himself entirely to conveying an account of the “supernatural, invisible and intangible forces” of “primordial hyperborean Aryanism”—the “source of the principles of true life,” employing concepts familiar to National Socialists but almost entirely unknown to Mussolini’s Fascism.46 While he continued to employ the solar symbols and the deities of old, the bearers of light were no longer denizens of the Mediterranean. They had become generic “NordicAryans”—a stock of primordial “Hyperboreans”—cosmic representatives of that “metaphysical Reality” that sustained the world. The existence of Hyperborea (or Ultima Thule) was a “superrational” conviction common among German mystics and occult racists certainly as early as the turn of the twentieth century. It seems evident that Evola recognized that the concepts he chose to employ in the German translation would be familiar to his audience. >By the time he produced Rivolta contro il mondo moderno in 1934, all of Evola’s culture creators had become, as descendents of Hyperboreans,generic “Aryans.”48We are told that they originated, in primordial times, in Hyperborea—that fabled land presumably located in the artic regions. Over time, Evola informed his readers, the Hyperboreans migrated south, to remain for some indeterminate time in Atlantis—yet another fabled land—until its destruction prompted their further trek—in the course of which they created all the grand cultures of North and South America—including those of the Aztec and the Maya. Gregor, A. James. Mussolini's Intellectuals (pp. 202-203).
>>23369 >>23365 In fact I think it's a combination of c and d in that this was not too much of a priority for the Italians but nonetheless they picked Evola specifically because he held similar/familiar racial views to the Germans but not exactly the same.
Elijah Muhammed believed in racial seperation and this is why Rockwell attended one of his rallys. "I take my hat off to any white man who does not want to mix." - Elijah Muhammed >Collins Max Collins published a document where he claims to be a holocaus survior. Frank Collins is ejected because of this. This document was published in ??? The most I can find about this is a Bulletin article about it after Rockwells death. I really doubt he knew. Kinds weak "evidence" Rockwell was a shill. Considering how much good he did for the movement as well.
>>23371 >"I take my hat off to any white man who does not want to mix." They were still black supremacists as well, and Rockwell was still supporting Christian Identity which was the other way around. >Max Collins published a document where he claims to be a holocaus survior. >Frank Collins is ejected because of this. This document was published in ??? >The most I can find about this is a Bulletin article about it after Rockwells death. I really doubt he knew. Exactly. Frank Collins wasn't ejected because he was jewish, and he was done so after Rockwell's death, so not by Rockwell himself. Thus, Rockwell had a jew in his party. >Kinds weak "evidence" Rockwell was a shill. Considering how much good he did for the movement as well. What good did he do? He destroyed any sense of sanity within pro-white factions in the US at the time, and basically paved the way for the Civil Rights Act. The NSWPP (formerly literally known as the "American Nazi Party") was like the KKK, it was a controlled opposition group that gave an excuse for black supremacists to strawman segregationists, which eventually they did, thus ruining any chance of the USA abandoning negroid culture which was already infecting them for 100 years until that point.
Why was Hitler so closely tied with the church while supposedly opposing both the Catholics and Lutherans with his "Kirchenkampf" policy? There are at least several pictures of him with the pope, praises from certain Catholic newspapers, and we see contradictory views from every high-ranking NSDAP member on the church (it's easy to see this if you go on Masonchan and go to an astroturfed "Pagan vs. Christian" thread"). We see from newspapers during the time of the Third Reich both of "Hitler opposing occultists and supporting the church" and "Hitler wants to destroy the church and replace it with worship of the state". Why is this particular issue regarding the Third Reich so incredibly saturated? Attached are several of Hitler's contradictory views on Christianity/the church, some praise the Catholic church as a bulwark against jews, the foundation of their culture, and some explicitly attack it; none are from the Table Talks which may or may not be a fabrication. Interestingly, Hitler claims he's going with the same policy that the Catholic church went with for 1500 years, which is what considered jews as white people in the first place, and in the end kept them all in Poland.
>>23406 >He was staunchly against egalitarianism. Even in his own methods into metaphysics, he nurtured the idea of elites of higher men, of greater spirit. I reiterate; when I say metaphysical egalitarianism, it's when he says that a jew could be a spiritual Aryan. >It's true, he said something along those lines and it's therefore apparent that he failed to see the deeper and also overall spiritual process at play within NatSoc. Evola had an habit of being critical of nationalism and the obsession of work, the reduction of man into an element of the whole which one could find an echo in being forced into fitting for the benefit of the race and Reich, although I'd personally find it logical based on the vagaries of these past times. Exactly. My point is that metaphysics in the end are harmful and degenerate, they substitute a fictional world of ideas for reality, and disregard the material world, and thus they disregard blood and race by extension. Despite coming off as being pro-Aryan racialism, it's less racialist than the kabbalah (metaphysical with the framework of jewish supremacy) for example because it's more metaphysical. Universalism as a whole is bogged in this line of thinking. >Golden Age The entire idea of the golden age is the definition of romanticising a period that really wasn't that well. We see it with a lot of shills here claiming that the middle ages were a golden age for whites, you should know that's false, but it really applies to any period of time. Yes, industrial society made things worse, but this whole idea of "Merry Old England" a golden age where everybody was a serf under part-jewish nobility is no better (again, not necessarily the middle ages, but you get the point) >Benjamin Franklin's warning about the Jews? That was a literal forgery. Franklin, even regardless being a freemason and all was not anti-jewish. He literally donated 5 pounds to build a synagogue in Philadelphia, and pardoned jewry as a whole when he actually did have problems with jewish bankers, jews loved him (both in a regular and I assume a sexual way, considering Franklin was likely bisexual) as well; even some jewish enlightenment works like "Sefer Heshbon Ha-nefesh" were based on Franklin's writings. The "Franklin prophecy" does not match up with his past experiences with the jews at all.
>>23408 >It would not be the first time that a firm National Socialist would go through the effort of recognizing the commendable behavior of some Jew. These days, I believe it's a weakness because the Jew still carries in his genetic material the seed of Jewishness. It's the usual debate about Good/Bad Jews, or Jews of Aryan spirituality and Whites with a Jewish mindset. "Good jew", what nonsense. Frank Collins was clearly an infiltrator with bad intentions, his parents were literally holohoax "survivors". >These oddities aside, you cannot be serious in attacking Rockwell. He like other National Socialists has openly stood against Jews, both through the doctrine he espoused and defended, and through his own literature. Read what I already said about controlled opposition. >Even IF they had accepted some Jews as White (provide proof btw of this claim) They accepted all jews, who by the way were mostly Sephardic in America as white. How-so? First of all, Washington protected the jews of Newport, Rhode Island, and in a letter addressing them, confirms that they are citizens: https://founders.archives.gov/documents/Washington/05-06-02-0135 This was in August 1790, several months after the 1790 Naturalisation Act (which established only "free white men of good character" could hold citizenship) had been passed on the 26th of+ March. Thus if the jews of Rhode Island were considered citizens, they must've also been considered white. There's no way in getting around this. >you'd be hard pressed to find a lack of antisemitism in these men. As I said in my former post, Franklin gave his fellow American men a clear and serious warning about the Jews. Using the term "antisemitism", what are you presenting yourself as? Anyways, that was a forgery. Franklin excused the jews several times, even when dealing with jewish merchants that clearly enraged him, and later on even funded a jewish synagogue in Philadelphia. 5 pounds for a synagogue that costed 800 to make by the way, that's 0.6% needed and thus back then, was a large contribution. >Kvetching about Masonry is absurd if you cannot realize that Masonry has been corrupted too, that not all Masons were retards or traitors, even if they would get too close to Abrahamic esoterism to my tastes (but then again, without going full CI retard, there are things to be admitted about the origin of certain elements within the Old Testament). Freemasonry from first to last degree was literally always about the kabbalah and Solomon's temple, they literally have menorahs in their buildings. That's not even getting too close to Abrahamic esotericism, that's more jewish than any stale bagel could ever be. Nevertheless, it's the masonic idea of liberalism that I'm attacking the founding fathers for; the government structure of the USA was literally the masonic lodge applied to a massive population. >Provide properly sourced quotes please. That is simply the natural consequence of liberalism. It allows the population to indulge in negroid culture and for anti-white propaganda to spread; both of these are protected by the US constitution and the first amendment. >This is nothing new. Again, it's not just that he tried allying with literal black supremacists, it's that he allied with black supremacists, Esoteric Hitlerists, and even Christian Identists (who you're already aware) all at the same time. He's serving all of these conflicting interests at once. >Mathis Me attacking Rockwell, Devi etc. isn't quite the same as Mathis claiming anybody that doesn't agree with his main points is a spook. I don't just go on Wikipedia and basic genealogy sites to prove my point like he does, I'm not even just claiming that they're spooks and dismissing them otherwise. I clearly said that even if Rockwell wasn't a spook, he was still incredibly suspiscious, and these are my reasons why he was suspiscious.
>>23418 *whom you already aware of
>>23402 Or the complexity of leading a Christian country out of it. This easily explains the contradictions. There is perhaps a distinction to be made here when talking about Christianity on one side and the spirit thereof on the other.
>>23424 See the quotes about Hitler continuing the "same policy of the Catholic church". That's clearly not just him advocating for cultural Christianity or whatnot, he's wholly aligning himself with the Catholic church in that quote.
>>23407 >I reiterate; when I say metaphysical egalitarianism, it's when he says that a jew could be a spiritual Aryan. This is the influence of Guenon I think, and Traditionalists as a whole. It tends to go universal when a proper racial awareness and necessity of racial cleanliness shows the limits of the theory of the Aryan spirit. Evola made a mistake here when he claimed that a pure race could fail to become the host of Aryan spirits. During his life it seems that he reluctantly admitted of the importance of the racial elements, perhaps when he was courting the NS intellectuals and leaders. That is the problem when an ex-Christian Latin man gets too close to Sufism, Hinduism and the like, he quickly obfuscates the racial element. Evola put too much emphasis on the supernatural aspect and not enough on the white race. I do not agree with the idea that certain philosophical and practical burdens and limits in one's works automatically translates into being controlled opposition. That's rather simplistic and fairly American. This being said, much to my discomfort, the Jewish problem was absolutely clear and Evola danced around it. He even strongly condemned Germany for what it put the Jews through (forced working). Without giving him bad intentions, I think he belongs to a group of great men who simply failed to be ruthless. Ruthless as Indra who smites the dark skinned humanoids. >The entire idea of the golden age is the definition of romanticising a period that really wasn't that well. We see it with a lot of shills here claiming that the middle ages were a golden age for whites, you should know that's false, but it really applies to any period of time. Yes, industrial society made things worse, but this whole idea of "Merry Old England" a golden age where everybody was a serf under part-jewish nobility is no better (again, not necessarily the middle ages, but you get the point) This is absolutely not the Golden Age spoken of in Tradition. It is not about an expression applied to a more or less recent past. It's about a very distant time when... and this is where it gets just wild... (won't discuss it here) It deserves its own thread with quotes from Evola and Guenon and should be free of Theosophy as much as possible. I'm surprised it has not appeared elsewhere on the chans, at Space or else tbh. >Franklin, false false false and moar false I'd be curious to know about your sources. Please provide them. If you're right it would explain a lot of things.
>>23418 >"Good jew", what nonsense. Frank Collins was clearly an infiltrator with bad intentions, his parents were literally holohoax "survivors". I'm talking about the usual topic of what are Good Jews, do they exist, what to do with/of them, etc. It's a regular topic in right/far-right circles. What did Goering say about Jews again? >Rockwell, CO Are you basing this all of MM's theories? A CO that exposes all the enemies of the White people is a very weird and stupid form of CO. >>23418 >This was in August 1790, several months after the 1790 Naturalisation Act (which established only "free white men of good character" could hold citizenship) had been passed on the 26th of+ March. Thus if the jews of Rhode Island were considered citizens, they must've also been considered white. There's no way in getting around this. Smells cuck like fuck. I'm not too clear on what he meant by Citizens but it's implied that he sees the Hebrews as such. Although it requires a bit of acrobatics to jump to the conclusion that he equated Jews with "free white men of good character", although it could very well be possible. > 5 pounds for a synagogue that costed 800 to make by the way, that's 0.6% needed and thus back then, was a large contribution. Less than 1% is not a large contribution at all. It's just Franklin trying to put kikes in his pocket. Don't forget that I'm asking for proof of the forgery of the antisemitic claim attributed to B. Franklin. >Freemasonry from first to last degree was literally always about the kabbalah and Solomon's temple, they literally have menorahs in their buildings Today they do. >That is simply the natural consequence of liberalism. That's Jewish liberalism. A certain amount of liberties granted to the individual, especially so as to counter the power of the government, assuming all is done within the scope of building a white society, is fairly liberal too. >he allied with black supremacists Circumstantial and based on a clear program of racial segregation. It's of a similar value of the idea that appears here from time to time, namely that based niggers can be useful. >Esoteric Hitlerists What's wrong about them, really? >and even Christian Identists He wanted pro-white allies. CI are delusional people but at least they want to live with whites only, they are anti-Jewish, pro-White Racist Christians. It's easy to see why an isolated Nazi would want to forge ties with them. Overall your reasons for being suspicious about Rockwell are not solid enough. He was dealing with politics and nothing is perfect in politics and you have hard times advancing anywhere if you're already a attacked minority in the country that defeated the model and people you want to emulate. >Mathis-kun That's all clear then.
>>23425 And then they took anti-Christian measure, especially for the SS elite. What with Positive Christianity, I think it's clear they were trying to build something that at first would look like a multi-headed beast, with the plebe largely remaining Christian for the time being, letting the heathen doctrine trickle down over the coming century. But they got defeated and never got a chance to apply any of this.
>>23353 Appealing to the myth of the stronk Roman Empire was as good as it could get. Evola gave it an oozing layer of mysticism and glory, say of providence somehow. Mussolini was going for another (yawn) multiracial model under one big State banner. The lack of race realism was a problem in fascism.
>>23359 Christianized Rome. Fear of the Nordic element that would D&C Italy if included in the national doctrine. It's like the big beast you don't want to poke.
>>23357 Evola redefined Fascism and said that Italians utterly failed it.
>>23401 >The NSWPP (formerly literally known as the "American Nazi Party") was like the KKK, it was a controlled opposition group that gave an excuse for black supremacists to strawman segregationists Details, examples please?
>>23402 >This is the influence of Guenon I think, and Traditionalists as a whole. It tends to go universal when a proper racial awareness and necessity of racial cleanliness shows the limits of the theory of the Aryan spirit. Evola made a mistake here when he claimed that a pure race could fail to become the host of Aryan spirits. During his life it seems that he reluctantly admitted of the importance of the racial elements, perhaps when he was courting the NS intellectuals and leaders. >That is the problem when an ex-Christian Latin man gets too close to Sufism, Hinduism and the like, he quickly obfuscates the racial element. Evola put too much emphasis on the supernatural aspect and not enough on the white race. >I do not agree with the idea that certain philosophical and practical burdens and limits in one's works automatically translates into being controlled opposition. That's rather simplistic and fairly American. It's because such supernatural metaphysics do lead to egalitarianism. It can be summed up in this rhetoric: "If people aren't really made up of organs and blood, and they're actually spiritual beings, then they're all equal". When Evola read Guenon etc., his path after that would've actually been quite natural. It's not because of this that he was controlled opposition, but it's because of this that he was a shill. >This is absolutely not the Golden Age spoken of in Tradition. It is not about an expression applied to a more or less recent past. It's about a very distant time when... and this is where it gets just wild... (won't discuss it here) No, this applies to the golden age as a concept entirely, notwithstanding the time period. It absolutely is the same as this idea of "Merry Old England", whether said golden age was 6000 years ago or 600 years ago. >I'd be curious to know about your sources. Please provide them. If you're right it would explain a lot of things. About him funding a synagogue: archive.fo/WfiDX Franklin and the jews (don't take this as an explicit approval of the website, it just offers good information about Franklin) archive.fo/q8Nhj None of these match up with Franklin's line of thinking in the "Franklin Prophecy", and nobody knew about it before the 1920s (otherwise, it would've been documented). Thus, said document is a forgery. >>23427 >I'm talking about the usual topic of what are Good Jews, do they exist, what to do with/of them, etc. Short answer, they don't. Long answer, so many jews are bad that you cannot deny that they're all a problem, withstanding both their typical usury and then the sexual degeneracy their race is obsessed with; no other race is more steeped in fetishism, homosexuality, and pedophilia as the jewish community. Nevertheless, this is about Rockwell, and Rockwell clearly accepted a subversive jew into his party. >A CO that exposes all the enemies of the White people is a very weird and stupid form of CO. It's the other way around. Controlled opposition (to jews/other anti-whites) implies that they're supposed to be a group that opposes jews, but in reality is controlled and kept in check by the. If it doesn't expose the jews, it's not opposition at all, it's just another regular tool. >I'm not too clear on what he meant by Citizens but it's implied that he sees the Hebrews as such. Although it requires a bit of acrobatics to jump to the conclusion that he equated Jews with "free white men of good character", although it could very well be possible. Simply put, because they're citizens, they were seen as free white men of good character. This was just months after the act was passed, so there wasn't anything vague about US law like there was a few decades later. >Today they do. Here's the famous icon of Washington in a masonic apron. You can clearly see the same Solomonic imagery used in this image as is used in lodges today, thus it isn't a modern thing. Freemasonry was as bad during Washington's time as it is today. >That's Jewish liberalism. A certain amount of liberties granted to the individual, especially so as to counter the power of the government, assuming all is done within the scope of building a white society, is fairly liberal too. Which is enlightenment liberalism as a whole. Naturally, it leads to people being able to justify degeneracy because free speech allows them to do so. It's really odd you're defending this despite at the same time defending fascism, considering the latter was specifically created as an anti-liberal anti-communist ideology. >based niggers Nope. First offender: using "based" which is itself negroid slang. Second offender: saying "based niggers" which implies that negroids can be good and allied to a sane pro-white movement, even when they're black supremacists that openly see whites as devils.
.>>23427 >What's wrong about them, really? >He wanted pro-white allies. CI are delusional people but at least they want to live with whites only, they are anti-Jewish, pro-White Racist Christians. It's easy to see why an isolated Nazi would want to forge ties with them. Do I have to say this again? Rockwell was serving conflicting interests (NOI black supremacists and CI, either of them with esoteric Hitlerism), all of them being of suspicious origin in the first place. It's all over the place essentially. >>23428 Positive Christianity (which was just rebranded Zoroastrianism) was supposedly against Catholics, and yet I've already given several examples where Hitler is explicitly upholding Catholic ideals; thus both are unexplained contradictory ambitions. >>23432 That was my conclusion to the rest of my post which literally was giving such details.
>>23335 >Evola was a spook who essentially promoted metaphysical egalitarianism under the guise of racialism and "traditionalism" He was staunchly against egalitarianism. Even in his own methods into metaphysics, he nurtured the idea of elites of higher men, of greater spirit. You may say he was soft on the Jew and not focused on biological racism enough, but to call him a spook is hilariously bad. If not (((bad))). >He openly wrote about how the contemporary racialist movement, including that in the Third Reich itself was too "materialist" and that they need to be spiritual as well (even saying that a jew could be a spiritual Aryan). It's true, he said something along those lines and it's therefore apparent that he failed to see the deeper and also overall spiritual process at play within NatSoc. Evola had an habit of being critical of nationalism and the obsession of work, the reduction of man into an element of the whole which one could find an echo in being forced into fitting for the benefit of the race and Reich, although I'd personally find it logical based on the vagaries of these past times. Evola had very strong anti-industry and anti-technology biases which were not without merit, so it makes sense that he'd be weary of the mechanical aspect that rose within NS Germany. Germany was the produce of its own culture and greater environment based on relations with its neighbors, proud of its might and industry, and aware of the need to be able to defend itself. It can be said that Evola glossed over NS and had an inaccurate understanding of what went on, which we can correct today as we can appreciate the almost epic and divine tone taken by the rise and fall of that formidable power that fought against the Jews. Evola had his own theory, derived from what he collected about Tradition, so he always bent facts, historical or mythical, to fit with his theory. His political analysis and overall appreciation of the human psyche and its slow descent into the abyss on all possible planes including the spiritual one is barely matched by any other author. At the very least, Evola is an efficient source of criticisms about the European man. He is, however, not without faults. >the very existence of industrial society, which isn't a philosophical problem at all. I would agree. Again, he was largely anti-technology. He does not explain it so explicitly but one can easily guess it from his texts for he has no good to say about the modern sciences and technology as a whole. This is, perhaps unfortunately, based on what he has learned about the Golden Age, a topic which would deserve its own thread. He was extremely attached to this idea, he saw great inspiration in the perhaps distorted tale of this Golden Age and thus was very ferocious against anyone who would criticize the usual Traditionalist's interpretation of what this Golden Age was all about (see Evola pounding at Gordiano Bruno, it's spectacular). Again, the topic of the Golden Age deserves its own very thread and I suppose it could be a beautiful and very useful one. > Overall, Evola was a complete spook. That's a bitter and very cheap attack based on the few arguments you presented. My main grief about his analysis is his lack of exposure of the Jew. It would go as far as him describing the issues observed in the Western World and specifically the US as having appeared spontaneously. Where it's clear that the US Constitution was far from being a perfect document, how could we forget Benjamin Franklin's warning about the Jews? They were of such prophetic value, they got confirmed less than two centuries later, give or take. Evola, for his part, was clearly too soft on the Jews. For all his talks about sinister forces and even anti-Tradition, the fact that he couldn't recognize the role of Jews as agents of this revolutionary current is unfortunate. Evola does criticize the Jews but only through the prism of his theory of chtonic and feminine, shadowy forces. It would have been welcome from him to actually go all the way to the logical conclusion of this observation.
>>23335 >As for Rockwell It would not be the first time that a firm National Socialist would go through the effort of recognizing the commendable behavior of some Jew. These days, I believe it's a weakness because the Jew still carries in his genetic material the seed of Jewishness. It's the usual debate about Good/Bad Jews, or Jews of Aryan spirituality and Whites with a Jewish mindset. These oddities aside, you cannot be serious in attacking Rockwell. He like other National Socialists has openly stood against Jews, both through the doctrine he espoused and defended, and through his own literature. >His ideology still involved keeping the tradition of Jefferson and Franklin, which is masonic to its core and accepted jews as white (since Washington protected the jews of Newport and Charleston throughout his presidency, the jews were considered white under the 1790 Naturalization Act). Even IF they had accepted some Jews as White (provide proof btw of this claim), you'd be hard pressed to find a lack of antisemitism in these men. As I said in my former post, Franklin gave his fellow American men a clear and serious warning about the Jews. Kvetching about Masonry is absurd if you cannot realize that Masonry has been corrupted too, that not all Masons were retards or traitors, even if they would get too close to Abrahamic esoterism to my tastes (but then again, without going full CI retard, there are things to be admitted about the origin of certain elements within the Old Testament). > inject total degeneracy into society and negrify the population Provide properly sourced quotes please. >Then there's the fact he sought collaboration with both the Nation of Islam/black nationalists This is nothing new. The Germans looked for allies of other races too. An honest interest for the most virile aspect of Islam has also been observed within NatSoc circles and it is not a fantasy to claim that Islam would have been much more successful than Christianity had it not been so culturally Arabic. Yet we know today that it would not been a good solution. >Devi Who wrote very good books. But with Mathis everyone is a spook but Mathis himself. Yet if one were to use his analytical process against Mathis, his name, some numerology, one would find interesting things I'm sure. He's a total fruit cake anyway. Mathis either is a spook or an autistic mant who thinks in very binary way and cannot cope with the realization that numerology and providence can be spotted in human events and personalities.
>>23433 >It's because such supernatural metaphysics do lead to egalitarianism Monism is not the only metaphysical position, it just got shilled hard by certain (((societies))) over the centuries so now people can hardly imagine something different. That retarded philosophy got imbued into almost every religion, political system, "science" etc. and it is the very root of all the poz that we are witnessing today. It all started with monotheism/monism (focal point theology/ethics). You can clearly trace the degeneration of white nations since it's advent and spread, it just wasn't linear and had many setbacks (thankfully). If you want to conquer and enslave a group of people, you would make them adopt this kind of thinking, while making your ingroup exempt from it. Be it applied through religion, or (((secular humanism))). Jews and their masonic lapdogs have been doing that for countless centuries, and this advantage has progressively accumulated to the point where they got to rule the world despite being utterly subhuman and incompetent. Dispel this grand lie, this grand conspiracy, this miasma, kill their "god" and they will start flapping helplessly like fish on the dry. Because now they would have to actually compete for once, in a game that wasn't rigged from the start. The idea of social "progress", progressive politics is nothing else but another word for compound interest. Social capital is capital nonetheless, and their "end of history" is a point where these scoundrels have absolute control over every form of life on earth. You see, communism was a very capitalistic endeavor, it just capitalized on social capital instead of financial (while being financed by kikes nonetheless). Of course, commies didn't notice the irony. >and they're actually spiritual beings, then they're all equal Spirit, being of higher nature than flesh, would thus be even more differentiated and discriminating. You could make the same argument for materialistic philosophy, we are all made of atoms/carbon, hence we are all equal or have equal (total) potential (every set of atoms could have been arranged differently to create different things). Religious/metaphysical egalitarians argue that we are all equal at our highest source/expression (emanating point, (((god))), etc.), materialistic egalitarians argue that we are all equal at our lowest source/expression (and potential to become one or another). In essence, both of these are two sides of the same shekel, or two opposite facing, interlocked triangles. In both scenarios, we are equal at the source or total potential, be it material or immaterial. By taking a position that we did not emanate from the same point, and that our (individual and collective) essential natures are fundamentally different despite partaking in the same limited system, using the same framework, and that our physical form should reflect those essentially different natures, you demolish this artifice, this seal of Saturn. By opposing their false god, by spiraling centrifugally against it's center of gravity (rotation of the swastika), you eventually reach the escape velocity and and become a god in your own right. And due to other metaphysical principles, you also need a proper group/race to achieve that, physical manifestation included. Physical and metaphysical racialism are just two different aspects of the same principle, just like egalitarianism is. The only problem with certain authors is that they did not extrapolate these positions to their logical conclusions, they stopped at some point.
>>23407 Sorry for break in continuity. >>23407 in reply to >>23435 >>23418 in reply to >>23436
>>23426 >moar Who uses dated meme speak from the 2000s, in a serious conversation nonetheless? Someone trying to fit in, perhaps? >>23427 >based niggers >Mathis-kun You talk like a queer, if not an 8chan jew. Are you jewish and do you watch anime? Also: >oy vey the founding fathers never considered jews white, despite evidence showing that they did. Meanwhile I'll never offer proof showing that the founding fathers considered jews nonwhite. >oy vey I'll keep on saying 1756dc is a Miles Mathis shill even though he explicitly rebukes Mathis I don't know, maybe you're just an emotionally stunted fruitcake who is enamored by symbols and esoteric sounding words, but you're appearing to argue in bad faith now. I hope on your end it isn't on purpose.
>>23425 To further expound on this, Hitler was in charge of a roughly two-thirds majority Protestant German nation. While he came from a Catholic background (assuming what we're told about his upbringing is legitimate), why would he be potentially alienating the majority Protestant populace, who could be led into believing Hitler was turning Germany into a vassal state of Rome (given that there were Protestant publications outside of Germany declaring such)?
>>23438 >Monism is not the only metaphysical position, it just got shilled hard by certain (((societies))) over the centuries so now people can hardly imagine something different. That retarded philosophy got imbued into almost every religion, political system, "science" etc. and it is the very root of all the poz that we are witnessing today. It all started with monotheism/monism (focal point theology/ethics). You can clearly trace the degeneration of white nations since it's advent and spread, it just wasn't linear and had many setbacks (thankfully). If you want to conquer and enslave a group of people, you would make them adopt this kind of thinking, while making your ingroup exempt from it. Be it applied through religion, or (((secular humanism))). Jews and their masonic lapdogs have been doing that for countless centuries, and this advantage has progressively accumulated to the point where they got to rule the world despite being utterly subhuman and incompetent. Dispel this grand lie, this grand conspiracy, this miasma, kill their "god" and they will start flapping helplessly like fish on the dry. Because now they would have to actually compete for once, in a game that wasn't rigged from the start. Something we can agree on, for the most part. The thing is that while monism is not the only metaphysical position, most transcendent metaphysical worldviews (including what Evola subscribed to) are in many cases practically monistic. As I iterated before, different spiritual beings aren't separated, but different blood and flesh certainly is, and this is where western universalism mostly originates from (everyone has a soul -> all souls are equal -> all races are equal). >Spirit, being of higher nature than flesh, would thus be even more differentiated and discriminating >By taking a position that we did not emanate from the same point, and that our (individual and collective) essential natures are fundamentally different despite partaking in the same limited system, using the same framework, and that our physical form should reflect those essentially different natures, you demolish this artifice, this seal of Saturn. By opposing their false god, by spiraling centrifugally against it's center of gravity (rotation of the swastika), you eventually reach the escape velocity and and become a god in your own right. And due to other metaphysical principles, you also need a proper group/race to achieve that, physical manifestation included. Physical and metaphysical racialism are just two different aspects of the same principle, just like egalitarianism is. Sure, so how can different spiritual beings correspond to different races and thus have a level of differentiation between them? Why does Evola have to say that jews can be spiritual Aryans, with their jewish blood not corresponding with their soul? Their material and immaterial nature inequal? >You could make the same argument for materialistic philosophy, we are all made of atoms/carbon The Atomic theory is more a metaphysical idea than it is a physical science, Kanada in circa the 300s BC developed atomic physics sometime either before or after Democritus did the same, long before chemists in the 19th century started to support it. Having a true materialistic approach to the matter would end up with knowing that their skeletons, blood, and flesh are different and thus not all men are equal. While it isn't monistic like what metaphysical egalitarians believe in, it still is in a way, metaphysical. Physical anthropology alone simply cannot come to such a conclusion.
>>23401 No, he was kicked out because of his Jewish nature. I was pointing out that it's unlikely Rockwell knew as this came out after his death. >Sanity What are you talking about? He had a good run and layed out alot of theoretical work in his books and his movement fought against the Civil Rights movement he even went as far as to confront MLK. Not to mention birthed movements like "NSLF" and the like where we get Siege. You're the only one I doubt the sanity o. Who isn't a Jew in your defintion? I can think of no movement that has been pro-white while also not used as a smear campagin for the Jew. It's what they do, what do you think the Holohoax was all about? >Blacks Black seperatists who want to be away from whites could of been a better ally than most of the Right's modern day conservatives. We both had the same goals in the end. We just save fighting until after the ZOG has fallen. Imagaine how much eaiser this would of been. Blacks are nothing but our enemy now but if Elijah Muhammed had succeded in creating a potent force of Niggers to destablize the U.S goverment and unwaveringly demand blacks return to their home. The political climate would be alot more manageable as a result and we could of been fighting along side the nigger instead of against as we are now. There is of course no longer a peacefull soultion to the nigger question but for than brief period of time there was an opportunity and Rockwell and his movement was right in trying to exploit it for White intrests.
>>23401 Like sure he was a "black supremascist" but key point was that he was a "black seperatist" and anti-race mixer which made his goals and Rockwell's goals for a White America intercline. Imagine niggers deporting and segregating themselves; How can you not be for that? That's what the "Back to Africa" and "Black Zionist" movement was all about.
>>23448 >No, he was kicked out because of his Jewish nature Not because they "found out" he was a jew, only his overall character. >his movement fought against the Civil Rights movement He literally functioned as the strawman for the Civil Rights movement. Again, being controlled opposition, it in-reality helped it succeed. >Not to mention birthed movements like "NSLF" and the like where we get Siege. >Siege Are you shilling for Siege now? Now I'm starting to think you're a jewish infiltrator yourself. James Mason's whole life has more red flags than any other modern-day agent, he was supposedly going to commit a mass shooting at 14, but was saved by Pierce and learned from him of Rockwell and white nationalism, and later went to advocating for WN terrorism with Siege, when he literally was a contact of Manson (whom I suspect he was gay for), Later on he used both Satanism and Christian Identity (which he now is, apparently) to He functions as the ultimate strawman to attack pro-whites; making them all look like white trash skinheads who want to mass-murder. What he was doing was basically the same thing Crowley did with national socialists, whether they were legitimate or not, Crowley himself literally promoted them to make them look bad. Thus, I rest my case.
>>23450 *used both Satanism and Christian Identity to characterise his ideology
>>23450 Rockwell wasn't a strawman. He's a National Socialist, we are National Socialists. There is no strawman there; and your enemys attacking you means you are right not wrong. Never join someone who isn't hated by their enemies. The Jewish Media lies, they aren't going to stop lying because you put on a new suit or act "nice". Are you really proposing we shape our movement to what the Jews want? >Siege Siege is a good book. If you read it, it goes into detail about where and how the mass movement has failed and why it is unachivable. The movement would be a thousand times better if people read it and put it's ideas into pratice. So yes I'm shilling for Siege, read Siege. It's free. >James Mason He wasn't "gay" for Charles he respected him as alot of his political ideas and actions reflected James's and any self respecting National Socialist would never condone a man going out and attacking Jewish Hollywood. What a Jewish ad-hominen. "You're friends with a man, that makes you gay!" Last time I checked he was Atheist and says so in SIEGE alot. "Although I'm an atheist..." >Makes them look like white-trash skinheads We already look worse to the majority of people, and those "white trash skinheads" get alot more done don't they? Here you are again "waaah the JEWS don't like my apperance!!" People are lemmings they eat up whatever image the Jewish media spits out. Violence doesn't make you a degerate skinhead either that's absurd. While I agree we should be seperating ourselves from those KKK Degenerates we shouldn't shape our idealogy on how we are seen by the masses. All that does is dilute our message and idealogy and will still get us seen as "litterally the next Hitler" I mean that godamn Goofball Spencer is seen as Hitler. That guy? Come on kek. We should never hide our flags or our message. We should always say what we are NATIONAL SOCIALISTS and if the Jewish Media doesn't like that? And the masses are complaing? Who cares. We don't want those types of people in our movement anyways. They can only bring us down and suffocate the revoultionary core.
>>23458 condemn* >inb4 (((Freud)))ian slip "The NSDAP must never be a follower of public opinion, but must become the master of public opinion. It must not be the masses' servant but their lord." - Adolf Hitler, Mein Kampf, V2, Chp 6.
>>23440 >old memes, fake blender, 8kun jew, queer You forgot "ok boomer", retard. >jews white not white What about you actually provide proof that these all these leading American people saw Jews as Whites? You made a big claim with very little evidence to substantiate it. At best you got one single case exploited through some rather circumpolar reasoning based on what the status of Citizenship implied when applied to Hebrews, that from one single man's letter. >>23441 Huh, wonder why. Maybe because the greatest ally in Europe was actually Catholic so sending signs of goodwill towards the papacy was required? What age are you, ten? ffs >>23442 >Why does Evola have to say that jews can be spiritual Aryans, with their jewish blood not corresponding with their soul? Their material and immaterial nature inequal? Perhaps for the same reason that we had Jewish minded Whites men and women within our ranks for thousands of years too. Maybe Evola thought this would be mirrored. >>23450 >He literally functioned as the strawman for the Civil Rights movement. Again, being controlled opposition, it in-reality helped it succeed. You're a fucking basket case. So standing against Jews and their proxy Civil Right campaigns, thus being exposed to smearing, is CO? We're probably all CO now since we even dare to disagree with you. >when he literally was a contact of Manson (whom I suspect he was gay for) Friendship = homosexuality now? Please wake me up. And you, idiot, stop watching too many homo Frodo memes! > What he was doing was basically the same thing Crowley did with national socialists, whether they were legitimate or not, Crowley himself literally promoted them to make them look bad. NS guys rejected Crowley, he literally got BTFO. You seem to be at a war with basic facts. >>23458 >The Jewish Media lies, they aren't going to stop lying because you put on a new suit or act "nice". Are you really proposing we shape our movement to what the Jews want? Yes, let's go Zio-friendly civnat, Jews be jewed! 4D CHESS #MAGA
>>23458 >Rockwell wasn't a strawman. He's a National Socialist, we are National Socialists. There is no strawman there; and your enemys attacking you means you are right not wrong. He was though. He was a "national socialist" who believed in the constitution, a liberal document that national socialism opposes, which is itself contradictory, and moreover started the whole association with pro-whites and bastardised skinheads. He especially put the nail in the coffin by calling his party the "American Nazi Party" before switching to NSWPP. >The Jewish Media lies, they aren't going to stop lying because you put on a new suit or act "nice". Are you really proposing we shape our movement to what the Jews want? That's something I never said, no I don't want to suit my movement to jewish needs. Nevermind that the jews DO want skinheads and rednecks, it provides the ultimate strawman to them. You can't even understand my main point; or you're just a jew throwing a tantrum over my message, which I'm really starting to lean towards. >Siege is a good book. If you read it, it goes into detail about where and how the mass movement has failed and why it is unachivable. The movement would be a thousand times better if people read it and put it's ideas into pratice. Yep you're a shill. So many other books have already explained the same thing that Siege did, just admit you're shilling for it because it's a literal death cult. >He wasn't "gay" for Charles Charles was a known homosexual, and likely so was Mason (considering since he was young, he was an associate of Frank Collin who (unsurprisingly, being a jew), was a pederast). Why is it so hard to accept that Mason was gay for him? >We already look worse to the majority of people, and those "white trash skinheads" get alot more done don't they? They literally only hold pro-whites back, it's the other way around. >Last time I checked he was Atheist and says so in SIEGE alot. Siege was literally written decades ago. He wrote on "Siegeculture" that he became Christian Identity, but now the page is gone. He has a 370 page book called the Theocrat which expresses his full position on this now, so this really says for itself: https://archive.org/details/TheTheocrat4thEdition/page/n7/mode/2up >We already look worse to the majority of people, and those "white trash skinheads" get alot more done don't they? >Here you are again "waaah the JEWS don't like my apperance!!" Again, I was saying Rockwell along with John Tyndall in Britain basically started the image of WN skinheads in the English-speaking world. It's not that jews don't like it; I never said that. It's that it associates pro-whites with tattooed degenerates. >Come on kek. "Kek" indeed. This along with "based niggers" and "Mathis-kun" really does confirm where your lingo comes from.
>>23472 And you on the other hand, you type like a full on CIA agent. >At best you got one single case exploited through some rather circumpolar reasoning based on what the status of Citizenship implied when applied to Hebrews, that from one single man's letter. That was literally a letter written by Washington himself. Who better knew the status of citizenship than the president? He would've known if jews were citizens or not. You're using pilpul here to discredit my claim. Nevertheless, that, along with the fact that they owned slaves and enjoyed other perks of citizenship post 1790 confirms jews were seen as white. Again, only "free white men of good character" were naturalised citizens, thus jews were seen as such. >Huh, wonder why. Maybe because the greatest ally in Europe was actually Catholic so sending signs of goodwill towards the papacy was required? What age are you, ten? The papacy was not only independent from Italy, which was a secular state, Mussolini was a literal atheist for most of the time he was in power, so him being closely tied with the church or not wouldn't really matter to Mussolini himself. The population would've been Catholic, but Hitler wouldn't have cared for Italy's population rather than his alliance with the state more-so than his literal 2/3 Protestant population in Germany (plus, most of the land that Hitler tried to retake, Austria and the Sudetenland excepted were Protestant, thus it'd be an even worse situation for Hitler and his subjects after taking back those lands). Thus this argument is invalid. >Perhaps for the same reason that we had Jewish minded Whites men and women within our ranks for thousands of years too. Maybe Evola thought this would be mirrored. ..sure... The former is/was common, especially nowadays, but good jews? Not being a myth? >You're a fucking basket case. So standing against Jews and their proxy Civil Right campaigns, thus being exposed to smearing, is CO? Rockwell was a jester in his opposition to the civil rights movement, thus discrediting pro-whites and leading to the Civil Rights act; and yes, there were many dignified pro-whites during the era, the other side was full of communists, hipsters and degenerates (MLK was all three, he regularly had orgies). What better thing could happen for the already anti-white LBJ regime than to have the KKK and skinheads represent pro-whites? That allowed them to look like clowns and thus have a justification to sign the Civil Rights act. >Friendship = homosexuality See above post. >NS guys rejected Crowley, he literally got BTFO I'm saying what James Mason was doing with the NSWPP is basically just like what Crowley was doing with supporting contemporary pro-NS movements. I'm not implying Rockwell was legitimate before him, but you get the point.
>>23489 Not to nitpick, but Austria and most of the Sudetenland were overwhelmingly Catholic, but they would've only added 10% more to Germany's population. (also, hippies, not hipsters)
>>23492 Yes, that's what I was saying. >most of the land that Hitler tried to retake, Austria and the Sudetenland excepted The other lands (Elsass, the Polish corridor, Memel) were all Lutheran, and even their Catholic population were Polish and not German. If we also include the ambition towards reintegrating the Swiss into Germany, along with the Dutch and Flemings, all of these groups are divided between Protestants and Catholics with the former forming a majority back then. He also had a population exchange with the USSR where they sent their (Protestant) German population into German-occupied Poland in exchange for them sending Ruthenians, which is odd both in that they could've viewed the pro-papal Third Reich with hostility and that Hitler was later going to attack and destroy the USSR anyways, later sending these German settlers east back into the Baltic states, near the Volga, etc. to gain a sphere of influence over them, and this is where they used the Teutonic order (who infamously wiped out the Baltic Prussians) in their propaganda, this despite "banning" the contemporary continuation of it. >[T]he Nazis...after the occupation of Austria suppressed [the Order] by an act of 6 September 1938 because they suspected it of being a bastion of pro-Habsburg legitimism. On Germany's occupying Czechoslovakia the following year, the Order was also suppressed in Moravia although the hospitals and houses in Yugoslavia and south Tyrol were able to continue a tenuous existence. The Nazis, motivated by Himmler's fantasies of reviving a German military elite then attempted to establish their own "Teutonic Order" as the highest award of the Third Reich. The ten recipients of this included Reinhard Heydrich and several of the most notorious Nazi criminals. Needless to say, although its badge was modelled on that of the genuine Order, it had absolutely nothing in common with it. Less understandably Wikipedia explains their reasoning as the fact that "Roman Catholic military-religious orders had been tools of the Holy See and as such constituted a threat to the Nazi regime". Does this look like they saw the church as a threat to the Reich or ally?: >>23402 Also, about the modern Teutonic order, they're said to operate as a charitable organisation and also *excavates old castles and manages tourist sites in Israel*. That pretty much says all you need to know about them today. Friends of the Hanseatic jews back then, friends of the Israelis today.
>>23488 You clearly haven't read any of the "Theocrat" it's all against Christanity from an atheistic standpoint. Don't judge a book by it's title kek. >Rockwell Pro-Constiution No? Is your goal just to say as many lies as possible so I can't catch them all? >Rockwell wasn't suit and tie waaaah The reason he did "cartwheels" for the press was for that very reason. If he proclaimed his message in a somber and dignified way (as he already tried) he would be ignored by the press. But as soon as he adopted; stormtroopers and the name ANP. The Media was forced to respond and produce and deseminate his propaganda for him. Instead of giving his movement the "silent treatment" causing it to wither away. And it worked he got immense press coverage and immense membership. >The suit and tie people are scared away They would of never joined with the ANP no matter how clean it was. No doctor with a 401k and a house on the hill will ever be a National Socialists. It is the social outcasts we are aiming for. , the people with nothing to lose by being heathens in this modern society. Which is what we are. This society will make you homeless and jobless if you go against it; you really think a salaryman would ever become a heretic? And do you think it was salarymen who stormed Germany in 1933? No.
"Rockwell tried appealing to what I called the winners; to the teacher's and professors, to the doctor and lawyers and engineers, to the writer's and artists to the buisnessmen and craftsman, to his fellow military officers, to the carefull responisbl e men and women with steady employment and stable families. And he found while MANY OF THEM AGREED with him in principle, almost NONE had the morale courage to stand up and be counted amongst the righteous" - Dr. William Pierce
(520.02 KB 1652x1088 rockwell constitution.jpg)
>>23497 >You clearly haven't read any of the "Theocrat" it's all against Christanity from an atheistic standpoint. No; you haven't. It's clearly from a CI standpoint. Literally two pages in, he goes on about how certain European nations were lost tribes of Israel. >Rockwell Pro-Constiution >No? Is your goal just to say as many lies as possible so I can't catch them all? Filthy yid tells filthy lies. >wasn't suit and tie Not specifically suit and tie either. When I say dignified, I mean non-degenerate. The NSWPP clearly didn't see that. On the contrary, yes they should be loud, but also clean. "Der Untermensch" was literally used to refer to German anti-fascists (not being a racial designation, but being an agent existing in every race), and that was essentially what the KKK, NSWPP, NF etc. represented in the English world in the 20th century. And yes, the original SA members had a bunch of degenerates in their ranks, that's why they needed to be purged. Since you're resorting to jew-like behaviour so much and relying on strawmen and literal lies to even continue this debate, I rest my case.
>>23498 >>23499 Also, to clarify since you're inevitably going to pilpul using this comment (you said I was lying), when I say: >Filthy yid tells filthy lies. I'm talking about you. That's why I attached an image literally confirming that Rockwell saw the constitution as the golden mean between the need for order and need for liberty.
>>23489 >And you on the other hand, you type like a full on CIA agent. And you are totally right. >That was literally a letter written by Washington himself. Who better knew the status of citizenship than the president? He would've known if jews were citizens or not. We're talking about if Jew = White in their eyes, not about citizenry. It seems Washington made this confusion. Upon further analysis about the citation attributed to Franklin, I will retract my statement for it seems a total forgery from 1934. A pity. >The papacy was not only independent from Italy, which was a secular state, Mussolini was a literal atheist for most of the time he was in power, so him being closely tied with the church or not wouldn't really matter to Mussolini himself This is irrelevant if an entire country is of a specific religion. The leader is thereby forced to acknowledge this and align his politics adequately to avoid antagonizing these people. You're not going to say Catholics are retards and the Pope is a faggot if your main ally is 99% Catholic. Just try to use common sense. >The population would've been Catholic, but Hitler wouldn't have cared for Italy's population rather than his alliance with the state more-so than his literal 2/3 Protestant population in Germany (plus, most of the land that Hitler tried to retake, Austria and the Sudetenland excepted were Protestant, thus it'd be an even worse situation for Hitler and his subjects after taking back those lands). Thus this argument is invalid. And again his main ally was Catholic, and there were Catholics in Germany too. The argument remains totally valid. Not to say that I find it lame to try to debunk Hitler's reality or validity on the basis of one quote that goes one way when on the other hand, the NSDAP and SS have clearly shown a different picture overall. Politicians being politicians, I don't expect them to be 100% consistent, especially over the course of several years and more. >..sure... The former is/was common, especially nowadays, but good jews? Not being a myth? Bobby Fischer. I also met my fair share of liberal and atheistic Jews who displayed no cultural sign of their mother culture either. I would obviously not establish a political program on the basis of such possibly rare cases, but such cases seem to happen from time to time. Culture plays a lot into that, shaping the minds of people and making them walk certain paths which would have been ignored within a different context. >Rockwell was a jester in his opposition to the civil rights movement, thus discrediting pro-whites and leading to the Civil Rights act; That is just a gratuitous affirmation you throw. And obviously being wrong in one's way to go at the Jews doesn't make one CO. Pierce and Rockwell didn't agree on the method, although the former recognized that the people Rockwell attracted were clearly willing to be active in a very specific NS oriented way because that's what pleased them. Pierce thought Rockwell was too niche because of the NS symbology, while he tried a slightly more mainstream road, more tuned to American culture. Are you now going to call Pierce CO because he was trying to be more mainstream? The KKK was obviously infected, it had nothing to do with the one created on the heels of the Civil War's aftermath. But Rockwell stuck to what was true, to the ideals of NS Germany and tried to bridge them with the USA. But if you think Hitler/NSDAP was CO too, you're a retard and there's no point arguing with you any longer since this claim has been addressed way too many times in light of its "value" and properly debunked repeatedly. >I'm saying what James Mason was doing with the NSWPP is basically just like what Crowley was doing with supporting contemporary pro-NS movements. Please clarify this statement. You continuously think that being wrong on the method immediately means being part of some CO. Do you realize that some people might have just been... wrong? >>23494 > all of these groups are divided between Protestants and Catholics with the former forming a majority back then. And despite this admission, despite people such as Degrelle being Catholic, you still can't understand why antagonizing the Catholics would have been a terrible strategy? The core of the NS regime was largely pagan, yet they took great care not to offend Christians in Germany. For the same reasons why they bothered with such a thing as Positive Christianity, the same logic would explain why they would be careful with Catholics too, the second Christian religion within Germany, within annexed areas (or slated to be) and within allied countries. So please think.
>>23499 Considering that the motto of NS Germany was insistingly centered on the volk and that the US Constitution begins We The People, it's easy to see why an American would find in the idea of the Constitution and its original manifestation a great basis around which all White Americans could be united. So being attached to the Constitution is again a crime worthy of being called CO. >>23499 >"Der Untermensch" was literally used to refer to German anti-fascists (not being a racial designation, but being an agent existing in every race), and that was essentially what the KKK, NSWPP, NF etc. represented in the English world in the 20th century. The (((English world))). The way NS Germany used that word was the only valid way. What Jewish media and culture thought of it to use something similar against NS people is absolutely irrelevant. To our enemies, no matter our dressing code, our ways, our arguments, etc., we will always be vilified. NS, Fascist, WN, etc. We're the enemy anyway. > the original SA members had a bunch of degenerates in their ranks, that's why they needed to be purged. Right, but then are you claiming that all supporters of Rockwell were degenerates? >>23498 Perhaps the best evidence that recruitment should aim for military men or ex-military men, the case of warriors, of force and just violence when properly guided. Trying to appeal to workers and business people is most fruitless, they're always the last to barge in when it's comfy enough.
>>23522 >And you are totally right. So you're just going to admit you're a spook? Well, I rest my case. >not about citizenry After March 1790, only free white men of good character could be citizens. Thus if the jews of Newport were citizens, they were considered white. >You're not going to say Catholics are retards and the Pope is a faggot if your main ally is 99% Catholic. Just try to use common sense. 99% Catholic only in population. What do you think Hitler's alliance with Italy was for the Italian people? They were concerned with their own matters. Why would Hitler alienate literally the majority of his population (and of the German diaspora) just to appease Italy? Nevertheless, even if he was just not trying to antagonise the Catholics, he wouldn't ally himself so closely with the church, especially when at the same time Kirchenkampf was already a policy (which asserted anti-Catholic sentiment). >muh Bobby Fischer There are probably more "self-hating jews" than there are any such people of other races, and yet that doesn't make them any less jewish. >That is just a gratuitous affirmation you throw. And obviously being wrong in one's way to go at the Jews doesn't make one CO. Pierce and Rockwell didn't agree on the method, although the former recognized that the people Rockwell attracted were clearly willing to be active in a very specific NS oriented way because that's what pleased them. Pierce thought Rockwell was too niche because of the NS symbology, while he tried a slightly more mainstream road, more tuned to American culture. Are you now going to call Pierce CO because he was trying to be more mainstream? Pierce was right in rejecting Rockwell's method, not to discuss him right now. Rockwell literally believed in the US constitution, and tried to use it as his national document, so clearly he wasn't very national socialist in doctrine. Then he calls his party the "American Nazi Party", which is even less legitimising because "Nazi" was literally a derogatory word used for Austrians. That'd be the equivalent of a black nationalist party somewhere in Africa calling themselves the "Nigger Party". Along with this alliances, this just confirms how Rockwell was making himself look like a fool. >Please clarify this statement. You continuously think that being wrong on the method immediately means being part of some CO. Do you realize that some people might have just been... wrong? That's my point. I said in the medieval jewry thread (before this one was made) that even if Rockwell was legitimate, he still made himself look like a fool and was thus unwillingly a shill. >And despite this admission, despite people such as Degrelle being Catholic, you still can't understand why antagonizing the Catholics would have been a terrible strategy? See earlier about how he still didn't need to ally so closely with the church, and that Kirchenkampf was already going on anyways. >>23523 >Considering that the motto of NS Germany was insistingly centered on the volk and that the US Constitution begins We The People, it's easy to see why an American would find in the idea of the Constitution and its original manifestation a great basis around which all White Americans could be united. Nonsensical mental gymnastics. "We The People" refers to the people in a sense of the people being able to rule, not the ethnicity or whatnot. It's an explicitly liberal and explicitly democratic document incompatible with national socialism, even if the founding fathers didn't include jews as white, their entire vision was still liberal and democratic. >The (((English world))). I see you're trying to sneak anti-Anglo sentiment in here as well. This just adds to what I said earlier about you admittedly being a spook. >The way NS Germany used that word was the only valid way Exactly, and that applies to the NSWPP as it was. >Right, but then are you claiming that all supporters of Rockwell were degenerates? Not *all* of Rockwell's supporters, but the NSWPP was still swarming with them, which is why the NSM was/is full of skinhead degenerates.
Bump
>>23499 >Degenerate What part of Rockwell was degenerate? From him not accepting druggies to his expelling of people even slightly red? If that's degenerate what isn't. >Constitution God that is the mother of all quote's out of context here are some experts from litterally the next page of White Power; "They didn't believe in letting people select a president, being well aware of demogogury which plauges our nation today . Instead they set up an electoral college to guarentee selection, not of the most pouplar demogouge, but of the best statesmen to lead America." "The National Socalist White People's party believes our Founding Father's eatablished an AUTHORTARIAN REPUBLIC for which we stand, as did our forebearers." He was clearly some sort of Mosleyite at the least and clearly a Fascist while trying to garner votes from the masses which is almost impossible without appealing to the only source of American idenity at the time; it's republic. A move almost every movement has taken since then. Which while I do agree is not "National Socialist" is clearly not "controlled oposition" he still wanted to get rid of Negros and most if not all voting rights. >Theocrat He flips flops whether he is pro or not to be honest and either way it was written after Siege so it doesn't effect the validity of it's message.
>>23499 I mean what do you think isn't "controlled opposition"? If Rockwell and Mason are. If you name any part of the alt-kike I'm barfing.
>>23584 >What part of Rockwell was degenerate? From him not accepting druggies to his expelling of people even slightly red? If that's degenerate what isn't. Cherrypicking. His party ended up just like what the SA originally was, i.e. full of a bunch of bydlos that had to be purged. The NSM which is a direct succession of the NSWPP is an even bigger example of that. >"They didn't believe in letting people select a president, being well aware of demogogury which plauges our nation today . Instead they set up an electoral college to guarentee selection, not of the most pouplar demogouge, but of the best statesmen to lead America." >"The National Socalist White People's party believes our Founding Father's eatablished an AUTHORTARIAN REPUBLIC for which we stand, as did our forebearers." Even if that were true, they would've been even more liberal than Frederick II; "enlightened" absolutists, who still used enlightenment liberal values to run a country. When I talk of the liberalism of the founding fathers here, I'm not talking about voting rights, I'm talking about the entire enlightenment liberal philosophy to begin with. >He flips flops whether he is pro or not to be honest and either way it was written after Siege so it doesn't effect the validity of it's message. I was talking about how Mason's a spook that (today) uses both Satanism and Christian Identity to promote his nonsense. Now I already said that everything good Siege has, some other book already covered it. >>23585 Not many people that aren't already wrong themselves. In-fact, I've already said that there's no good philosophical pro-white movement that doesn't either dish out disinformation, support controlled figures (all of the alt-kike included but also Mason, Pierce, Rockwell etc.), or worst offender, is a group that thinks jews were kept in check until the enlightenment (which I have shown in the medieval jewry thread is clearly false) and that's the very reason I made this thread.
>>23523 Workers are the best place to recruit from not from ZOGbots who get their paycheck from the same system we want to do away with.
>>23524 >After March 1790, only free white men of good character could be citizens. Thus if the jews of Newport were citizens, they were considered white. in Washington's mind, yes. But we still need to look into the laws and other legal and official definitions to find a definition of white and also, perhaps, anything directly pertaining to Jews. If you have a point to defend—and it does have merit—you must do it correctly. >99% Catholic only in population. What kind of stupid statement is that? Not only the propaganda is meant for the population, but if you want to separate the subjects from the active and applied politicians, then they too were Catholics for the most part. >What do you think Hitler's alliance with Italy was for the Italian people? We are talking about public statements which are meant to be integrated to the overall propaganda, no? >Why would Hitler alienate literally the majority of his population (and of the German diaspora) just to appease Italy? Why would it alienate them? You think that Catholics and Protestants cannot be found in the same country. >Nevertheless, even if he was just not trying to antagonise the Catholics, he wouldn't ally himself so closely with the church, especially when at the same time Kirchenkampf was already a policy (which asserted anti-Catholic sentiment). What about adapting one's statements to the audience? It's Politics 101. >There are probably more "self-hating jews" than there are any such people of other races, and yet that doesn't make them any less jewish. I didn't say they were not Jewish, just of a different and better if not commendable character. The point I was making regarding Evola's ideas was clear so don't pretend not seeing it. But I also need to repeat that I don't share Evola's weak position on the JQ. He said things about Germany I can't excuse. >Rockwell literally believed in the US constitution Many right-wing Americans do because it provides a good enough and sensible set of rules. >and tried to use it as his national document, so clearly he wasn't very national socialist in doctrine. What makes you that. As I said, both the Constitution and a lot of the NS doctrine focused on the people. >Then he calls his party the "American Nazi Party" Yet many fanatics of NS Germany talked about Nazi stuff, that's the way Americans talk about it. >which is even less legitimising because "Nazi" was literally a derogatory word used for Austrians. It was a German creation, namely Goebbels, over Nationalsozialistische. Ownership of it went back and forth. Although I would point out the mistake it would be today, the idea of using it positively is not baseless either and also very practical. You could object to the use of Nazi for the same reason people object to the use of the word "racist" and tried to walk around this with "racialist" instead or other such half hearted attempts. Obviously here, we are pedant about it but there's a logic in using it for an American audience.
>>23524 >That's my point. I said in the medieval jewry thread (before this one was made) that even if Rockwell was legitimate, he still made himself look like a fool and was thus unwillingly a shill. Wow. So if he had gone with American National Socialist Party, he would have not made a fool of himself and suddenly his ranks would have swollen! Brillant! He so failed because of that little stupid word. Had he avoid did this N word he would have not been a shill. Do people here can't remember what the verb to shill actually means? >See earlier about how he still didn't need to ally so closely with the church, and that Kirchenkampf was already going on anyways. He gave the Catholic Church credit in fighting against the Jews because that's a thing RW Catholics love to hear and repeat. You would be an idiot not to understand the evolution of the NSDAP and Hitler regarding Christianity. Like it or not Europe was Christian. You also completely blow the statements out of proportion, disregard the timeline and think the kirchenkampf was an epic struggle when it was fairly minor. The opening towards the Roman Catholic Church started around 1933 or 34, led to a Concordat. Pope Pius XII's 1937 kvetching aside, nothing dramatically detrimental happened between Catholics and Hitler. >Nonsensical mental gymnastics. "We The People" refers to the people in a sense of the people being able to rule, not the ethnicity or whatnot. There are no gymnastics here, just you be stubbornly obtuse so as to refuse to see similarities and only accept the most binary and stiff analysis. It still proclaims its ideals according to the people and its destiny. I didn't say it was the exact same thing. So it's easy to see how one could quickly draw a bridge between a pro-Volk ideology on the one side, and a pro-People on the other one. You would suck at politics. > It's an explicitly liberal and explicitly democratic document incompatible with national socialism Just like what the NSDAP was before the German ELECTIONS, genius. Not to say that the Constitution was not meant to support this democracy we know of today. In a way, even Hitler's election is more debased than the original spirit, albeit flawed, of the Constitution. >I see you're trying to sneak anti-Anglo sentiment in here as well. Absolutely not you inbred moron. Why do you thing the accolades are there for? Just like saying (((USA))) perfectly implies that it's under Jewish control, not that there are no people of /ourteam/ in this country. > This just adds to what I said earlier about you admittedly being a spook. I used to work at the CIA for six years, mainly Pacific Ops, but moved to the private sector for better deals with Israel because they pay better than the stupid goyim. >Not *all* of Rockwell's supporters, but the NSWPP was still swarming with them, which is why the NSM was/is full of skinhead degenerates. And I presume you could actually prove that claim very easily? :-) (FWIW, the ANP was active between 59 and 67 under Rockwell, in the United States)
>>23599 >in Washington's mind, yes. In the entire government's mind because otherwise they wouldn't be citizens. Stop making mental gymnastics. >Not only the propaganda is meant for the population, For what population? Both the Italian and German population. So the 2/3rd Protestant Germany now has Hitler shaking hands with the pope in their propaganda. Very strategic, isn't it? He should prioritise Germany, not Italy. >but if you want to separate the subjects from the active and applied politicians, then they too were Catholics for the most part. They were serving under a secular and literal atheist dictator. Germany being pro-Catholic or not didn't really matter to them. >Why would it alienate them? You think that Catholics and Protestants cannot be found in the same country. Because he's clearly aligning himself with the pope, a move that'd be viewed with disdain by a literal majority Protestant population? Remember, most supporters of the NSDAP were Protestant, the Catholics voted for the Centre Party (which did align itself with the NSDAP, but still opposed many of its policies; many of its supporters later joined the Christian Democrats which Merkel runs today). Thus he's not only alienating 2/3rd of his population, but most of his voting bloc. >Politics 101 Contradicting yourself and justifying it with that is more like pilpul 101. >I didn't say they were not Jewish, just of a different and better if not commendable character Not really. What Fischer was going through was just a variant of the Esau gambit. Instead of Zionists or western globalists being the "bad" or "good" jews in this case, it's the "self-hating jew" vs. the outward jewish supremacist. >Many right-wing Americans do because it provides a good enough and sensible set of rules. No it isn't. It's based on the idea that "all men are created equal" which is incredibly wrong, and has been demonstrated to be wrong over, and over, and over again. It's wholly liberal, it's just that the modern-day right wing are essentially the liberals of the 18th century. >What makes you that. As I said, both the Constitution and a lot of the NS doctrine focused on the people. Again, the "people" of the constitution are not referring to the people as in, the race/volk. It refers to the same "people" in communistic discourse. >It was a German creation, namely Goebbels, over Nationalsozialistische ...after the anti-Austrian slur "Nazi". It makes zero sense, how can you get "Nazi" from "Nationalsozialistiche"? If you shortened the first two words, you would get "Naso" or at least "Natsoz", not "Nazi". Maybe in Italian where it's "nazional" but this is Germany, not Italy.
(65.32 KB 800x802 Hate-bus.jpg)
>>23600 >Wow. So if he had gone with American National Socialist Party, he would have not made a fool of himself and suddenly his ranks would have swollen! Brillant! He so failed because of that little stupid word. Had he avoid did this N word he would have not been a shill. Not that if he avoided it, he wouldn't be a shill. Again, another strawman, I said nothing about it in that sentence. It's because of his overall party stance, he did actually make himself look like a fool and thus increase the strength of the civil rights movement. >You also completely blow the statements out of proportion, disregard the timeline and think the kirchenkampf was an epic struggle when it was fairly minor. It wasn't minor though. Many people left the church and "Gottgläubig" (God believers) was a position recognised by the NSDAP consisting of people who left the church, around 3.5% (around 3 million!) of Germany's population in-fact. the same time Hitler met with the pope and pandered to the church. >It still proclaims its ideals according to the people and its destiny. I didn't say it was the exact same thing. So it's easy to see how one could quickly draw a bridge between a pro-Volk ideology on the one side, and a pro-People on the other one. You would suck at politics. This is like saying racialists should sympathise with communism because they babble on about "the people" all the time, even though they clearly don't mean the people in the same way racialists do. >Just like what the NSDAP was before the German ELECTIONS, genius. And is the NSDAP's ideology based on enlightenment liberalism? I mean, at this point you might as well say it is. >Absolutely not you inbred moron. You're implying that the Anglo world is infiltrated with jewry in response to what I said about the NSWPP and untermenschen, but then again, so are the Germans, and the rest of the world at that. You clearly have certain intentions in specifically putting the English world in paranthesis. >I used to work at the CIA for six years, mainly Pacific Ops, but moved to the private sector for better deals with Israel because they pay better than the stupid goyim. Yes, I know you're trying to hide your spookery by saying ridiculous, unfunny stuff like this. >And I presume you could actually prove that claim very easily? :-) Rockwell literally coined the term "white power" after "black power", among other such tomfoolery that led both to the skinhead movement along with the further negrification of the English world (that swarmed the NSM, again the successor to the NSWPP) and made anybody in the party look like some comic book villain. Look at the "hate bus" for example.
Having given some thought on Hitler and his relationship with the Vatican, I would not nitpick on whether or not Hitler was trying to win over demographics, which would be pragmatic, rather I would focus on: Why was Hitler trying to suck up to the Vatican when the Vatican openly verbally opposed him? Not just Hitler, but Goebbels too. Why did NS propaganda, which Goebbels had oversight of, bash the Catholic church while concurrently trying to suck up to it? Why did NS Germany push for Positive Christianity if they were trying to stay on good terms with the Vatican? Why did the NS leadership not care about sending mixed signals to the masses? And notably, why did Hitler say he was simply following church policy on the jewish issue, when church policy allowed the jews to lord in over the gentile populations? Could this be a "jewish wink" like the crypto-Hebrew insignia in the Waffen-SS?
(250.00 KB 1014x1024 NS Hammer & Sickle.jpg)
>>23607 And by "jewish wink" I mean little things in symbology or words that the fascists or national socialists would display, do, or say. One example is how the sickle and hammer were utilized in NS propaganda. Another example is one of an NS era movie, whose name I forget at the moment, that was a remake of a Soviet comedy movie. Why would they pay lip service to their supposed ideological enemy? Or why did prominent Third Reich leaders flee to Argentina, the most jewish country in the Americas after the United States? Why was Adolf Eichmann (who looked very jewish) captured in Buenos Aires, the most jewish city by population in the Americas (then and now) after New York City? Also, on the American side, why does Earl Turner fly a plane into the Pentagon on November 9 (written as 9/11 outside of the US) in "Dr." William Luther Pierce's novel, The Turner Diaries, published in 1978? Was Pierce, who was born on September 11, 1933, a predictive programmer?
>>23607 >>23609 You must really not like the polls numbers you're getting if you trumpniggers need to shill your shit on the deadest boards at the ass end of the internet.
>>23609 Holy fuck; he went full schizo mode. Argenitina the only non-shithole Latin American country at the time that also had no extradition clauses. Boy I wonder why people escaping the allies would go there? >>23595 NSM did I say the NSM? I said the ANP. Prove how the American - Nazi - Party lead by Commander Rockwell was "degenerate". >Mason Is he a Christian or a Satanist? Get your facts straight please and this again doesn't denote Siege and it's message. Nor is it a "death cult" this society is a death cult combating it is the opposite. >predective programmer This is a shit post right?
>>23609 To be fair, the usage of the hammer and sickle does predate Marxism, though it was still suspicious for them to use it as it was the main symbol of their enemy. Also refer to the general German-Soviet agreement with the USSR sending in their German population into Poland in exchange for Ruthenians, even though the Molotov-Ribbentrop pact wasn't an alliance. >>23612 Just another false accusation; no, Trump is a jew. Hopefully you're not that J-ulay /b/tard that spammed /n/. >>23613 >NSM did I say the NSM? I said the ANP. Prove how the American - Nazi - Party lead by Commander Rockwell was "degenerate". The NSM is a direct successor of the ANP, and its degenerate policies were allowed by ex-NSWPP officials. Either way, I've already given my example for why Rockwell's policies were degenerate: >>23606 >Is he a Christian or a Satanist? Get your facts straight please He used both to promote his nonsense. He apparently pandered to Satanists before and is now CI. You seem to be moving the goalposts now that you don't claim he's an atheist and that "The Theocrat" was an atheistic critique of Christianity. >again doesn't denote Siege and it's message I already covered why everything good about Siege's message isn't unique to Siege. >Nor is it a "death cult" It is though, it's essentially no different to communistic militarism, calling for mass destruction to bring about a collapse of the current order. Speaking of that, where do you think the slogan "from chaos comes order" comes from? Freemasonry, as "ordo ab chao".
>>3614 NSM still isn't ANP there were many "successors". You use the >hate bus and >White power as an example. What was wrong with the hate bus and what's wrong with showing off the dissodance people have with the word "Black Power" and how that's okay but not "White Power". Neither of these things are proof of degeneracy. >Siege Calling for the destruction of this current order is nothing but good. Are you against that? This current order is leading directly to our people's destruction. Destroying it is good. If that can not be done legally there is only one other soultion. It's basic math and Hitler would of supported it.
>>23615 >hate bus See the image I posted. Does this look like a professional pro-white movement to you? Literally driving around in a little bus with all these words. >White power It's not the idea of it that's bad, it's more or less the stigma of taking a page from the blacks, and repeatedly using their slogan to the point where it becomes a rallying cry for skinheads, which it has. >Calling for the destruction of this current order is nothing but good. You don't need to believe in a literal death cult like Siege to oppose it. Advocating for the current order to be destroyed by burning it all is something Jean Paul Marat and Lenin/Stalin would've called for (mass-murdering anybody they suspected of being enemies), that are at their core non-Aryan.
>>23615 Because "white power" is aping niggers, and saying "White Power!" sounds stupid and grammatically wonky, you wretched jew.
>>231617 Giving your enemies quarter when they give you none is not honorable or "Aryan" it's stupid. They are killing us and enslaving us following in the footsteps of our forefathers and rising up with righteous anger to smite these rapists of our people is nothing but honorable. How domesticated are you? >Hate Bus "All those words" It's called propaganda. I still see nothing wrong with it. Would you rather it be a big bus what do you have against "little busses" child hood memories coming ban to haunt you? >Black Power White Power, we stole the nigger's saying to make fun of it and use it for our own porposes. That's like saying we shouldn't use a sword because... the Persians also use SWORDS! A sword is a sword, power is power. White Power.
>>23620 >They are killing us and enslaving us following in the footsteps of our forefathers and rising up with righteous anger to smite these rapists of our people is nothing but honorable. I'm talking about massacring the general population when they disagree with you, I'm not attacking violence as a whole. That's reminiscent of communistic militarism, they believed that order came from chaos and so that's what they did. >propaganda It looks flashy and filthy. How is this supposed to make me think the NSWPP is a real pro-white organisation and not a group of clowns? >White Power, we stole the nigger's saying to make fun of it and use it for our own porposes. >That's like saying we shouldn't use a sword because... the Persians also use SWORDS! Swords aren't an invention of our enemies, and tools aren't the same thing as phrases. You approve of imitating dumb negroid antics and associating pro-whites with such negroid antics. If you haven't already outed yourself with your promotion of Siege and moving the goalposts in your failure to defend it, you have now.
>>23605 >In the entire government's mind because otherwise they wouldn't be citizens. Stop making mental gymnastics. I said: But we still need to look into the laws and other legal and official definitions to find a definition of white and also, perhaps, anything directly pertaining to Jews. If you have a point to defend—and it does have merit—you must do it correctly. I already gave you that on Washington. I'm interested in the legal material that deals with the white identity and perhaps anything directly related to Jews. Not all Hebrews would be white looking. >For what population? Both the Italian and German population. So the 2/3rd Protestant Germany now has Hitler shaking hands with the pope in their propaganda. Very strategic, isn't it? He should prioritise Germany, not Italy. How does it threaten any strategy? It's diplomacy. You go to Rome, you shake hands with the Pope, that's all. You're claiming a problem where there is none just to make a point about whatever. What you arguing on anyway about Hitler and the NSDAP? That they were CO too? What's your gripe that's so deep that you just can't stop pretend there were massive issues where there were none? >They were serving under a secular and literal atheist dictator. And? The message was not intended for the Duce alone so what are you menstruating all about here? Also, I don't recall Mussolini forcing his beliefs down Italians' throats, did he? >Because he's clearly aligning himself with the pope, a move that'd be viewed with disdain by a literal majority Protestant population? Can you be any denser perhaps? It's pure diplomacy. Do you think Germans would not understand that since Hitler went to Italy to do affairs with the Italians who were Catholics, it would be expected for Hitler to pay a little tribute? In fact, your silly speculation aside, prove that shaking hands with the Pope generated any kind of dangerous tensions within Germany and had the Protestants going for the pitchforks and torches. >Contradicting yourself and justifying it with that is more like pilpul 101. There is no contradiction. Again, it's basic politics. I mean, imagine Hitler saying fuck to the Italian population and giving the Pope the finger, because of muh protesting protestants. Just imagine. See? Now you get it. (I hope) >Fischer Obviously being a better Jew requires being critical of Jewry. What next? That's the point. I'm not trying to defend Evola but did he give something like a percentage of good Jews? >The Constitution Nobody said it was perfect but it was a solid starting point to have White Americans coalesce around Rockwell's party. You are also forgetting that it's a document they were seeing and interpreting through the prism of White Nationalism. For the same reasons Hitler made concessions towards Christianity despite the poison it contains, the same was done for the Constitution. Will you understand that? >People/Volk It was Nazis who were looking into this Constitution, it's rather expected that not only they'd see the problems in it, they'd also keep what they liked about it. In their eyes, We The People would not mean all people of all colors, they would certainly not let it pass. But for the present time, Rockwell needed something that was a cornerstone of American culture. It does not mean it was necessarily a good strategy but you may actually understand why they did it. >Nazi From Nazi Sozi, they kept Nazi.
>>23606 >Not that if he avoided it, he wouldn't be a shill. Again, another strawman, I said nothing about it in that sentence. >Not that if he avoided it, he wouldn't be a shill. So do you claim that if he avoided using Nazi, he'd still be a shill? >Again, another strawman, I said nothing about it in that sentence. What do you mean? You said using this word made him a fool and unwillingly a shill and I replied to that. I find your claim ridiculous. >Kirchenkampf Hitler sent a positive sign in 1933. When did all these Germans quite their faith? (and that's not a big number, it's only ~3%) +source? >Volk/People See post above. >And is the NSDAP's ideology based on enlightenment liberalism? I mean, at this point you might as well say it is. And is that going to make any difference to your argument since the German elections put Hitler in power through a process that was much more democratic than what the US Constitution intended for US citizens? And wasn't Germany a political system very close to a Republic since Hitler didn't get crowned? He was (on surface) a very secular authoritarian leader. Again, nobody said it would be one system would be a copycat of the other. But that is your main problem, you are awfully binary on this. It's either ALL or NOTHING. It's stupid beyond belief. >You're implying that the Anglo world is infiltrated with jewry I don't imply it, I state it with the usual method known in such places. You just made a stupid point about the use of the word untermensch by the Jews are their allies. I denied this use as per their redefinition. I stick with the NS one. Period. >Yes, I know you're trying to hide your spookery by saying ridiculous, unfunny stuff like this. It's the truth, I don't care if you don't trust me. I'm fairly capable of earning the trust of many people to obtain what I need from them. It pays very well. Maybe you sad you can't make that much money? Who gives, it's your problem. >Rockwell literally coined the term "white power" after "black power" And that's bad? We use the term redpill that is a direct reference from a SF multiracial Zion-loving movie made by two Polish guys turned trannies, all produced by a kike. Give me a break. I asked you for proof of the skinheads that supposedly hurt Rockwell's party so badly. Where is the evidence?
>>23607 >Why was Hitler trying to suck up to the Vatican when the Vatican openly verbally opposed him? Not just Hitler, but Goebbels too. He did not "suck up" to the Vatican, and the moves were done at the beginning of his mandate. Two years before the war, that was almost over. >Why did NS propaganda, which Goebbels had oversight of, bash the Catholic church while concurrently trying to suck up to it? Compare the dates and the content of the messages. >Why did NS Germany push for Positive Christianity if they were trying to stay on good terms with the Vatican? PC was going to affect Germany, over which the Vatican's influence was limited. They also changed minds. Pius XII wasn't happy, he kvetched, but nothing happened. >Why did the NS leadership not care about sending mixed signals to the masses? What's so mixed about them though? A hand shake with the Pope and acknowledging a (glorified) anti-Jewish legacy? Hitler might even have done that to force the Church's hand in being more antisemitic than it would have naturally been. >And notably, why did Hitler say he was simply following church policy on the jewish issue Because many Catholics really believe that the Church has a past in being anti-Jewish, both in Europe and through the scriptures: Jews killed God / The Son of, sons of Satan, despicable Pharisees, chasing Jews out of the Temple, etc. >>23609 >One example is how the sickle and hammer were utilized in NS propaganda. Two symbols which are not Jewish but maybe a mistake in strategy? Or perhaps they wanted to (re)claim them too. In fact I too would be tempted to do it. I might add a third symbol so it would seem like they're being reintegrated into a larger family. >Or why did prominent Third Reich leaders flee to Argentina, the most jewish country in the Americas after the United States? You tell me how Jewish it was, since it seems to have failed to catch them en masse the moment they hit the shores. They could also move to other places after that. >Pierce, the date OMG he was a spook too Perhaps his parents using kabbalistic magic and controlled the flow of semen and using Jewish magic to manipulate the rate of multiplication of cells.
>>23613 >Get your facts straight please and this again doesn't denote Siege and it's message. I don't think he wants to talk about Siege tbh so he's going to keep going in circles. >This is a shit post right? Mathis-kun prolly shat another exposing PDF, who knows.
>>23618 >white power >grammatically wonky KEK T4U
>>23264 That's the point of propaganda, to be flashy and push a message in the most condensed form. What do you expect us to put a whole paragraph on the side of the van explaining why race mixing is bad? That would be stupid and inneffective. >Violence When did I or Siege say "Kill random people" killing and harrasing your enemys is very different. Violence is the supreme authority from which all authority is derived. The Leftists currently have a monopoly on this violence and use it to keep conservitaves in line. By breaking up their monopoly we secure political power and lessen theirs; it's basic politics that every revoultionary movement is based on. You can only fight terror with terror; violence with even greater violence. You can play nice all you want, until your enemy hits you upside the head with that niceness and kills you. >Swords aren't an invention of our enemy Neither is the English Language. You have a stupid point "White Power" has no trace of the Negro message left in it. Nobody looks at that and thinks "Oh! It's clearly a black person or a wigger!" What?
>>23624 >>23635 >inb4 but muh leftist terror That's the thing; all attacks on the system are good. The system is our enemy and it's survival means our downfall. If a Black wants to rob a BRINKs truck, let him! Fuck the system it isn't ours to defend, that's the kike's creation! But as soon as they start stepping on us and our movement, trying to push os out of the streets we should fight back as I said in; >>23635
>>23629 >So do you claim that if he avoided using Nazi, he'd still be a shill? Yes, because it was just one of the things that made him a shill. >Hitler sent a positive sign in 1933. When did all these Germans quite their faith? <In 1939, 94.5 percent belonged to a Christian church, while 3.5 percent claimed to be Gottglaubig, and only 1.5 percent were without a faith >And is that going to make any difference to your argument since the German elections put Hitler in power through a process that was much more democratic than what the US Constitution intended for US citizens? Useless strawman. I wasn't saying that Rockwell was trying to get in using democratic means, I was saying that the constitution was based on classical liberalism. >use of the word untermensch by the Jews are their allies Strawman. I only ever referred to "untermensch" as in the original German definition. >We use the term redpill that is a direct reference from a SF multiracial Zion-loving movie made by two Polish guys turned trannies, all produced by a kike. That's why I don't use "redpill" often or at all. Again, another "strawman". Who's the "we" here, you and your jewish shill platoon? >I asked you for proof of the skinheads that supposedly hurt Rockwell's party so badly. Where is the evidence? Literally the image I attached. Are those people you want put in power? No, they look like filthy rednecks. >>23631 >Mathis-kun Another strawman accusing people of shilling for Mathis. >>23635 >That's the point of propaganda, to be flashy and push a message in the most condensed form. It doesn't have to look so disgusting however. Again, it's not something that would make people think the ANP is a real pro-white group. >When did I or Siege say "Kill random people" killing and harrasing your enemys is very different. In 2.15, he advocates for killing anybody "serving the system" of any level (hence why Atompfaffen members killed their mailman and considered that an achievement), and in 2.13 and 11.2, he advocates Stalinist-style tactics to create as much chaos as possible and try to destroy everything, and then bring order out of it. This is non-Aryan to its core. >You have a stupid point "White Power" has no trace of the Negro message left in it. It openly was created as a response to "Black Power". Thus just like negrified whites saying "lit fam" or whatnot, it's still Ebonics in origin.
>>23664 Making the mother of all omeletes here, Jack - Can't fret over every egg!

Delete
Report


no cookies?