Dawkins: Q&A Atheism and The Future July 07 (1/3)

See all three parts here.

Homo Americanus

Jew Gottfried on Sunic.

A polyglot Croatian scholar, Tomislav Sunic, provides in his newest book, Homo Americanus: Child of the Postmodern Age, reasons that a good European should distrust the US. These reasons are significantly different from those that one might encounter in the Euro-American leftist and mainstream press, e.g., that President Bush is a Christian maniac who is unleashing an anti-Muslim crusade against a Middle Eastern people or that Americans have taken an inexcusably long time to introduce homosexual marriage or, most ominously, that we treat illegals from across our Southern border with xenophobic brutality. Sunic gives the proper reasons that Europeans should despise us, namely, because we are hostile to European national identities, because we have contributed to bringing to Central Europe Frankfurt School brain-laundering and last but not least, because we try to substitute for concrete historical traditions such notions as propositional nationhood and the ideology of human rights. In his elaboration of these grievances Sunic is entirely on target, and the fact that he has had to publish his manuscript (as far as I can determine) with his own funds speaks volumes for the difficulty of publicizing non-orthodox views on certain subjects.

Corpus Callosum Morphology in Capuchin Monkeys Is Influenced by Sex and Handedness

Capuchin monkeys are playful, inquisitive primates known for their manual dexterity, complex social behavior, and cognitive abilities. New research now shows that just like humans, they display a fundamental sex difference in the organization of the brain, specifically in the corpus callosum, the region that connects the two cerebral lobes.

YouTube for scientists launched

Check it out here.

The non-politically-correct reincarnated Nazi group

Description

The non-politically-correct reincarnated Nazi group.

The purpose of this group is to provide a forum for free discussion for people who believe they’ve had a past life in Nazi Germany or one of the other Axis Powers, or a spiritual connection to this era. Those interested in the historical period, but unsure of their spiritual connections, are also encouraged to join.

All topics related to our past lives and their impact on the present, such as Axis history, related current events and philosophical matters are permitted here, including controversial views regarding politics, race, religion, occultism, and spirituality. Please keep conversation civil. Namecalling, ethnic slurs, and ad hominem attacks are not allowed.

This list is not “safe space”, and its primary purpose is not “healing”. It is “enter at your own risk” territory. This list is intended for intellectually-mature people. If I have reason to suspect you are not, you will not be approved.

We now return you to the 21st century. Have a nice day.

Sign up here.

How To Speed Up Evolution: Switch Goals

Science Daily — Is heading straight for a goal the quickest way there? If the name of the game is evolution, suggests new research at the Weizmann Institute of Science, the pace might speed up if the goals themselves change continuously.

Ancient human mtDNA genotypes from England reveal lost variation over the last millennium

Abstract

We analysed the historical genetic diversity of human populations in Europe at the mtDNA control region for 48 ancient Britons who lived between ca AD 300 and 1000, and compared these with 6320 modern mtDNA genotypes from England and across Europe and the Middle East. We found that the historical sample shows greater genetic diversity than for modern England and other modern populations, indicating the loss of diversity over the last millennium. The pattern of haplotypic diversity was clearly European in the ancient sample, representing each of the modern haplogroups. There was also increased representation of one of the ancient haplotypes in modern populations. We consider these results in the context of possible selection or stochastic processes.

Serious. Cold. Stunning. Walt and Mearsheimer Arrive in Hard Covers

I’ve read their study, I’ll probably get the book as well.

Some time in the next few days the website israellobbybook.com will be activated–right now it’s a blank–and The Israel Lobby and U.S. Foreign Policy, by John J. Mearsheimer and Stephen M. Walt, will be published by FSG. This is a historic book. The authors’ LRB paper last year created an intellectual sensation I’ve never witnessed, and notwithstanding the desire of the lobby that the book disappear, I imagine the splash this time will be mainstream. Walt and Mearsheimer will be on television. That likelihood is increased by David Remnick’s flat assertion, in an advance piece on the book that generally threw water on the scholars, that they are right to say that the lobby bears responsibility for the Iraq war.

Listen to Dr. David Duke on this topic here.

Americans: Fat, Dumb, and Ugly?

That seems a bit harsh…and totally appropriate.

Satan clearly rewards His minions!

Rushdie’s wife Padma Lakshmi. All I can say is: “Well done, my man!”

Remembering Lincoln (with contempt)

The following is a selection from “States’ Rights Vs. The Supreme Court” by Thomas Wilcox.

“For Americans of long extraction the legend of what went on in this country through the years 1861-1865 is one of inexpressible melancholy and sorrow. For, the Civil War, or the War between the States as it is still called in the South, constituted the Götterdämmerung of the original American stock. It marked the expiration of the original federation of States and the extinction of the lineal continuity and peculiar libertarian genius of the original people. These facts have been remarked by Rudyard Kipling and other foreign observers who were in a position to view that tragic genocide objectively. That unnatural war marked the end of the independence of the States. It extinguished that real freedom, happiness and democracy which local government alone can secure. It initiated an infinite randomness and hybridization of races and peoples. Out of it was conceived an heretic concept of citizenship and democracy which was to make of the United States something its founders had neither contemplated nor desired—a saturnalia of races blended into a formidable concentration of imperial power. All of this is implied in the wording and interpretation of the Fourteenth Amendment which grew out of the conquering duress of the Civil War.
Continue reading Remembering Lincoln (with contempt)…

Strasser and National Bolshevism [2]

The Elections of 1928 and the Electoral Failure of Strasserism

The Strasserite approach was not only a failure in attracting workers to the NSDAP (on average, only 7 percent of the party members were workers by 1928) but unsuccessful as an electoral strategy. In a series of local and provincial elections which the party fought on a “socialist” or Strasserite platform, the result were profoundly disappointing, and by 1928, after three years of electioneering, the NSDAP was independently represented in only four state parliaments: it had one seat in Prussia, six in Bavaria, and two each in Saxony and Thuringia. The same Strasserite strategy was stubbornly persevered, however, and the party looked on the Reichstag election in May 1928 as its first really important test.

The result of the election was a severe disappointment for the NSDAP and a personal blow to Strasser. By capturing only 2.6 percent of the vote (809,771) and twelve seats, the urban, socialist strategy had been dealt a fatal blow. The appeal to industrial workers floundered ignominiously. These results intimated that the way forward for a party of the Right was not among the proletarian masses, but among the unhappiest segment of the electorate, the Protestant Mittelstand. For the NSDAP to become that party a dramatic reorientation would be necessary in its organization, propaganda and ideological emphasis. Otherwise, it faced the prospect of remaining totally insignificant as an electoral force. The lesson was not lost on Adolf Hitler, nor on Gregor Strasser as he viewed the ruins of a strategy which had been initiated and sustained by him. For both the NSDAP and Strasser a profound crisis had emerged which required immediate and drastic resolution.

Reorientiation, 1928-30

Between the summer of 1928 and the beginning of the 1930s the NSDAP was well on the way to becoming a party of the Protestant small-town and rural-based Mittelstand, located for the most part in northern, central, and eastern Germany. The shock and disappointment occasioned by the Reichstag elections resulted in high-level discussions inside the party regarding an ideological realignment or reorientation. Emphasis was put on the NSDAP’s position as the only remaining viable representative of a racist and anti-Marxist political option, and the 300,000 Germans who had voted for the other völkisch parties at the election were identified as a primary future target of the NSDAP. This would mean a conscious swing to the right for the party because these völkisch supporters were drawn overwhelmingly from the middle-classes. Leading party spokesmen like Alfred Rosenberg and Wilhelm Frick called for a new alignment with the conservative Right and its organizations now that Strasser’s industrial-urban strategy failed to attract more than a handful of blue-collar workers.

Strasser came to realize the futility of the basically petty-bourgeois NSDAP trying to develop into a mass movement with the support mainly of the industrial proletariat. This new ideological turning meant identifying the NSDAP with politics, attitudes, priorities that were dear to the hearts and minds of the Mittelstand. The themes that were to receive priority henceforth were nationalism in the broadest sense, anti-Marxism, racism, anti-Semitism, militarism, law and order, and pan-German imperialism with particular stress on the injustice of the Treaty of Versailles and the Dawes Plan in so far as they were deleterious to the national interest.

The Resignation Crisis, 1932-3

During the last months of 1932 the NSDAP was faced by a major dilemma over political tactics: Adolf Hitler was a gambler by nature and took an “all or nothing” attitude, while Gregor Strasser was enthusiastically calling for a broad coalition with other political parties. In particular, Strasser wanted to follow the coalition plans put forth by Kurt von Schleicher and others.

The considerable setback sustained by the NSDAP at the election came as no surprise to Strasser, who had in early October predicted a loss of at least forty seats. Strasser was convinced that the loss was due to Hitler’s inflexibility and unwillingness to enter a coalition government. While Hitler maintained that it was Strasser’s radical socialist views (if never clearly defined) that alienated middle-class voters, the backbone of the party, at the election.

By December 1932, Strasser’s alienation from Hitler had reached a critical juncture, and was accentuated during the first week of that month when Goering replaced him as Hitler’s nominee for the post of Prussian Minister of the Interior. By that time Strasser himself believed the gap between Hitler and him was “unbridgeable.”

Many contemporaries had noted Strasser’s personal ambition in his character. For example, Hans Frank goes on to state that Strasser was ultimately a “victim of his own ambition.” In any case, by December 1932, convinced as he was of NSDAP’s imminent decline, Strasser took seriously Schleicher’s offer of a governmental participation. But first and foremost, the prospect of a cabinet office appealed to his ambition and personal vanity. Indeed, Strasser informed Schleicher of his willingness to act independently of Hitler. At a top-level party meeting in Weimar on 30 November, Hitler did reaffirm his negative attitude to the idea of a Schleicher cabinet.

Despite warnings from Franz von Papen, Dr. Hjalmar Schacht and Otto Braun that his quest to split the NSDAP had no hope of success, Schleicher was undeterred and went ahead with a formal offer to Strasser of the Vice-Chancellorship and the Minister-Presidency of Prussia at a secret meeting in Berlin on 3 December.

At a specially convened meeting of party leaders in Berlin’s Kaiserhof Hotel on 5 December, Hitler forbade Strasser from having any further talks with the old intriguer on behalf of the party. In point of fact, Strasser now had to decide whether he had the necessary support in the movement to lead a successful palace revolution. This raises once again the important debate about whether a Strasserite faction, “Strasser Wing” or “Nazi Left”, under his leadership, actually existed. It has been argued already that there was no such entity in the NSDAP in an organizational, ideological or personal sense. An analysis of the situation in the NSDAP in late 1932 provides final and conclusive evidence in support of this argument. Even in December 1932, he was still widely but unjustifiably regarded as the leader of what was in effect a non-existent entity, a “socialist” wing of the NSDAP. Moreover, the general public and the vast majority of party members could hardly have perceived how fundamentally Strasser’s ideological attitudes had been changing as he became less and less a “socialist” and more of what might be termed a populist social or neo-conservative.

As to the role of the proletarian SA, although it was showing unmistakable signs of deep unrest at the end of 1932, including outright revolt in some areas like Franconia, the main cause was traditional SA – NSDAP antagonism and local personal rivalries. Hence, any serious SA support for Strasser is extremely doubtful, even in industrial areas such as the Ruhr. The SA had always been loath to become involved in intra-party disputes, and, furthermore, there was the long-standing personal and political enmity between Strasser and Roehm. In December 1932, therefore, the SA remained a factor of support for Hitler.

During those days, Strasser’s principal source of support lay inside the NSDAP Reichstag faction where by some estimates as many as one-third of the deputies may have inclined to his positions. Nonetheless, it would be wrong to believe that this source constituted a Strasserite faction within the National Socialist movement. These elements were too varied and diverse, ranging from self-styled, insincere “socialists” to wooly-minded and uninfluential intellectuals and theorists, to be described as anything other than a loose assortment of support. Furthermore, they can in no way be seen as constituting a “Nazi Left”. This term is even more devoid of meaning than it was already in the mid-1920s. There was neither a “Nazi Left” nor a “Strasser Wing” to come to his aid at this time of personal and political crisis because they simply did not exist. Consequently, although the extremely serious and unstable position of the NSDAP in December 1932 is not to be underestimated, the unorganized and incohesive nature of Strasser’s friends and sympathizers removed any real possibility of his being able to split the party had he so desired. On the mundane practical level, the Führer’s control of the party’s press and propaganda network, the SA and SS, and the solid backing of leading and powerful figures such as Goebbels, Goering and Roehm militated decisively against a successful Strasser initiative.

The Führer, who by this time had become fully informed of Strasser’s traitorous double-dealings behind his back with Schleicher, was totally unbroken in his determination to pursue his quest for chancellorship and nothing else. A break of some kind between the tow men became inevitable.

Based on a careful scrutiny of what lay before him, especially his and Hitler’s power situation within the NSDAP, Strasser became disappointed by the failure of his friends in the party to openly give him the support that they had pledged in private. Emphasizing the personal nature of his decision, Strasser withdrew to his room at Hotel Exzelsior in Berlin where he wrote out his letter of resignation that was delivered to Hitler at his hotel at noon on 8 December 1932.

The now famous letter does not refer to Strasser’s extensive dealings with non-NSDAP political groups and personalities during the previous few years which lay at the heart of his conflict with Hitler, nor does he indicate the somewhat different, more moderate, more “socialist” interpretation of National Socialism he had come to accept. Indeed, notably absent from Strasser’s thoughts on the crisis was any emphasis on “socialism” as a motive for his decision. In December 1932 the crisis was not about a last stand by the party’s “socialists” against Hitler’s pro-business and nationalist course, and it is misleading to interpret is as representing the final victory of reactionary, anti-Semitic Munich wing over the “socialist” wing. “ In December 1932 there was no “Nazi Left” or “left wing” for Strasser, or anyone else, to lead. Additionally, the numbers seceding or resigning for the NSDAP in sympathy with Strasser were insignificant.

The Strasser crisis, paradoxically, made an indispensable contribution to solving the NSDAP’s strategic impasse; for, having set out to prevent Hitler from coming to power, Strasser’s actions and involvement with Schleicher merely succeeded in accelerating the chain of events that led to Hitler’s appointment as Chancellor.

Epilogue

The attempt by some elements of the leadership of the SA at a putsch in 1934 resulted in the infamous Night of the Long Knives and the Roehm Purge in June 1934, resulting in the death of a number of SA leaders and other enemies of the NSDAP leadership. Strasser succumbed on 30 June to the machinations of Goering and Himmler, above all, who seized the opportunity to settle scores with their common enemy.

In his address to the Reichstag on 13 July about the Roehm Purge, Hitler’s only reference to Strasser came when he curtly remarked that he had been “pulled into” a conspiracy by others against the state. A week or so previously, Hitler had during a ministerial meeting accused Strasser of having been directly involved in a Streicher-Roehm plot. Whether Hitler directly ordered Strasser’s murder or not is unknown. However, during the war the Führer denounced Strasser as a “great traitor” who “had met his just punishment”.

Israel Scissorhands Dividing Palestine

Strasser and National Bolshevism [1]

The Early Years

I have decided to start my series of essays on National Bolshevism with a discussion of Gregor Strasser, allegedly one of the leading lights of something called National Bolshevism. The following thoughts on Gregor Strasser and National Socialism are in large measure inspired by Peter D. Stachura’s definitive biography: Gregor Strasser and the Rise of Nazism.

Gregor Strasser was born on 31 May 1892 in the small Upper Bavarian town of Geisenfeld near Pfaffenhofen an der Ilm, the eldest of a staunchly Catholic family of four sons and a daughter. The Strassers were of old peasant stock but Gregor’s father broke with the family tradition by entering the civil service of the Bavarian royal house, the Wittelsbach. Gregor’s mother, Pauline (née Strobel), originated from a middle-class civil service family in Dinkelsbühl (Franconia). In sum, Strasser, like Adolf Hitler, had a solid lower-middle class/middle class background.

Gregor Strasser grew up wanting to be a doctor, but his family’s modest financial circumstances didn’t allow him to pursue such lengthy studies; hence, Strasser chose instead to become a chemist. He started his apprenticeship in the small town of Frontenhausen in 1910 at the age of 18. In 1914 the outbreak of war disrupted his studies, for he volunteered for army service along with his two brothers, Paul and Otto.

Strasser joined the First Bavarian Foot Artillery Regiment on August 18, 1914 and during the next four years his saw substantial service at the front. By all accounts he was a brave and popular soldier, who was awarded several high decorations. Rising from the rank of corporal in May 1915 to junior officer four months later, and then lieutenant of the Reserve in January 1916, Strasser suffered fairly serious wounds which continued to trouble him right into his political career.

In later political life Strasser repeatedly looked back to his “Fronterlebnis” years as the best of his life, emphasizing their importance in shaping his political beliefs. They reinforced his already present nationalism and social awareness. He felt the comradeship of the trenches could be translated into a true socialist community in civilian life, in which class differences and privilege no longer mattered and in which the principle of achievement (“Leistungsprinzip”) determined an individual’s status.

The war convinced him of the rottenness of the Wilhelmine Reich. He criticized its failure to evolve “a united concept of the state”, its perpetuation of social and class tensions, and its inability to integrate the workers into society. However, the November Revolution and its aftermath disgusted him to an even greater extent. Strasser was one of the many ex-servicemen who felt acutely alienated from the new, post-W.W. I Germany.

Following the completion of his studies, Gregor Strasser became politically active in Bavaria. By mid-1920 he was leader of the Landshut branch of the völkisch Verband nationgesinnter Soldaten (VnS), an ex-servicemen’s group that had been set up immediately after the Kapp Putsch in early spring 1920. However, by the autumn of the same year the VnS was disappointing Strasser’s hopes and he joined the Einwohnerwehr (EW), or civil militia, which had as its purpose the maintaining of law and order. Ostensibly apolitical, the EW soon became a conservative-nationalist and anti-socialist counter-revolutionary movement. During that same year another momentous event in Strasser’s life occurred, at the age of 28, Strasser married on 15 April 1920 his girlfriend of some years’ standing, Else Vollmuth, in the Catholic church in Traumstein.

The post-war period in Germany saw the birth of a plethora of extremist political movements, one of them was the Nationalsozialistische Deutsche Arbeiterpartei (NSDAP). The NSDAP played an inconspicuous part in German life during its very early years. Membership, which stood at a mere 1,100 in June 1920, slowly increased, but it was not until Hitler took over as leader in July 1921 and began to display his impressive organizational and propagandistic skills that the NSDAP was really put on the map as a political force of considerable magnitude. Additionally, the chaos and decline of the NSDAP following Hitler’s incarceration for his role in the unsuccessful Putsch highlighted his indispensability for the movement’s coherence.

It remains a mystery to this day when Gregor Strasser joined the NSDAP or the Sturmabteilung (SA). Various dates have been given but lack supporting evidence. Strasser himself was surprising evasive on occasion about the subject. The most reliable information points towards autumn 1922, which is much later than previous accounts of his career have suggested.

The “Socialist” Years, 1925-8

The period stretching from the refoundation of the NSDAP in early 1925 to the Reichstag elections of May 1928, when crucially important changes took place in the party’s character, organization, propaganda and social bases of support, constitutes a distinctive phase in the history of National Socialism and in development of Strasser’s personal Weltanschauung. Hitler’s dilemma at that point in time was exacerbated by a certain dichotomy between the party’s northern section that was committed to a nebulous form of “socialism” and to attracting blue-collar industrial workers, and the southern end of the party, based in Munich, which pursued an essentially Hitlerian national-racist, anti-Semitic and anti-Marxist course. Hitler’s problem in 1925-6 was to reach an accommodation between these two viewpoints, but this necessitated facing up to his northern supporters, whose leading spokesman was Strasser.

Although at pains to emphasize that for “National Socialists…the struggle against Marxism in its every form is a sacred task” and that there had to be no suspicion that “we sympathize with the Marxist Soviet Republic and its Jewish leadership”, Strasser believed at this time that Russia and Germany, as oppressed nations, had broadly similar interests and should unite in a common struggle against the capitalist West in the grip of Jewish finance. However, Hitler’s strongly anti-Bolshevik animus and his concept of eastward expansion (Lebensraum), which was clearly expressed in Mein Kampf, put a dampener on Strasser’s seemingly pro-Russian ideas. Following the Bamberg Conference of February 1926 and the publication later that year of the second volume of Mein Kampf, Strasser changed his views on foreign policy and accepted Hitler’s argument for a German alliance with England and Italy.

In the realm of economic theory, Strasser’s concept of “German socialism” was laden with emotion rather than reason, and appeared to mean little more than a utopian desire for a return to the Middle Ages with their corporative crafts and guilds. He tried to explain the difference between his socialism and Marxist socialism in this way:

What distinguishes us from…Jewish-led Marxism is not only a fervent national outlook, but something deeper: the rejection of the materialistic world view…We hate from the bottom of our souls the levelling, comprehensively idiotic Marxist ideology! Socialism does not mean the domination of the masses, the levelling of achievement and reward, but rather socialism is the deeply felt Prussian German idea of ‘service to all’.

Another occurrence worth mentioning concerns the birth in the northern section of what appeared to some as a mechanism to counterbalance the ideological influence of the South, i.e. the Arbeitsgemeinschaft der Nord und West Deutschen Gauleiter der NSDAP (AG) under Strasser’s leadership. The AG was not a fronde directed at Hitler as party leader; his position was never questioned. From Strasser’s perspective, on the other hand, the AG may have represented something more: he may have seen it as potential weapon against Hitler’s position in the party. If these were Strasser’s thoughts at the inauguration of the AG, they were soon dispelled once he saw that as an ideological or organizational unit it had little coherence and, therefore, offered no likelihood of serving as his power-base for a challenge to Hitler.

The Draft, which was drawn up under Strasser’s supervision, reflected the essence of his ideas as he had been expounding them during the early 1920s. As Peter D. Stachura notes:

The Draft did not differ fundamentally from the original party programme: it amounted to a relatively more precise and emphatic reaffirmation of the ‘socialist’ or, more accurately, the anti-capitalist parts of the 1920 statement. Prominent sections of the Draft upheld a brand of extreme racist-nationalism and pan-German imperialism to which no one in conservative Munich, let alone Hitler, could reasonably object….the Draft included a demand for the return of colonies – a peculiar aim of so-called ‘socialists’ – while the only new proposal in foreign affairs was for a United States of Europe and a custom union. Furthermore, the Draft’s anti-semitism, though not attaining the high standards set in Mein Kampf, was, by demanding the deportation of all Jews who had entered Germany since the beginning of the First World War, and the withdrawal of German citizenship from all Jews who remained, consistent with the NSDAP’s and völkisch movement’s general attitude towards the ‘Jewish problem’.

The Draft failed lamentably as a ‘socialist’ document. Its proposal on nationalization worker participation in industry, profit-sharing and co-ownership, and its agrarian reform ideas, involving the break-up of the largest estates into small peasant holdings, were tentative, woolly, and characteristic merely of the AG members’ roots in a utopian-romantic version of lower-middle-class anti-capitalism.

From an ideological viewpoint, the Draft cannot be taken seriously as indicative of the existence of a “socialist” or “left wing” current in the NSDAP during 1925-6. Additionally, the AG had no meaningful organizational or personal integrity: it was a shakily constructed body of various northern leaders who, as it transpired, had differing views on the theme that supposedly united them, ‘socialism’. In other words, the whole idea of a ‘Nazi Left’ in the NSDAP at this time has little meaning. There was never such an animal. The degree of unification in these respects that would justify the use of the term ‘Nazi Left’ as an identifiable entity within the party did not exist. The objective political role in the NSDAP of these ‘socialist’ was demagogic, tactical and propagandistic. The erroneously labeled “Nazi Left” and “Strasser wing” did not exist in concrete terms.

Strasserism

Strasser never expanded upon his “socialism” in a way that would make it in some way intelligible. As always, his “socialist” ideas remained extremely vague and eclectic. He frequently invoked the concept of a “national Socialism” yet did little to explain systematically what he meant by this term. Strasser’s forte was not theorizing, and so his vehement anti-capitalist and anti-bourgeois rhetoric was about the extent of his “socialism” during the 1920s. For him National Socialism offered a unique, idealistic kind of socialism designed to return to the working class dignity of labour and a place in the national community. However, based on his “Gedanken über Aufgaben der Zunkunft” (“Thoughts about the Tasks of the Future”), we can emphatically say that he dismissed as liberal-Marxist nonsense the concept of equality:

…we have realized that the idiotic belief in the equality of man is the deadly threat with which liberalism destroys people and nation, culture and morals, violating the primordial sources of our existence. [And further] we have to reject with fanatical zeal the frequent lie that people are ‘basically equal’…People are unequal, they are unequal from birth, become more unequal in life and are therefore to be valued unequally in life and…in their positions in society and in the state! But this inequality in turn has only one standard, can and must have only this one standard: the achievement of the individual for society, for the nation, for the state!!

When in 1927 Strasser became involved in a debate with Alfred Rosenberg whether the NSDAP should put more emphasis on nationalism or socialism, Strasser’s arguments in favour of socialism followed the familiar pattern of vacuous slogans and catch-phrases. In the end Rosenberg remained unconvinced and expressed his regret at both the superficial content and polemical style of Strasser’s response.

To be continued.

Paul Fromm … For Our People - SHOW 7

Passive Genocide of the Anglo-Saxon

One in four UK babies born to a foreign parent.

Netherlands sets plan against extremism

Degenerate Dutch.

The spineless, ballless, gutless Dutch authorities again prove how weak and decadent they really are. They’re putting their own people, their own Volk on the same level as the foreign interlopers and invaders submerging the Netherlands. One group is fighting back against Islamification and savage, uncontrollable immigration from the Middle East and Africa and on behalf of Dutch E.G.I.; the other group engages in race-replacement and murders the indigenous population. The best and most courageous Dutch elements versus invading foreigners. Yet, the Dutch government wants to appear “even-handed.” Why? Would any sane person adopt a neutral, impartial approach to a family member in difficulty and a perfect stranger, all in the name of some nebulous sense of fairness? NO, no sane person would do that. The Dutch government is in fact working against the E.G.I. of the Dutch people and to the advantage of the invading hordes. Only White people, only White nations do that…everyone else looks out for their own interests first, second, and third. Only White people don’t.

A teacher who notices students voicing racist or fundamentalist notions should be able to call a hotline for advice, for example, Ter Horst said.

Admiring Aryan Beauty

German actress Susan Hoecke:

Zionist IDF Thugs Speak, “We Come In Peace”

See a Jew get his ass kicked

A debate about P.C.R.’s piece, read it here.

Imho, Paul Craig Roberts writes sensibly on most issues – until he broaches the topic of the Arab-Israeli conflict. Then, all sanity, principles, and pragmatism go out the window, only to make room for a surprising naiveté and an occasional foaming at the mouth.

First, he starts off on the right footing by recognizing that the power of the pro-Israel lobby is egregious and its sway over the US policy – illegitimate. But then, there’s this:
Continue reading See a Jew get his ass kicked…