23 Replies on “Quotable quote

  1. Of course they were scum, on an absolute viewpoint. But that doesn’t mean they all had malicious intentions. Nearly all soldiers were simply guilty of having simple minds, which left them vulnerable to emotional propaganda.

    It would be stupid to hate and eliminate simple-minded people; it is far better to use them at your advantage when you are in power.

    The art of politics is to make the difference between the leaders and the followers, the elites and the masses, the strategists and the soldiers. The first shall be executed or sent to concentration camps, the second shall have a new uniform and new orders.

    1. Can you believe that as late as 2008 I still supported the Allied war against Germany? (I was sleeping in the Matrix of PC like millions of westerners).

      1. Funny coincidence: I, too, woke up around 2008.

        – I understood that egalitarianism was a sweet dream contradicted by genetics in 2008.

        – I became aware of the mass immigration problem in the West in 2009.

        – I became an antisemite and holohoax revisionist in 2010, when I got tired of seeing a Jew behind everything I loathed.

        – I became an antidemocrat in 2011.

        But I am way younger than you. Does this mean I’m smarter than you? I believe personal experience plays a big role. I had the chance to grow up in a very diverse and hostile environment (public schools) which allowed me to witness first-hand inequalities between people, and to have an Internet access early.

        Without these fertile conditions, my awakening would still have happened, but it would have taken a bit more time.

      2. But I am way younger than you. Does this mean I’m smarter than you?

        Without the internet how could I have awakened since my teens in the 1970s (and to boot, in Mexico)?

  2. I wouldn’t go quite so far as that quote does.

    My grandfather fought in the French Army in 1940, was taken prisoner, spent most of the war in a POW camp. Never wanted to talk about it afterward – the impression I got from him was that it was a boring and miserable time.

    I object very strongly to the idea that the French soldiers who raised rifles against the Germans – who were, after all, clearly and without any confusion as to the details, invading France, while the French are absolutely accepted to have been entirely reliant on a defensive strategy – are somehow morally culpable in any sense. They were doing precisely the duty they should have been expected to: they were defending their own country, without invading another.

    One might blame the French politicians, certainly, for setting up the political situations that led to disaster – in 1940, in 1914, in 1870 even. And the generals who made very poor use of brave men, in the same cases. And I do. But the soldiers did everything we could expect of them. I’ve talked to people who were kids at the time, and the sheer horror and terror that „another war with Germany“ inspired in the adults of the time was indelibly marked on their minds. Remember, this was after 1914, and 1870, and the revolutions of 1848, and the Napoleonic wars, the Seven Years War, the War of the Spanish Succession, the Thirty Years War, and on and on and on. When Hitler wrote „one last battle with France“, he wasn’t saying anything anybody on either side of the Rhine didn’t already suspect.

    When history has pushed you into a situation like that, you don’t bare your throat to the knife just because someone a hundred years later feels your country and your people deserved to be sacrificed. You fight for your home and your nation, and to the pits of hell with anyone who says different.

    I expect a similar case could be made for Poland. I simply do not believe that Poland was seriously plotting aggressive moves of any sort against Germany – the course of subsequent events indicated clearly how woefully unprepared they were. But they fought for their homeland, in as clearly defined a case as has ever been, and as bravely as any men ever have. We need MORE of that, not less.

    1. „But they fought for their homeland“

      Defending a territory for the sake of it, without taking other parameters into account (such as ideology, religion, and internal power struggles), is called chauvinism.

      To illustrate the absurdity of chauvinism, consider the following little tale:

      Tyrannica, a country of seven million souls, is ruled by a mad King and a degenerate aristocracy who have no concern for the happiness of their subjects. Lord Braveheart, the King of a small neighbouring country called Libertas, decides to assemble an army to liberate Tyrannica and constitute a new government. Lord Braveheart declares war on Tyrannica shortly after, and begins the necessary invasion.

      Partly due to their knee-jerk patriotic nature, partly due to efficient propaganda coming from their hierarchy, the inhabitants of Tyrannica believe that their territorial integrity is under attack by a vicious enemy, and soon form voluntary militias to defend their borders. Lord Braveheart is consequently defeated, taken to the capital, and beheaded in front of the mad King, who then presents his mutilated corpse to a cheering crowd.

      This tale lends itself to to more subtle variations, of course, but the point I make has been probably understood by now.

      Nothing is manichean or simple in this world. Everything is grey and complex, a complexity commensurate with the deep diversity you find in Nature.

      1. „Defending a territory for the sake of it,… is called chauvinism.“

        I have no problem with being a chauvinist. The rest of your post has no bearing on what actually happened, and is irrelevant.

    2. Rollory: „the French soldiers who raised rifles against the Germans – who were, after all, clearly and without any confusion as to the details, invading France, while the French are absolutely accepted to have been entirely reliant on a defensive strategy“

      France declared war on Germany, not the other way around. If France didn’t intend to attack Germany, maybe it would have been smarter not to declare war.

      „When history has pushed you into a situation like that, you don’t bare your throat to the knife just because someone a hundred years later feels your country and your people deserved to be sacrificed. You fight for your home and your nation, and to the pits of hell with anyone who says different.“

      France declared war on Germany, not the other way around.

      „You fight for your home and your nation“

      In the case of Brittany, Breton people fought as part of France against Germany both in the 1870 war and in the two world wars, even though France was deliberately destroying the Breton nation. People are really lemmings.

      „I simply do not believe that Poland was seriously plotting aggressive moves of any sort against Germany“

      The problem is that German territory populated by ethnic Germans had been given to Poland at the end of WW1. It was certainly more legitimate for the Germans to take back Danzig than for the Americans to secede from Britain.

  3. „Funny coincidence: I, too, woke up around 2008.“

    Same here. For me, it was the day after Obama was elected. Even today, after almost four years, there are still times when I open the paper, see a picture of Obama, and think to myself:

    Holy shit! There’s a nigger in the White House.

    I simply can’t get used to the fact that there’s a non-Westerner occupying the highest office in the world.

    And without the internet, I’d be hooked on Fox News searching for answers, that, of course, I’d never get.

    An aside: In the summer of 08, I enrolled in a Holocaust course and was treated to the obligatory buffet of anti-White propaganda, which I consumed happily and with a glutton’s appetite. If I knew then, what I know now, I’d of challenged the professor at every turn.

    It’s quite amazing the revolution in thought I have had since then. I’m now psychologically radicalized, waiting for leadership, but if Bluegrass is right, then real White leadership is far beyond the horizon.

    1. „An aside: In the summer of 08, I enrolled in a Holocaust course and was treated to the obligatory buffet of anti-White propaganda, which I consumed happily and with a glutton’s appetite.“

      Fun fact: I voluntarily enrolled too in several discretionary courses on the Holocaust during my schooling, which included the redaction of a thesis.

      Even funnier: my work received extremely good marks, and it is still sitting in some governmental drawer today.

      „If I knew then, what I know now, I’d of challenged the professor at every turn.“

      I would not have. Questioning the Holocaust (Shoah) in front of a teacher is tantamount to questioning Catholicism in front of a bishop during the Middle Ages: risky for your health, and suicidal for your social life.

    2. Holy shit! There’s a nigger in the White House.

      Every time I see a pic of Obama at a TV set or even within a web article authored by a nationalist I turn my eyes aside: it’s something I, literally, cannot see. In the last days I turn off the TV of some relatives when the first nigger face appears and my mind immediately goes back to the days when the child I was only saw whites in the theaters.

      but if Bluegrass is right, then real White leadership is far beyond the horizon

      One of the commenters at the blogsites may well be the future leader. Meanwhile our task is reading the best one can from the potpourri of classic WN authors.

      Since the crash of the dollar is coming, I’d recommend first to become acquainted with four novels: basic FAQ on How to Do a Revolution in 21st-century America.

  4. „I have no problem with being a chauvinist. The rest of your post has no bearing on what actually happened, and is irrelevant.“

    There what are you doing on this blog, Mr. Anti-Nazi?

    1. *Then

      Also, Rollory seems to think that Germany declared war on France and the United Kingdom for the purpose of conquest. This is not the case: France and the United Kingdom made the war happen.

      1. I find Hitler a too plebeian for what I had consider the ideal of the Germanic character. I also wished he was more amiable to the Prussian officer aristocracy, even if it meant veering somewhat from the Nationalist Socialist path.

        However, that aside, any critical analysis of Hitler is tainted by mixing reviews of his ideological policies with the military decisions of the war. For instance, it is easy to feel that his strict adherence to the Aryan-slavic-meditteranean racial hierarchy for Europeans alienated possible allies in the east (the Hiwi phenomenon could have been vastly more extensive asset to a German victory). That is of course a „hindsight is 20-20“ kind of thing: in 21st century America any White whether of Polish, German, or Greek ancestry produces feelings in me of intense racial kinship in comparison to my fellow Hispanic or Black citizens. I, not living in Germany 1936, could never have understood fully the fear induced by the growing threat of Communist Slavs in the east, nor the feel of complete betrayal by the partition of German territories to the newly empowered Polish and Czech governments.

        In summary one must avoid the time-machine critique in which it becomes all too easy to merely imagine oneself traveling back to 41 and altering certain decisions to guarantee a Nazi victory.

        We should not plan to repeat the Nationalist Socialist path. We should plan to adapt and improve it.

    2. „There[sic] what are you doing on this blog“

      Wasting my time, evidently. Not to worry, it won’t happen again.

  5. In summary one must avoid the time-machine critique in which it becomes all too easy to merely imagine oneself traveling back to 41 and altering certain decisions to guarantee a Nazi victory.

    All serious white advocates once made that dream, at least when they were teenagers. The reason why it just „won’t go away“ is simply that WWII was an event of cataclysmic importance, and the Axis wasn’t that far away from victory (if I were indeed to use H.G. Wells time’s machine, I wouldn’t need to cheat — blueprints of Tsar Bomba — to change the tide of the war; two or three strategic advices would suffice).

    We can’t close our eyes and pretend nothing happened. All countries were deeply affected by the new world order, with Japan as a caricature. All its current social structures and moral bearings were imposed during the Occupation Period (1945-1952) by the U.S., including its constitution. Yep: there was no such thing as feminism or liberalism in Japan before Hirohito’s surrender.

    The question is, can white advocacy, and, on a larger scale, civilization advocacy come back on its feet after such a disaster? Since already 67 years of defeat and apathy have passed, it obviously remains to be proven.

    We should not plan to repeat the Nationalist Socialist path. We should plan to adapt and improve it.

    It is self-evident that the world has changed dramatically since the 1930s, and that expecting to succeed with a carbon copy of the NSDAP story is foolish.

    We need to create something new, of course. Something perhaps less ambitious than the current goals of „taking back“ entire countries and continents in less than a century.

  6. Many Germans saw very clearly that all of Hitler’s major decisions were leading Germany into the hands of the Soviets.
    They were killed, or sent to the Russian front ( same thing), on Hitler’s orders.
    Turns out the clear-thinking Germans were correct.
    Every major decision made by Hitler, against all advice from his advisors, lead Germany to defeat. This is not hindsight. Germans at that time could see the up-coming disaster.
    The Germans who wanted him dead knew what he was all about.
    Just like the Italians who knew what Mussolini was all about.
    Unfortunately for Germany, Hitler wasn’t hung up like Mussolini was.

    1. „Unfortunately for Germany, Hitler wasn’t hung up like Mussolini was.“

      I think that this is a gross misrepresentation of history. The UK, the US and the SU were the real Axis of Evil in that war. Yes: Hitler committed horribly blunders—I even believe that he should not have invaded France or provoked England. But the real crux is that the Anglos should have let him destroy Stalin.

      1. Yes: Hitler committed horribly blunders

        Such as allowing Churchill’s army to escape at Dunkirk in a desperate attempt to broker out a peace treaty?

        Proposing to Philippe Pétain a full, respectful, equal-to-equal alliance against Semitic and Communist countries on 24 October 1940 in Montoire, a proposition that Pétain disdainfully rejected?

        Forestalling with a pre-emptive move the planned July 1941 invasion of Western Europe by Stalin?

        Allowing non-Germans into his elite military factions, and allowing non-Germans ideologically sympathetic to his regime to marry German women?

        Refusing to use carpet bombing and incendiary bombs on moral grounds?

        You have come from a long way, Chechar, and this is admirable. But you have not yet completely shrugged off the lies.

        I believe you can, it is just a matter of time and curiosity.

        If Hitler can be blamed for something, it is in fact for having been too nice, too naive and too sensible. Just like you, who allows people devoid of culture (such as Joe, Saintclair, Rollory, etc) to post comments on your blog instead of censoring them remorselessly.

        1. I had in mind not being patient to develop the A-bomb and instead launching Operation Barbarossa. Had Hitler been patient Stalin would have been duly atomized.

  7. @Chechar
    I would agree with you except on a very high level the Rothschilds and England’s banking/industrial elite wanted Germany destroyed, as did the very top of nazi command, including Hitler himself.
    Hitler was working for the Anglo/Soviet’s , not for the German people.
    It was a giant set-up.
    The nazis, supposedly anti-semitic, took all the jews out of the cities away from the massive bombing of German cities where the jews lived in safety in the country.
    After the war, German jewry skipped to Israel while Germany was left in complete ruins.
    The nazis spent alot of resources on these jews they supposedly didn’t like; And they the did so when they needed all the resources they could muster to fight a war on two fronts.
    Every major decision Hitler made for Germany was a disaster, and the Germans at the time who could see that clearly were killed or sent to the Russian front (same thing,basically).
    Hitler worked for the Rothschilds, not the German people.

  8. @Deviance
    too nice?…. too naive?…. too sensible?
    You can’t possibly be serious?
    If Hitler was intelligent enough and tough enough to rise to the top command of a major European country, then Hitler was not in the least bit nice, or in any way naive. LOL
    Hitler was sensible, all right, Hitler knew exactly how to lead Germany to destruction. In that sense, we can say the Hitler was sensible, and that way only.
    Hitler was so „nice“ that those Germans who saw that his decisions were leading the country to disaster, Hitler ordered to be killed.