Posts Tagged ‘the holocaust’

Fighting The Wrong Enemy Leads To Defeat By Our Own Hands

Thursday, April 13th, 2017

The Western media is the enemy not so much because it is evil by intent, but because it is evil by failing to do good, and it fails to do good because it is a business that sells information, and information that supports convenient illusions is more popular than information of a realistic or even relatively truthful nature.

Today’s trope is a dumb one, which is that Facebook is publishing child pornography, which is not quite true but we all accept it because we hate Facebook for being so popular and yet so manipulative and degrading to information, so whatever reason will snuff it is OK with us. Would that we get to the same outlook regarding Amazon, Google, Apple and Reddit.

Facebook is at risk of a criminal prosecution in Britain for refusing to remove potentially illegal terrorist and child pornography content despite being told it was on the site, The Times can reveal.

The social media company failed to take down dozens of images and videos that were “flagged” to its moderators, including one showing an Islamic State beheading, several violent paedophilic cartoons, a video of an apparent sexual assault on a child and propaganda posters glorifying recent terrorist attacks in London and Egypt. Instead of removing the content, moderators said that the posts did not breach the site’s “community standards”.

Stepping aside the logical fact that it is idiotic for Facebook to remove any content, since in theory its filters separate normal users from anything extreme, let us look at what has happened: in a frenzy to remove Right-wing material, Facebook has neglected jihadist propaganda, rape and creepy anime.

This mirrors what has happened to the West in general. Egalitarian systems tend to be backward-looking because they are conformist, and so whatever worked in the past that was rewarded is now what people will do until events force them to do otherwise. This is why people are still re-fighting and re-living WWII; it was the last time we had a clear ideological position, and so people ape it.

And so we had the situation during the last election, where fifteen candidates got up on the Republican stage and preached the same thing: strong on defense, pro-Israel, anti-abortion, pro-business. What was this but reliving WWII? They wanted someone who would defeat those evil Nazis, defend the Jews, stop the wartime promiscuity and advance our economic interests, which happened quite a bit in WWII.

That brings us to a point where ideology replaces practicality entirely and we end up living in a weird fantasy world where it is more important to fight symbols than achieve results:

The museum didn’t hesitate to sharply condemn Richard Spencer, a vocal Trump supporter who organized a gathering of white nationalists in Washington in November. Spencer “said that America belongs to white people,” the museum noted in a statement. “The Holocaust did not begin with killing; it began with words.”

Back in reality, America was founded by white — Richard Spencer sensibly uses this as a synonym for WASP — people who made it according to their needs. They used some African labor, but this was a minority of the labor done, and without it the empire would have been created anyway. They also used some Mexican labor, mostly out of pity for the poor illiterate peasants than anything else, but again, this was not necessary.

In reality, homogeneity works for nations and heterogeneity does not. Israel itself is discovering this with Palestinians, and many people there are discovering that asserting European-style nationalism is their only way to survive the onslaught from the surrounding third-world, Arab-descended population.

If we go even further in realism, the Holocaust did not start with words, but with diversity. Jewish people left the middle east during the diaspora, and ended up first in eastern Europe and next in Germany. During this time, something glitched; accusations of racial preference against Germans, and of nepotism and Communist sympathies among Jews, boiled over during WWII. WWII, again.

Our old propaganda is dead and tired. It worked back then, but produced horrendous results, so we are re-trying it now because in egalitarian societies all decisions are made by committee, and committees favor that which is uncontroversial, such as repeating the past. But in doing so, we have ignored real threats.

Real threats? Our society is decaying from within; the West has fallen, replaced by an ersatz nu-West we call Amerika. Islamic and Asiatic invaders are attempting to destroy us. Eurasians want to invade. Our financial system is failing because of too many make-work jobs and regulations. Our technologies have not advanced. We are flailing and cannot admit it.

Instead, we are going to focus on symbols that the crowd knows. They know the WWII propaganda, so expect they will get social approval for repeating it in new and exciting ways, as has been the case for the past seventy years. And yet, this fails for them, because other events keep popping up that have nothing to do with their interpretation of the narrative.

The point is that in the West, we need a new narrative. We are not the people of the Book, nor are we egalitarians. We are not refighting WWII, nor are we refighting the Cold War. We are fighting for our lives, and the sooner we rid ourselves of false targets and focus on actual threats, both internal and external, the sooner we have some coherence in our dialogue about the future.

Burying Hitler (Finally)

Thursday, March 16th, 2017

No matter what side of the aisle one appears on, Adolf Hitler presents a divisive figure. Although he is demonized in the West, much of that has to do with the need to produce a non-Leftist killer to compete with The Terror in France, Lavrentiy Beria, Pol Pot and Chairman Mao who killed far more and for far less purpose.

At the same time, The Holocaust troubles us. We know that Hitler wanted to relocate Jews first to Israel and then Madagascar, but was blocked by the Allies in both attempts. Albert Speer in Inside The Third Reich describes the forced labor program that attempted to use the Jews to produce munitions, and its failure. And then we have the Wannsee Conference, which produced some troubling language:

Under proper guidance, in the course of the final solution the Jews are to be allocated for appropriate labor in the East. Able-bodied Jews, separated according to sex, will be taken in large work columns to these areas for work on roads, in the course of which action doubtless a large portion will be eliminated by natural causes.

The possible final remnant will, since it will undoubtedly consist of the most resistant portion, have to be treated accordingly, because it is the product of natural selection and would, if released, act as a the seed of a new Jewish revival (see the experience of history.)

…The evacuated Jews will first be sent, group by group, to so-called transit ghettos, from which they will be transported to the East.

The question arising here is one of literality: does “transported to the East” mean sending them to their deaths, by means of the “so-called transit ghettos,” which are known today as concentration camps like Auschwitz-Birkenau? Or was it literal, meaning that they would be sent somewhere to the East once the Nazi war machine conquered the territory?

One possible answer is found further in the document:

The beginning of the individual larger evacuation actions will largely depend on military developments.

Even in 1942, Nazi success in Russia was highly in doubt. For one thing, all of these military leaders had read European history and knew of the difficulty of invading such a vast and inhospitable terrain for previous armies. They were also aware of the raw population differential between Russia and Germany, the American lend-lease program, and other factors working against them.

However, none of this seems relevant. What matters is that under Nazi authority, Jews perished, although the bulk of the deaths now attributed to The Holocaust occurred in Eastern Europe at the hands of partisans who anticipated German conquest of their homelands. This places responsibility on the Nazis.

Naturally, few of us — even some of the raging anti-Semites out there — want to approve of this. It is at the least some kind of tantrum inspired by the same Leftist mania as The Terror, symbolism taking over from reality. At best it is administrative incompetence and callous indifference to human life.

Once we are past The Holocaust, however, we can see that Hitler was like every other world leader: a mixed bag. The bulk of what he did was uncontroversial and beneficial, much as many things that Stalin did were about what a Republican or Democrat candidate in America might have come up with to solve the same problems.

Do we blame Hitler for the Autobahn? His war on cancer? The ground-breaking Nazi environmental policy? And clearly he was right on some big things: diversity does not work, in any form. Communism is insanity. Democracy is dysfunctional. The Americans and English political structures had become corrupted from within.

On other fronts, he seems simply wrong not in a moral sense, but a historical one. Socialism does not work, although Hitler adopted the same form that the US and Europe were using at the time. Dictatorship does not work, either, but that does not mean that democracy worked any better except by historical accident.

Approaching Hitler and the war with balance we see that a complex, nuanced, and detailed view is required to get anywhere with the study of this period of time. The typical narrative that we impose on every war, such as “Saddam Hussein was a terrible man who murdered dissidents and gassed Kurds,” is like all great lies partially true and misleads us into action we would otherwise not take.

Hitler strikes me as interesting among recent Western leaders because he may have done this to himself. The aesthetics and symbolism of Nazi Germany were massively powerful, and it seems likely that Hitler found himself correctly understanding needs but not the solutions to get there, and thus falling back on primal and uncontrolled responses like The Holocaust.

Our goal in the future is to recognize with every leader what they did right and wrong. Stalin had some good ideas about military organization. Hitler was right about the environment, diversity and democracy. This is how we will remember them: as junctures in history where certain things were learned that we can carry on into the future.

For this reason, it makes sense to bury Hitler and lose the historical guilt and instead learn from the past:

“History is a whore of politics,” Björn Höcke, one of the party’s most radical politicians, said in an interview. “A great people like the German people, which lost two world wars in one century, no longer has a historical narrative of its own.”

In an ornate Dresden ballroom in January, local AfD candidate Jens Maier told the crowd that what he called Western Allies’ re-education efforts after World War II led to Germans being convinced “we are bastards, criminals, that we are worth nothing.”

As his voice rose, Mr. Maier hollered into his microphone, to applause: “I hereby declare this cult of guilt to be over! To be over, once and for all!”

At this point, German historical guilt serves nobody because it can only weaken people. It weakens Jews by making them identify with being victims. It weakens Germans by making them afraid to act. It weakens Europeans by making them doubt their own need to exist, instead going into a pacifistic wonderland for fear of being like those evil Germans.

Even more, we realize that Hitler was ultimately right about a number of things. Diversity cannot work and never will. The environment needs protection through the Nazi method, which involved limiting the amount of land that could be used. Democracy has done nothing but produce a further Leftward slide in the West which has made life miserable and driven us to insanity.

As Hunter Wallace writes in a related article:

In the 21st century, Swedes live under the same Iron Curtain of political correctness, multiculturalism and mass immigration as the British, the Germans and the Americans. Do you know who really lost the World Wars? It was all of us.

The White race was the loser of the 20th century. We started the 20th century as the rulers of the planet and ended it under siege in our own homelands. Everyone who was unborn at the time was the loser of those disastrous wars. Liberalism was the victor.

In other words, just like the Napoleonic Wars, the World Wars were wars of Leftist ascension that ended with Europe weakened and divided against itself. Now we live under another Iron Curtain, one which just like the last one is a product of liberal ideology, which now as then is based in egalitarianism, internationalism and population replacement.

None of this is new. There is one way of living which works for civilizations, if they want to be great, and any deviation from that leads down this path to breakdown. Plato mentioned how tyrants spoke of equality and imported “foreign” people to be their allies, shortly before taking control. History repeats itself.

The question for the West now is whether we can bury Hitler, accept what he got right and discard his horrors, and then apply that same standard to Leftism. We are living in a horror as great as Nazism or the Soviet Union, and every year for European-descended peoples has been this way since we allowed Leftism to take over in 1789 with the French Revolution.

Hitler was wrong to think that we could beat modernity with a modern-style society, as Nazism created. We cannot find any good in this thing known as modernity. Instead, we must escape it by recognizing that it is a false type of existence, and that we need to choose the method of civilization that works no matter what year it is, or soon we will be buried just like Hitler.

Why Jews should abandon The Holocaust

Saturday, February 27th, 2016


We should never forget The Holocaust. Not only was it a tragedy, but it is an example of where right-wing movements should rein in their emotions and look toward fairness and practicality. However, it is currently killing the world’s Jews, even if the reasons why are invisible.

The Holocaust is a huge industry. It brings in hundreds of millions of dollars for survivors organizations and civil rights groups. But it also carries with it a weight which is that of being victims, and this is dooming Jews to a role they do not need to fulfill. In the name of the few who make a living, the many are confined.

When you style yourself as a victim, this infects all of your thinking. You no longer think, “What should I do?” but think about what a victim would do, namely revenge himself on his victimizer and only long after that, worry about what else he should do in life.

It also makes you sensitive to not victimizing others, even if their “victimhood” is nonsense. For example, Middle Eastern immigrants — errr, Palestinians — in your native land will claim they are being victimized. In reality, they are a population of lower IQ that belongs in nearby lands like Egypt, Syria and Jordan. But you can’t say that if you style yourself as a victim.

It does not take a rocket scientist to see The Holocaust was bad news. But many ethnic groups overcome near annihilation. What does it say about you, when you are stranded on this one event? It proclaims weakness and inability to act in self-interest.

Much as Europeans should get over perceived slights of the past, and they really should, Jews should not imprison themselves in the category of victim. The past is past; Hitler is buried or at least gone. We need to think about the future, all of us. This requires leaving grievance behind and looking toward the horizon.

A Provocative Email On The Holocaust

Monday, February 8th, 2016

As longtime readers may note, I oppose anti-Semitism and genocide because they are surrogates for the activities we must do that will displace those activities, in addition to moral misgivings about mass killing and attempting to eradicate any of the forms of human or natural biodiversity.

While many of the Holocaust-related memes are funny — but not as funny as the FREE HELICOPTER RIDES! memes — any time you find yourself wanting to wholesale slaughter people, you have given up your soul and lost sight of the fact that better methods of achieving your aims exist, including ones which do not lead you to spiritual hardening that will obliterate all that is good about your people.

Recently an email came across my desk which outlined some interesting theories on The Holocaust, and an excerpt from it is reproduced below, edited for clarity and completeness:

I made myself familiar with all of the available data in the 1990s, which then was entirely new, since previously one had to know of a group and order books through them (via a check in the mail, no less). If I were to attack the Holocaust [in order to rehabilitate Germans and/or Nationalism] I would do it this way:

  1. The important fact is that Jews were under German jurisdiction, and therefore Germans are responsible for their fate. However, the British refused to allow Germany to relocate the Jews, many other countries would not take them, and Allied bombing made other options impossible. Further, the Jews in these camps mounted a resistance effort during wartime which was bound to result in collective punishment. For this reason, German jurisdiction and responsibility were “imperfect.”
  2. We must look closely at the language of the Wannsee decision and interpret what was meant by it; this is, in my view, the crux of what proves the Holocaust in the historical literature. Was it correctly translated? If so, what was this decision in response to?
  3. At the time, concentration camps — as invented by the British in the Boer War — were used to house political prisoners in conditions that were known to eliminate many of them by disease. This was accepted by the international community before the Second World War, which may have been interpreted by the Germans as meaning that their actions were not controversial.
  4. Disease killed most of the victims of WWII; this seems to be also true in the camps, since all of the bodies were emaciated, showing signs of malnutrition and (probably) [diarrhea, which worldwide is the second-biggest killer of children to this day].
  5. Most of the Holocaust deaths occurred in Eastern Europe and the Baltics, where people rounded up either Communists (who were up to 40% Jewish) or Jews and executed them. How widely known was the Katyn Forest massacre, and how much of this was anti-Communist activity that inspired anti-Semitism and not the other way around?

[The Holocaust in this context is] a dead issue: the world has retroactively demonized many activities like slavery and genocide in order to strengthen the posture of the winners, so the Holocaust — in which the British and Americans were as complicit, though not as directly so, as the Germans — cannot be used to invalidate any political beliefs because of the context in which it existed. However, the events that set it into play occurred under German jurisdiction and were possibly avoidable. We must ask what options were open to the Germans for avoiding those events, and how complicit the British and Americans were in precluding them. This is the actual political significance of the Holocaust.

It also makes sense to point out the seemingly unthinkable: the Holocaust benefited Jews by enforcing a population bottleneck that saved the wealthier and more intelligent and killed off the less successful and less intelligent, and that right now, the Holocaust as a mythos is destructive to Jewish people by encouraging them into a victimhood mentality which creates defensive thinking. Understanding these things is crucial to avoiding future genocides and understanding the context of the Holocaust, which is a mixed bag. I will never support it, nor will I support the American nuclear attack on Japan or the firebombing that preceded it, among many other atrocities of that war and the Cold War to follow. But when put in context, and this is the crux, the Holocaust was not exceptional and therefore as a mythos, it is destructive to Jewry leading to the death-by-outbreeding we see in Jewish populations now.

Perhaps that gives you a broader view of my thinking on this. We have a lot of White Nationalists [in the writer’s country of origin] who endorse the Holocaust, and I find their thinking dangerous. Purging the Jews will not rid us of the spiritual disease of the West, but it will act as a substitute for taking necessary actions and destroy us us.

I am increasingly in favor of the Madagascar solution for the Jewish people as it would give them a highly defensible, stable homeland to which we could move all of the sacred relics of Judeo-Christianity in the world. This would give the Jewish people the end of the diaspora and the independence necessary to continue their own evolution, which the ancient sages of Judaism outlined, and is contrary to any form of passivity as is currently endorsed by mainstream Jewish leaders that is killing their people from within.

Nature is uncompromising in principle but not deliberately cruel in method; in fact, its methods may be engineered to avoid greater cruelties through more sudden and dramatic turns of events. Nature operates by constantly refining animals, plants and ecosystems to be more efficient and — for lack of a better term — more beautiful.

There is no beauty in The Holocaust. Nor is there any goodness. No matter how it happened, it occurred under the command of the National Socialists and this is why we hold them accountable for it. However, that does not invalidate other acts or beliefs of theirs which do lead to beauty and goodness, like nationalism, deep ecology and a family-oriented, culture-driven society.

American exceptionalism is not what people think it is

Saturday, September 14th, 2013

american_exceptionalism_versus_the_useful_idiotsAs Barack Obama finishes up the job Bill Clinton did, which he was hired to do by the same clowns who brought us the vapid liberalism of 1968 and the slavish praise of the hippie era that comes from those too burnt out to recognize they’re worshiping dead ideas, we hear a lot about “American exceptionalism.”

We especially hear this from people who are too exhausted and frustrated with modernity to notice that they’ve become the 2010s version of the 1930s “useful idiots.” These have turned to Russia as their new vision of what will save the West. They are convinced American exceptionalism, whatever it is, is dead.

Even worse are the bloviating idiots in our media who specialize in using terms without defining them and then, by adjusting those meanings, claiming either salvation or destruction from miniscule alterations in actual reality. According to them, American exceptionalism is both over and transformed into its essential form, diversity.

I’ll submit a different point of view, which is that American exceptionalism is misunderstood. Further, that each party is misunderstanding it because they cast it in their own image.

First, what is American exceptionalism? A qualified source explains:

American exceptionalism is a concept that was shared by observers throughout the Western world, not just Americans. The Founders certainly believed that they were creating something of extraordinary significance. That’s why the motto on the Great Seal of the United States is novus ordo seclorum—‘a new order of the ages.’ But it was foreigners who took the lead in describing the United States and Americans as being unlike all other countries and peoples.

American exceptionalism does not imply American excellence or superiority. Americans tend to think that most of the traits of American exceptionalism are positive, but others, especially European elites, have always disagreed. Even those of us who think they are positive must acknowledge aspects of American exceptionalism that are problematic.

In other words, American exceptionalism posited a new way that broke from the past and was unique. It was not necessarily Utopia, or a superiority trip. It was however seen as different. But then we have to ask: what was it that made America different?

The mainstream media people want you to think it was our hyper-extension of democratic thought to include equality between all people. And yet, this idea existed long before America but was not stated in such radical terms. For them, America is personal equality. This is the essence of liberalism.

The UIs want you to think that America is exceptional for her military empire. They see the post-WWII period as one of American interests predominating. But much as with Rome, America’s empire spread not by deliberate acts, but incidental ones in order to preserve trade and communication.

For many others, American exceptionalism was an economic concept. You could move here, and in Horatio Alger style, build an empire from nothing. It was the land of opportunity. When this was opened up to non-white populations in 1965, it became an “escape valve” for the developing world.

But if we look at history and seek out what actually caused America’s uniqueness, can it be found in politics, economy or military? I would argue that we should be looking instead at the one thing the pinhead social scientists cannot measure, which is culture and spirit.

American exceptionalism is an outlook. It’s a practical viewpoint borne of waking up in a new land with nothing but what you can make with your two hands. As a result, it’s the re-booting that Europe fears. Breaking from tradition enabled us to escape where that tradition had become corrupted or self-serving of special interest groups.

What defines America is the frontier. Unlike Europe, we recognize that without a constantly expanding target, stagnation occurs and we become an inbred bureaucratic state living off the greatness of the past and parasitizing its own citizens.

That isn’t to say that people in Europe do not recognize this as well. F.W. Nietzsche first among them, Europeans recognized the moribund path of their post-Enlightenment society. However, America is unique in that it pursues a frontier both socially and intellectually as well as physically.

People have been trying to drag America down for years. Barack Obama is representative of these but not unique. They all have the same attitude: instead of focusing on the frontier, we should subsidize our own people. They ignore the fact that subsidies/welfare are a denial of Darwin, where the frontier is his affirmation.

As the Bible says, “The poor will always be with you.” Society is not a zero-sum game, where some win by taking from the others, but a question of each producing enough for itself. When some are non-producers, or can only be producers when told what to do, evolution leaves them behind.

Society suffers when it turns its focus from a frontier to those who are losing out. That’s exactly what Obama and his crypto-Marxist liberal cadre want us to do. It’s also the system under which Europe runs, a kind of benevolent socialism. Yet as Nietzsche notes, Europe was strongest when it had the opposite attitude and ground the lesser under its bootheel even within its own borders.

In the coming months, the UIs and their allies will do as much as they can to try to destroy the USA. But, much like The Holocaust, this is a case of expending necessary energy on a false enemy. The real enemy is the turning away from the frontier, liberalism, and wherever it exists, the West will fail. Including Russia.

Recommended Reading