The Internet Hindus

An interesting segment from Al Jazeera TV about the “Internet Hindus.” The Internet Hindus are the Hindutvadi Hindu nationalist fascist Indians who have flooded the Internet in the past few years. Let us think for a minute about who these people are. Only 6% of Indians even has a computer. And how many of those are on the Net. As you can see, almost all Indians on the Net will be the upper class and the upper middle class, the richest of India, the bourgeois and ruling class sector. Hence, these folks are not representative of India as a whole.

The top 6% of Indians are obviously almost all high caste Hindus. So it follows that if almost all Internet Indians are Hindutvadis in one form or another, this shows that Hindutvadi is an ideology of the Hindu ruling class and bourgeois, of the Hindu ruling class and upper middle class. It is also apparently an ideology which has extremely high support among high caste Hindus. Is it mostly a high caste movement? This is hard to say, as surveys are hard to come by. But almost all Hindutvadis on the Net are high caste Hindus for sure.

Hence, this is no populist or working class movement of the people. It’s an elite movement of the bourgeois. Bourgeois revolutionary nationalist movements that attack minorities and are predicated on volkisch nationalism are properly seen as fascist movements. Note how Hindutvadis hate “internationalists,” “international movements,” and how they call all of their opponents Communists and Marxists. They also accuse their “Marxist” opponents of being anti-national or opposed to the country. Ringing any bells now? Sounds like fascism, right? Even sounds like Nazism.

Really, most ethnic nationalist movements are fascist, quasi-fascist or nearly fascist in some sense. The Nazis were nothing special. They were just a typical ethnic nationalist fascist movement, though granted they were quite a bit more bloodthirsty, genocidal and imperialist than most of them.

The lesson of the Nazis is that the Nazi germ is in all fascist movements. All fascist movements are potentially genocidal against the “enemies of the nation,” the internal enemies, usually coded as citizens who are not really members of the nation and the “anti-national” Left which seeks to promote solidarity with other nations and sanity in international relations and offers a critique of society, the state and even the nation. These are the “traitors” in any fascist movement, and their fate in any fascist country is tenuous at best.

That the vast majority of the Hindu upper class and upper middle class and large segments of the Hindu middle class has gone over to an overtly fascist ideology is very troubling.

The Basque Independence Movement

Repost from the old site.

Although it is not a popular cause in the US, this blog strongly supports the armed struggle of ETA, the armed Basque nationalist Red front. The Basque cause is very poorly known in the US and probably in most of the rest of the world, hence, here is a bit of a primer.

The Basque people are probably the last remaining group of the original populations that inhabited Europe before the Indo-European (IE) invasion and conquest about 8000 years ago. The best theory indicates that the IE people probably came out of the southern Ukraine near the Black Sea.

Their first stop was Anatolia, and this is why the Hittite languages (ancient languages of Anatolia, or Turkey) are by far the most divergent languages in the IE language family.

In fact, I subscribe to a controversial theory that renames Indo-European as Indo-Hittite due to this deep split. For those who don’t know about the IE language family, IE, or proto-IE (PIE), was the mother tongue of most of the languages of Europe.

European languages in the IE family include English, German, French, Swedish, Danish, Norwegian, Icelandic, Dutch, Italian, Portuguese, Irish, Welsh, Scots Gaelic, Polish, Russian, Ukrainian, Belorussian, Czech, Slovak, Bulgarian, Romanian, Moldavian, Albanian, Slovenian, Greek, Serbo-Croatian, Lithuanian and Latvian and some lesser-known ones.

A few tongues in Europe are non-IE, such as Finnish, Hungarian, Turkish, Estonian and Basque. Outside of Europe, we have some other IE languages in some pretty distant places, including Kurdish, Persian, Hindi, Urdu, Pashto, Sanskrit and a variety of languages related to them that are not well known by Westerners.

Apparently a divergent group of PIE left the PIE homeland and moved into the area of India, Iran and Afghanistan thousands of years ago.

Before the IE people spread out over Europe 8000 years ago, Europe was home to a variety of peoples who are very poorly known. Almost nothing is known about their civilizations (such as they existed), who they were, what they did, how they lived, what they ate, much less what languages they spoke.

The original inhabitants of Europe at this time weren’t Cro-Magnons, but they weren’t exactly Manhattan metrosexuals with cell phones either. After the IE people spread out across Europe, they apparently displaced, intermarried with, or wiped out almost all of the indigenous people of Europe.

One group that held out for a while were the Etruscans, residents of Italy. We actually have some retained some scraps of the Etruscan language somehow, but it doesn’t seem obviously related to anything else. The only other group that held out was apparently the Basques.

The theory that the Basques are the last remaining original inhabitants of Europe has long been a popular theory based on the fact that the Basque language is unlike any other language in Europe, or, really, in the world. Formally, Basque is considered to be a language isolate – not related to any other language.

However, I believe, based on very controversial theories, that Basque is related to some languages of the Caucasus (such as Chechen), an obscure group of Siberian tongues known as the Ket Family, an obscure language in far northern Pakistan called Burushaski, and also to the vast Sino-Tibetan family, of which Chinese is the most famous member.

Basque seems to me to be closest to various Caucasian languages. The latest genetic research has shown that the Basques have a blood type frequency that is divergent from all other populations in Europe. Interestingly, the closest people with this blood frequency are in the Caucasus Mountains.

In their mountain hideaways, the rugged Basques fought off many intruders and managed to keep a lot of other conquerors out of their hair with a hands-off attitude. Although the Romans conquered the area, they basically left the Basques pretty much alone as too much hassle, a common attitude of many conquerors that came through the region.

The Basques converted to Christianity along with the rest of Europe, and are known for their passionate, conservative Catholicism. With the consolidation of the Spanish nation, the question of how to deal with the Basques came up. For centuries, most governments in Spain and France preferred to pretty much leave the Basques alone.

During the Spanish Civil War in 1936-39, the Basque Region was a hotbed of Communism, Socialism, Anarchism and all varieties of Leftism. It was a major Republican stronghold. The Spanish Anarchists even “ruled” parts of the Basque country for part of this time, probably the only time in history that any humans have ever lived under anarchist “rule”.

The Basques fought very hard against fascism. Picasso’s famous “Guernica” painting is a painting of the Franco-Nazi air raid on the city of Guernica in the Basque Country, a raid that killed 6,000 people and outraged the world. A Basque Communist female fighter named “La Passionara” became quite famous.

The flood of Nazi guns was too much for the Republicans. The Republicans lost the war and fascism, in the persona of Generalissimo Franco, came to Spain. During World War 2, many Basques fought for the resistance against the Nazis, especially in France. The Basque region was known as a major redoubt and rear base for the French resistance.

When Franco came to power, a new chapter of history opened for the Basque struggle. Franco tried to consolidate Spain as no ruler ever had before. He demanded that all regional minorities adopt a “Spanish” mindset, language and loyalty. He ferociously tried to wipe out all vestiges of the Basque, Catalan and Galician languages and cultures.

Catalans speak a Romance language in between Spanish and French and live along the southern coast of Spain by the French border in and around Barcelona. The Romance family is a subfamily of IE that is derived from Latin. Romance includes Spanish, Portuguese, Italian, French, Catalan, Sardinian, Corsican, Romansh (an obscure language in Switzerland) and some lesser-known tongues.

Galicians speak a dialect of Portuguese, believe it or not, and live along the rocky northern coast of Spain by the border with Portugal. Many Galicians are fishermen.

The Basque people resisted Franco for a while, but he put many of them in prison and really hurt the Basque movement. In 1959, a faction broke away from the Basque Nationalist Movement, formed the ETA, and took up arms.

They planted several bombs in Spanish cities that year. In 1968 , the ETA officially adopted armed struggle. The insurgency has been going on for 46 years now, though it is not as strong as it used to be.

Hardly any Americans realize the significant level of support for even the armed insurgency in the Basque country of Spain. As of a few years ago, there were regular street protests and even riots, as young nationalists run amok through the streets, smashing stuff and writing graffiti.

I have seen video footage in the past decade of very militant pro-ETA rallies in the Basqueland with large crowds of supporters milling around.

Many folks you would consider to be regular folks – middle-class people who dress well, drive nice cars and have good jobs – are strong supporters of even the armed Basque movement. It’s quite a shock to see dowdy-looking housewife types and middle-aged office workers with potbellies angrily waving banners supporting the ETA bombers.

Yet this is the reality of popular support for Basque nationalism, even the armed wing, in the Basque Country. Although Batasuna, the political wing of the ETA, was banned recently, another party took its place and garnered around 15-20% of the vote. Total support for complete independence in the Basque Country or Euskara, as they call it, is around 35-40%, or possibly higher, in my opinion.

Note: I just spoke to a German Communist friend of mine about the support level for the independence movement in Basqueland. Here is what he said: “Oh, I think almost all Basques support full independence. And even many Spanish migrants in Basqueland don’t really oppose the ETA or the independence movement.”

Note the presence of Spanish migrants who have moved into the Basque Country, mostly to take jobs. They are really the wild card in any poll about levels of independence support in Basqueland.

What is the struggle about, anyway? Well, a significant number of the Basque people (maybe almost 100% – see above) want independence from Spain.

Possibly a lesser number desire independence from France, but the struggle in French Basqueland is another matter and beyond the scope of this post. The Spanish government has always refused to hold a referendum on independence for Euskara, a key Basque demand.

The Czech Republic split from Slovakia, referendums have been held on independence in Scotland and Quebec, and yet Spain bucks the tide in the civilized world. The economy is surely a stickler. The Basque country holds much of Spain’s heavy industry, and how well Spain would fare economically after Basque succession is largely unknown. But it should at least be a subject of discussion, and Spain has put it out of limits.

As long as Spain refuses to provide a Basque referendum on independence, the Basque struggle, including probably the armed front, will go on. That’s all there is to it. Spain can end the insurgency tomorrow by opening peace talks with the ETA (Spain has never done this) and ultimately agreeing to hold a referendum on Basque independence.

An interesting sidelight to the Basque struggle is the role of women and feminism in the conflict. Some of the toughest ETA cadre have been women, often tougher than the men. And ETA male fighters, though nominally Marxist, have long been known to hold surprisingly conservative, Old World type views on the role of women in Basque society, opinions heavily tinged by conservative Catholicism.

Ironically Enough…

Repost from the old site.

The following anecdote, which I found very interesting, was forwarded to me in an email. The author shall remain anonymous.

[RL: Arendt is one of my all-time favorite Jewish intellectuals. She had the guts to more or less out Leo Strauss, the Jewish father of neoconservatism, as a closet fascist. It is Arendt who uttered the fantastic line, "Fascism begins in the cradle".

What this means to me is that there is a basic human dichotomy in childrearing: authoritarian (often overlapping with fascism) and nurturing. The "fascist" is focused on discipline and regards human beings, including children, as basically evil and in need of punishment in order to behave in a civilized manner.

The nurturer does not feel that humans as basically evil, and does not worry that unless children are subjected to major punishment, they will revert to their evil nature.

The authoritarian upbringing reproduces itself, as children raised this way often become authoritarians or fascist types themselves, and then raise their own children the same way, producing more such types.

The nurturer allows children to play freely and doesn't discipline them much, other than in dangerous situations. Although authoritarians claim that nurturing parents produce defective, immature and criminal children, there is little evidence to support that.

Many primitive cultures have a nurturing style of parenting, and there is absolutely zero evidence that the children raised in this style are any more defective, immature or criminal than anyone else. The culture of many California Indian tribes had an extremely nurturing, hands-off parenting style. Their kids turned out just fine.]

Ironically enough, the Jewish philosopher Hannah Arendt in her book Eichmann in Jerusalem (1965), courageously points out that:

Israeli citizens, religious and nonreligious, seem agreed upon the desirability of having a law which prohibits intermarriage. They are also agreed upon the undesirability of a written constitution in which such a law would embarrassingly have to be spelled out.

There certainly was something breathtaking in the naïveté with which the prosecution (during the trial of Adolf Eichmann, famous Nazi war criminal, in Israel in 1961) denounced the infamous Nazi Nuremberg Laws of 1935, which had prohibited intermarriage and sexual intercourse between Jews and Germans.

The better informed among the correspondents were well aware of the irony, but they did not mention it in their reports. Arendt again:

This was not the time to tell the Jews what was wrong with the laws and institutions of their own country. (p 7)

In other words, we have the extreme irony that the Nuremberg Laws were “infamous”, but that the legal impediments in Israel with the same objective were (and are, even today) never “infamous”. According to Maxim Ghilan in How Israel Lost its Soul (1974):

From the first (in Israel), the diverse religious sects were kept separate and segregated by the prohibition of civil marriage. (pp. 165-166)

Exclusionary mechanisms have a dual connotation: when Jews practice them, they are neutral or even good, when others, such as Germans, do, they are so Evil that our hair stands on end as a wave of nausea rises up.

[RL: The blatant hypocrisy exemplified in this anecdote should be obvious to most readers. The reason for the Jewish hypocrisy seen here is not that Jews are evil, as anti-Semites maintain, but that tribalism and ethnocentrism are rank with hypocrisy, like their corollary at the individual level, egotism.

Both egotism and ethnocentrism set up two sets of rules, one for me or us, and another one for everyone else. As Jews are the most deeply tribal and ethnocentric people on Earth, we would expect them to display massive hypocrisy, and in fact they often do just that.

This hypocrisy often causes anti-Semitism amongst the Gentiles. The display of anti-Semitism amongst Gentiles then causes increased ethnocentrism amongst Jews as they feel threatened and circle the wagons. Which of course then increases Gentile anti-Semitism even further.

Anyone other than me notice the vicious circle spiraling away here?]

From Rosa Luxembourg to the Holocaust

Our choice is socialism or barbarism.

- Rosa Luxembourg

Those words are as true today as when she said them in 1918.

By the way, Luxembourg was one of the Jewish leaders of the German Communist and socialist movement which coalesced in the short lived Bavarian Socialist Republic in 1920. The movement was quickly defeated, hundreds were killed, and there was much chaos.

The German people, especially the middle classes, did not think much of the German Left. It’s true that many of the leaders of the movement were Jewish. It’s never pretty for defeated movements and it’s never easy being a minority.

Those two truths coalesced as German Nazism grew out of the German middle classes’ and ruling classes rage at the rebellion of the German Left and their fear of the nascent Bolshevik movement in the USSR, which originally was also pretty heavily Jewish in its higher echelons.

The association of Jews and Communism was all the rage among the Right. Even Winston Churchill (who was basically a bad guy other than WW2) said, “Communism is Jewish.” The resulting theory of Judeo-Bolshevism led directly to WW2 and especially the Holocaust.

Good Brief Analysis of Adolf Hitler

Via Daryl Basarab’s interesting Gangster Bolshevism page.

I agree with the analysis that Hitler’s style was to target the easy targets while the people with real power simply left the country or were declared “Aryans.” Harmless assimilated Jews were murdered, the Zionist movement encouraged, Poles butchered. Capitalists were left in place while socialists were purged during the night of the long knives. But Hitler underestimated the strength of the Soviet Union.

That’s about it. How anyone but a German nationalist could possibly support such a project is beyond me. How can even White nationalists, not to mention ordinary White people, get behind such a monstrosity? How many White nationalists, forget ordinary Whites, think that Slavs are an inferior race to be massacred on nearly the same level as Hitler slaughtered Jews?

How many people really think that the mentally and physically ill should be killed (their murder was rationalized via semantics as euthanasia but it was nothing of the sort). Even the retarded? Surely their lot is unfortunate, but do they deserve murder? Come on now.

Keep in mind that this was not even the same thing as the euthanasia we discuss nowadays. Now we ask if the suicidal, with terminal or even terrible illnesses, should be allowed the assistance of physicians or helpers in their quest for suicide. Nazism went way beyond that. There was no pretense at assisted suicide. The unfit were simply murdered, exterminated, slaughtered such as mercilessly as the Jews were cut down.

What sane White nationalist supported German colonization and resulting imperial exploitation of the conquered nations of Europe? The plan for the Slavic nations was much more evil. 25% were to killed, 50% were to be removed and the 25% who looked “German enough” were to be Germanized.

Their lands were to be stolen, the people conquered and ethnically cleansed off the land, similar to the Zionist project in Palestine. But it was even crueler than Zionism. The Zionists never even theorized murdering 25% of the Palestinian Arabs and in practice a very low number of Arabs were killed in any of the wars, and the overall number is surely quite low.

The rightwing likes to talk about the socialist nature of Nazism, but that isn’t really correct.

Nazism started out as socialist, but Hitler never cared one whit about economics. All he cared about was nationalism, race, militarism, colonialism, imperialism, etc. Hitler cared no more about capitalism than about socialism, and he cared nothing about either.

Hitler shrugged and went along with the early socialist nature of the project, but when his big money backers (the junkers – the large landowners, the big capitalist industrialists and the military) rebelled with alarm against socialism, Hitler quickly had the socialists dispatched in the Night of the Long Knives. Workers were often worked to death or nearly to death in this “socialist” country.

Unions were #3 to be targeted in the early stages. They were considered more of an enemy than Jews at number. Communists and socialists were numbers 1 and 2 to the concentration camps. What sort of socialist or even Left project goes after Communists, socialists and trade unionists as enemies numbers 1, 2 and 3? It makes no sense.

Once big German money was on board and the Jewish capitalist competitors were out the way, great profits were to be made making various products for the Reich. The rich and business were served very well by Nazism.

Of course Hitler underestimated the USSR. He thought that the Communists were decrepit and weak due to the essential degenerate nature of Communism itself.  Communism was always his true enemy deep down in his heart. He hated Communists more than he hated Jews, and he hated Jews something serious. In fact, much of the anti-Semitism stemmed from the peculiar prejudice of the time that “Communism was Jewish,” writ via the Nazis as “Judeo-Bolshevism.”

At the end of the day, this can only be seen as a mad ultranationalist project.

Extreme nationalism, colonialism and imperialism were the orders of the day, with racism shot through it all. But that’s not unusual, and colonial and imperial projects are typically racist, often brutally so.

There was also extreme militarism on a near Athenian level, but many nationalist projects are militaristic.

It was also deeply conservative socially, but this is also a hallmark of primordialist nationalist projects. After all, modernity and its cosmopolitanism are precisely the problem for which ultranationalism is the brutally molded solution, no?

Racialism and Ethnic Nationalism Are Crap

From a debate on Facebook in the bizarre and hilarious group called Gangster Bolshevism. I only get worried about these people when I realize they are serious, but then again, GB will never go over anywhere anyway, so what’s to worry?

Racialist: Robert Lindsay…what a sweeping dismissal of instinctive feelings. Most people are miserable regardless of their ideology or outlook. I’ve met few liberals or proponents of multiracialism who were truly happy or ‘well-adjusted.’

Racialism minus the ideological components associated with it is simple human tribalism, ‘us vs other,’ and you can’t kill that in people.

RL: Be my guest, be a primitive tribal animal, a human beast of a man. There is no reason that a modern man must be prisoner to his most base and degraded instincts. We have been out of the caves for tens of thousands of years. Wife beating, rape, theft, homicide, imperial invasion, endless blood feuds and tit for tat wars, all of this nonsense is an instinctive reminder of our savage past, it is true.

But we are modern men. We are not dogs and cats. We are above the lower animals. We need not be prisoners of savagery and barbarism. We can reflect and choose whether or not to act on or give in to primitive, base and retrograde throwback instincts. As for me, I am a liberated modern new socialist man who has worked free of much of my base caveman nature. If I can do it, so can anyone. We are not prisoners of our genes.

Let’s leave racialism aside here. After all, racialism is just a fancy word for racism, designed to make it go down smoother and look more innocuous. It’s fakery.

However, ethnic nationalism still has quite a pull. But ethnic nationalism anywhere on Earth just boils down to some sort of Nazism or KKK-ism. In Israel we find Jew Nazis and KKK-Jews. Black nationalists are Black Nazis and KKK-Blacks. Brown Berets and Atzlan/MECHA types are Mexican Nazis or KKK-Mexicans. Arab nationalists are Arab Nazis (see Saddam, the Assads and the North African leaders) and KKK-Arabs. The Shah was a Persian Nazi or a KKK-Persian.

To the extent that Islamists act as a sort of ethnic nationalists (while religion substitutes for race) the Islamophobes are correct that Islamists are Muslim Nazis or KKK-Muslims. There is often a tie in with the Arab Nazis that gives it more of a racial flavor.

That Hindutvadis are a sort of an Indian Nazi or KKK-Indian of a sense (but more as religion substitutes for race as with the Islamists above).

In China, the malignant spectre of Chinese nationalism rises in tandem with the move towards capitalism. This looks something like Han nationalism at the end of the day. Looking at how they behave in East Turkestan and Tibet, we can see what a sort of a Han Nazism or KKK-Han project looks like.

Considering that the only thing that ever comes out of a movement like this is some sort of Nazi/KKK type project, why would any decent or progressive person get behind such toxic and malign nonsense?

I’m a Holocaust Denier

Repost from the old site.

To be a Holocaust Denier, you need to meet some criteria:

• Deny that 6 million Jews were killed by Nazis in World War Two.
• Deny that there was a concerted plan to kill all the Jews in Europe by the Nazis.
• Deny that there was any kind of an overall plan to kill Jews by Nazis, instead of just some kind of war psychosis run wild.

How do I score on those? Two out of three.

• I do deny that 6 million Jews were killed in a deliberate plot to kill all of Europe’s Jews by Hilter’s Nazis.
• I also deny that the Nazis intended to kill every single Jew in Europe.

Response to the first charge: I say 5.7 million were killed, not 6 million. Actually, I say that 5,754,400 Jews were killed in the war. I like that figure – so precise! Whoever was able to round it off to the nearest hundred either has amazing statistical skills, confidence, nerve, or all three.

But that still makes me a Denier, right? I mean with the Kosher Holocult Crowd and all?

Response to the Second Charge: Well, they intended to kill a good portion of the Jews in Europe all right, but they did designate some Jews as “not to be killed”, or “not Jews” for some weird reasons.

A large number – possibly 300,000, 1/2 – 1/4 Jews were designated “non-Jews” and some even fought in the German Army. Many Jews married to non-Jews were also spared for some odd reason. Hitler demanded that his own personal family physician from his younger days, whom he dearly loved (Yes, it is true) be saved, along with his family. Even in the camps, a fair number were inexplicably spared.

On and on the rule-benders went. Why? Well, the Nazis had a problem. As in, Houston, we have a problem. Jew-killing was all fine and dandy with them, but they couldn’t kill half of Germany, for Chrissake.

You shake your head in incomprehension? A friend of mine dated a German woman. She said, “In Germany, we have a saying, ‘There is a bit of Jew in every German’”, this due to massive interbreeding with the heavily assimilated German Jews. (But see the comments following the post for some disagreements).

Which also begs the frightening and strange notion that Nazism was in part a suicidal project – a genocidal war by Germans on the German people themselves.

And so the rules about “Who is a Jew” had to be rather conservative and subject to much revision.

On the other hand, the Nazis killed a Hell of a lot of Jews, to be sure, and through their genocidal intent was not total, genocides are rarely completed in toto against very large groups. Just too many to kill em all.

In many countries they invaded, they killed the vast majority of Jews they could lay hands on and spared few. Even in North Africa, few realize that Jew-killing went on.

And the Palestinian cause suffered a blow recently when it came out that the Nazis intended to conquer Palestine and kill the Jews there. The Grand Mufti was, incredibly, all too willing to go along here. So much for the great “Alliance between Zionists and Nazis” that so many anti-Zionists like to crow over.

The Nazis intended to conquer Iran and Iraq – we know this, and there were many Jews to be killed there. America was a much more longer-term goal – Mein Kampf places the invasion in 1990, but with much of the world in Nazi (and Japanese?) hands, what would have been the fate of an economically strangled America?

Who would ever be so insane as to accuse a post like this of anti-Semitism, not to mention Hitler-adoration, fascism, and Holocaust Denial? Lots of Jews? Sadly true.

Show this post to 100 Jews, and a certain number of them will start spitting, sputtering, fuming and cursing about anti-Semitism, the singular and peculiar obsession of most Jews. They will get visibly angry and look like they are ready to get violent. You will feel like you want to leave the room.

Their ridiculous Judeophilic friends on both the liberal-Left and the neoconservative Right? Surely.

Marcuse-quoting, victim-addicted, White race- and Western culture-hating Leftist eggheads like this, this and this? Indubitably. How could we forget these silly human gnats, much as we long to? Is there anything more preposterous, useless, annoying and irrelevant than the Cultural Marxist Western Left?

Hitler’s Nero Order

Here.

Fascinating stuff.

Neo-Nazis claim that this document doesn’t exist. Yet you can read it right here. On May 19, 1945, Hitler order the Wehrmacht to destroy all of German’s infrastructure so that there would be nothing left for them to take. It’s known as his Nero Order, and it’s a very sore point with neo-Nazis who refuse to believe that their hero would destroy his own country. Speer submitted another memorandum opposing the order. Hitler’s order superseded Speer’s, but apparently Speer tried to his best to keep the destruction of Germany’s infrastructure to a minimum.

Nazis Were a Bunch of Queers?

Here.

Is there any truth to this stuff?

 

When White Nationalists Complain About Jews

Repost from the old site.

Problem is, they usually end up sounding like this guy.

German nationalism probably only dates to the 1880′s, and Italian, Russian and Pan-Slavic nationalism barely to the turn of the century.

Otherwise, nationalism in the modern sense really only arose in Europe with the French Revolution (though it was present first in England in the 1600′s with the defeat of the Spanish Armada), but it took the other nations mostly until the end of the century to adopt nationalism. Modern European nationalism is a relatively new phenomenon.

These modern nationalists pretty quickly took an interest in race along with the usual volkisch blood and soil bullshit. And most European nationalists agreed on one thing: the Jew was no good.

More recently, in the very early 20th Century, Nordicism began to evolve in Germany and in the US and the UK. I once had a copy of a proto-Nazi book by a German race scientist delineating all of the races in Europe and the surrounding area detailed down to the last detail. It was published in 1918.

This newer nationalism transcended the older nationalism of the one nation in an attempt to unite all Northwestern Europeans under some sort of a superior Nordic or White Race. At the same time, pan-Slavism and even Islamism developed (Yes, modern Islamism only dates to around 1900 or so).

Southern Europeans were quickly defined out of the equation by Nordicists, especially in the US where they were widely despised, but Hitler actually put Meds second only to Nordics. He hated Slavs, but this was mostly because he said they were a “slave race”.

They were a slave race apparently because they had allowed themselves to be enslaved by Jews in the form of Jewish Bolshevism or Communism. The fascists’ main beef with Communists was that the Communists tended to be anti-nationalist.

And it’s simple to see why Jews have been in the forefront of seeing that White ethnic consciousness or nationalism is dead and buried forever.

This is why the anti-racists (who, granted, do bash away at Whites) are so often Jewish.

This is why Noel Ignatiev (Jew) has founded an organization to make Whites go away forever. This is why Tim Wise (Jew) exists. This is why Jews so often decline to identify as White. This is why there are so many Jews on the board of the NAACP. This is why Jews pushed the 1965 Immigration Act and could well be why they pushed civil rights so hard.

Let’s face it: it’s hard to believe that US Jews really care about civil rights while they support their KKK-Jewish brethren in Israel so strongly.

KKK types are only bad when they are non-Jewish? KKK-Jews (Zionists) are ok, but KKK Whites are not?

Forget it. There must be another motive.

All of this Jewish behavior made the White Pride crowd dislike Jews more and more with every punch in the ring.

Anti-Semitism is not monolithic; some of it is pretty harmless stuff and unfortunately a lot of it is even true to one degree or another. But the Jews have never acknowledged that truth is a defense against anti-Semitism.

Yet when you start talking about your blond hair and blue eyes and your White race and White blood and then start slamming away at Jews, people, especially Jewish people, do tend to see historical parallels that are not necessarily present in other anti-Semitic brands. Face it, of all of the anti-Semites all down through time, these were the most efficiently deadly of them all. So while Jews will often shrug at other forms of “anti-Semitism” (especially anti-Judaism, which arguably is not necessarily even anti-Semitism at all but instead religious apologetic), the White Pride anti-Semites do tend to hit Jews in a particularly hard way.

And who could blame them?