Mein dum Kanph

Hahaha.  Well put, Zooey.

Benjamin Franklin once said that democracy is two wolves and a lamb voting on what to have for lunch. Liberty is a well-armed lamb contesting the outcome.

The politicians that the United States and Britain had during and shortly after WWII believed in democracy. But they did not believe in liberty. The fact those politicians did not value liberty is why, in the government they created for postwar West Germany, they did not give the Germans freedom of speech, freedom of the press, or freedom to peaceably assemble.

During the Middle Ages, the Catholic Church provided the dominant moral narrative for Western Europe. One of the pillars for that narrative was the Bible. Members of the laity were not allowed to own or read Bibles. Only clergy were allowed to own or read Bibles. A priest would interpret the Bible on behalf of those within his parish. The priest would also read selected passages from the Bible at mass.

The dominant religion among Western economic elites is not Christianity. It is Antiracism.

The category of person who, roughly, reads The New York Times and The New Yorker and listens to NPR, would be a deeply religious person indeed, but as an Antiracist. . . .

The call for people to soberly “acknowledge” their White Privilege as a self-standing, totemic act is based on the same justification as acknowledging one’s fundamental sinfulness is as a Christian. One is born marked by original sin; to be white is to be born with the stain of unearned privilege.

The proper response to original sin is to embrace the teachings of Jesus, although one will remain always a sinner nevertheless. The proper response to White Privilege is to embrace the teachings of–well, you can fill in the name or substitute others–with the understanding that you will always harbor the Privilege nevertheless.

The core value of Antiracism is white guilt.

Typically, the followers of a major religion will have a text or story. A description of how their own religion came into being, why that religion should be considered good, and why that religion’s enemies should be seen as evil. Judaism follows that pattern (Torah and Talmud). So does Christianity (New Testament). So does Islam (Koran).

Antiracism follows that pattern as well. WWII is described as a war between good (Antiracists) and evil (Nazis). Antiracism and Nazism are the opposite. For an Antiracist, proving the evil of Nazism is the same thing as proving that Antiracism is good. That is why Antiracists are so heavily invested in proving the evil nature of Nazis, and the evil nature of anyone else who seeks to preserve the existence of the white race.

The contents of Mein Kampf are almost as important to the Antiracist religious narrative as the contents of the Bible had been to the Catholic narrative. The Catholic Church forbade non-clergy from reading the Bible, fearing that their interpretations of what they read might sometimes differ from official Catholic interpretations.

The official Antiracist interpretation of Mein Kampf is that the book is unreadable drivel, written by a madman so consumed by his own hate he was unable to think of anything else. If that interpretation was accurate, the Antiracist priesthood would have every reason to favor widespread distribution of Mein Kampf. Such distribution would reinforce an important Antiracist religious narrative. If on the other hand the Antiracist priesthood had chosen to give the general public an exaggerated or false notion of Mein Kampf, it would be in that priesthood’s interest to suppress that book’s distribution. To allow distribution would be to allow exposure of some of their religious narrative’s falsehoods.

@KurtGodel7:

Benjamin Franklin once said that democracy is two wolves and a lamb voting on what to have for lunch. Liberty is a well-armed lamb contesting the outcome.

While I’m not particularly interested in the remainder of the discussion, I’d like to point out that Franklin never said this. See https://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Benjamin_Franklin for an explanation.

The history most of us have been exposed to was written by the victors. People should also read what the vanquished had to say about the war in order to get a balanced view. The immature view that in WWII the Axis were all the “bad guys” and the Allies were all the “good guys” really should not thrive like it does in this information age.

@Herr KaLeun: thanks for the correction and the link. Using the link you provided, I found the following quote from Franklin:

Freedom of speech is a principal pillar of a free government; when this support is taken away, the constitution of a free society is dissolved, and tyranny is erected on its ruins.

The earlier quote was misattributed, and I’m glad you brought that to my attention. But the distinction between democracy and liberty stands. Democracy without liberty is tyranny.

Der Kuenstler:

The history most of us have been exposed to was written by the victors.

That’s certainly true! After any war, it’s normal for the victors to present themselves in a far more favorable light than the one used for the vanquished. There’s certainly a lot of that going on in terms of WWII history. But a standard-issue description of WWII (from the Allied perspective) contains a far greater level of bias than one would typically encounter in a “victors’ narrative” description of some other war. (Such as the Napoleonic wars or the Seven Years War.)

During the Spanish Civil War, the communists broke new ground through their utter departure from the truth. If their propaganda effort required them to fabricate an imaginary battle, they would. They were also willing to deny actual battles which had really happened. George Orwell was himself a socialist, but he was shocked by the dishonesty shown by the Spanish Communists. In his book 1984 the government abrogated for itself the right to declare that black was white, up was down, and so on. That was based on what Orwell had seen the Spanish Communists do during their civil war.

Under Joseph Stalin, the Soviet Union engaged in a massive effort to penetrate major foreign governments. That effort achieved considerable success in Western Democracies. Communist influence in FDR’s administration was greater than the mere number of Soviet agents might suggest. If (for example) communist and anti-communist elements of FDR’s administration disagreed with each other’s policy recommendations, FDR typically chose the communists’ advice. The more important the matter under discussion, the more likely FDR was to be guided by the advice of men who owed their loyalty and allegiance to Joseph Stalin and the Soviet Union.

Nor was communist influence limited to the American government. While most members of the media were not necessarily Soviet agents, they were nonetheless extremely sympathetic to the Soviet perspective. Witness The New York Times’ efforts to deny the Ukrainian famine (7 million murdered, including 3 million children). Even though the Soviet agents in the American government and media were greatly outnumbered by non-agents, many non-agents created a pro-Soviet echo chamber. In that environment concepts such as “objective truth” went out the window. A Soviet agent could make a recommendation or factual assertion, and have it echoed by any number of people in powerful positions. Even many reasonable people fully or partially believed the Soviet-inspired propaganda being recklessly thrown around.

People were being whipped into a frenzy, so that the United States would get involved in the war. Even before the Pearl Harbor attacks, FDR was able to launch an undeclared war against Germany in the Atlantic. Captains of American warships were told to shoot German submarines on sight. They were also told to accuse the Germans of having fired the first shot.

Imagine a fanatical religious cult. Its leaders and core followers are deeply familiar with its teachings. The members of this cult decide to create a large event, open to the general public. The outsiders who join the event are not members of the cult. They have not accepted, and may not even be aware of, many of that cult’s core teachings. But neither have they rejected those teachings! On the contrary, this particular batch of outsiders has a very favorable view of the cult, are predisposed in its favor, and are very open to learning more. On the other hand, they hate anyone who opposes the cult. And they are getting caught up in the excitement of the event the cult is putting on.

During the 1930s and '40s, a relatively small minority of the American government and media were outright members of this cult (Marxism). Most members of the media and government could be described in the same terms I’ve used for the “outsiders” described above. They got caught up in the spirit of things. They believed it was perfectly okay to lie, as long as the lie in question was directed against Hitler, or helped move the U.S. closer to war. These outsiders were told–and genuinely believed–that WWII was a war between evil (Nazi Germany) and good (the Soviet Union).

The Marxists who created the Antiracism religion did not necessarily intend for that religion to be permanent. The long-term goal of Soviet foreign policy had always been world conquest. Because the United States was too strong to be conquered by military means, it had to be destroyed from within. It was for that reason that the Soviets involved themselves so heavily in internal American affairs. The Soviets propped up and supported various American political movements: radical feminism, a pro-crime movement, an effort to abolish traditional morality, attacks against religion (especially Christianity). Their sponsorship of Antiracism was just another thing on the list.

Suppose Mr. Smith slips a little arsenic into Mr. Jones’ food each day. The arsenic dosage Mr. Jones receives over any given day, month, or even year, will not necessarily be enough to kill him. However, Mr. Smith knows that arsenic builds up over time, and that eventually his efforts will be fatal to Mr. Jones. I would argue that Mr. Smith is in the process of murdering Mr. Jones. I would also argue that the Soviet Union went to war against the United States during the 1920s, and remained in a constant state of war against us until the fall of the Soviet Union. I would further argue that under the FDR/Truman administrations, the Soviets successfully used their (very considerable) influence in the United States to turn one of their intended victims (us) against another intended victim (Nazi Germany).

@Zooey72:

In the end people prefer their demons to facts.  Our civil war is a great example.  Slavery is the popular reason people think their was a war.  But the real reason was tax appropriations, tariffs, and where the railroads would be built….

And the American War of Independence was driven by merchants wishing to avoid taxes imposed by the British to fund the cost of defending the colonies. Liberty has a better ring though doesn’t it!

@Zooey72:

Thought I would update this

https://www.yahoo.com/news/hitlers-mein-kampf-becomes-german-bestseller-publisher-112022916.html

Not sure what to make of that.  If I had to guess the reason it is selling so well is because people haven’t been allowed to see it.  I doubt it is any kind of validation of Hitler.  I think the reason it is probably doing so well is because if you were raised being told that your country was resp. for the most evil man who ever lived, you might be curious to want to read the book when it became legal.

I am aware of the Merkel thing and immigration, and there may be some stupid people who are getting it for that reason.  But they are just that… stupid.  Hitler made Muslim extremist honorary Aryans, and they were in the SS because they were a good fit (being fanatical crazies).

Anyhow, just thought it was interesting.

I’d like to address your point about Merkel and immigration.

First, I’d divide all ideologies into two categories: particularist and universalist. If for example a Jew is willing to sacrifice the interests of Palestinians in order to benefit Jews, that’s particularism. If a Palestinian is willing to sacrifice Jewish interests to benefit Palestinians, that’s also particularism. “My country, right or wrong, but my country” is an expression of particularism. The National Socialists were particularists: their objective was to benefit Germanic and Nordic ethnies, if necessary at the expense of other ethnies or non-white geographic races. The existence of a threat to one’s ethny tends to heighten ethnocentrism. One sees that heightened level of ethnocentrism on both sides of the Israeli/Palestinian conflict, and in most other cases where an ethny’s existence is threatened.

The question then arises: is Angela Merkel’s ideology particularist or universalist? Her policy calls for Germany to accept almost unlimited numbers of migrants from Third World nations. Such policies will (and are) causing the extinction of the German ethny, and its physical replacement with non-white Middle Easterners. This threat to the German ethny’s existence does not involve the drama of extermination bombing raids, firestorms, or forced deportations of millions of Germans. Instead, its effect is to use the slow, inexorable pressure of demographics to cause the extinction of the German ethny. (And more generally of the white race in Western and Central Europe.)

Throughout human history, it has been exceedingly rare for a nation to voluntarily accept large numbers of immigrants. The normal immigration policy is an outright ban, except perhaps for a few special cases. For Merkel’s immigration policy to be universalist, it would need to be part of a broader effort to pressure all the nations of the world to discard this traditional immigration policy in favor of a “destroy the native ethny” policy that Germany has adopted. For example, both China and India have truly massive populations. Opening the border between the two could result in large numbers of Chinese immigrants into India, and large numbers of Indian immigrants into China. With the right immigration policy and the right financial incentives, both ethnies could be destroyed/blended together. By the same token, Israel could be caused to lose its unique Jewish identity, for example by flooding it with large numbers of immigrants from Latin America or Sub-Saharan Africa or India. (Israel accepts only Jewish immigrants.) The same could be done to Palestine to cause it to lose its unique Middle Eastern/Muslim identity.

However, no major players are pushing for any of this. Not Angela Merkel. Not the major media companies or plutocrats who stand behind Merkel. Not colleges or universities. No one within the Establishment is pushing for this kind of immigration policy for any non-white nation. Merkel’s immigration policy is highly particularist: traditionally white nations are asked to surrender their racial identities. The idea of asking any non-white nation to do the same is of course not even mentioned.

The Middle East’s problems are due to poverty, corruption, unequal distribution of wealth, overpopulation, and poor treatment of women. Paying large numbers of Middle Easterners to come to Germany, and to do nothing other than have babies and exist off the government dole, does not represent a serious attempt to solve any of those problems. If the goal was to benefit the Middle East, Merkel’s policy would be completely irrational. If on the other hand the goal were to cause the extinction of the German ethny, and of the white race within Germany, Merkel’s immigration policy would be highly rational. Merkel’s immigration policy is rabidly anti-German particularism. As such, it can only be embraced by self-hating Germans or self-hating whites. Anti-Nazi propaganda is therefore drummed into white children’s heads from a very early age, in order to create that self-hatred.

I agree with Kurt!

@Zooey72:

… You can not have any group of people come into another culture and not assimilate.  Immigration without assimilation is invasion.  Diversity can be a good thing in small doses, but even than it is not essential.  There is zero diversity in Japan and China …

well said

The current trend towards “Right-Wing” politics is largely a reaction to the Anti-racist cult. In fact it is not extremist but an attempt to restore a natural medium ground between the true extremes of conservative global capitalism and “liberal” internationalism, which has of course become anything but liberal.
Nationalism is the true basis of democracy and by deliberately eroding the nation state the left are creating chaos and anarchy and calling it “freedom”.  They ignore the obvious parallels with the fall of the Roman Empire as if a thousand year dark age was a good thing.

That said, Mein Kampf is unreadable drivel.

But what is does reveal is that the aims of Nazism were always international, and are basically the same as the EU - create a highly centralised United States of Europe under German direction and expand into the east in order to create new markets and a source of cheap migrant labour.

@Flashman:

The current trend towards “Right-Wing” politics is largely a reaction to the Anti-racist cult. In fact it is not extremist but an attempt to restore a natural medium ground between the true extremes of conservative global capitalism and “liberal” internationalism, which has of course become anything but liberal.
Nationalism is the true basis of democracy and by deliberately eroding the nation state the left are creating chaos and anarchy and calling it “freedom”.  They ignore the obvious parallels with the fall of the Roman Empire as if a thousand year dark age was a good thing.

That said, Mein Kampf is unreadable drivel.

But what is does reveal is that the aims of Nazism were always international, and are basically the same as the EU - create a highly centralised United States of Europe under German direction and expand into the east in order to create new markets and a source of cheap migrant labour.

During the late 1500s - early 1600s, the two strongest forces in English government were the monarch and the House of Peers. (The latter being a hereditary aristocracy.) But the death of King James and his replacement by Charles I led to a rise in importance in the House of Commons. Eventually that power struggle resulted in civil war, with the Puritans (House of Commons) ultimately defeating and beheading Charles I. His son, Charles II, was banished to France. The Puritans’ rule lasted several decades, after which Charles II assumed power. After Charles’ death, his son, James II, became king. In the Glorious Revolution (1688), Parliament decided to replace James II with William of Orange and Mary. This replacement involved only minor bloodshed, in contrast to the civil war which had taken place a half century earlier. The king had become significantly weaker than Parliament, and the House of Commons had become the single strongest branch of British government.

The American Revolution did not take place until many decades after the events I’ve just described. That revolution was in large part a response against abuses committed by the British government. The largely democratic British government. And it’s not as though those abuses were imposed by King George III against the wishes of a united Commons. On the contrary: all three branches of British government, including the House of Commons, played a role in embracing the policies the American colonists found so objectionable.

In history class it’s often claimed that the American revolutionaries were fighting for “democracy.” That claim is false, because the government we were rebelling against was largely democratic in nature. The replacement government, as envisioned by the Founding Fathers, was intended to be only 1/3 democratic. (The House of Representatives.) “Checks and balances” meant balancing out that 1/3 democratic element against two other, non-democratic components. (The presidency and the Senate.) The president was to be chosen by the electoral college, not the people. And Senators were selected by state governments, not the people. The American colonies had been on the receiving end of democratic misbehavior (the British House of Commons), and did not want the American version of that misbehavior to form the sole basis of our government.

There are certain steps one must take if one wants a strong, prosperous nation. Other steps will achieve the opposite result: a nation that’s corrupt, poor, stagnant. The dying Roman Empire took the latter types of steps: steps which ultimately resulted in collapse, and the onset of the Dark Ages. As you hinted, democracies are perfectly capable of taking those same types of negative, destructive actions, and most modern major democratic regimes are doing exactly that.

On an unrelated note, I’ve read Mein Kampf. The writing and content were of much higher quality than I’d been led to expect. There were of course parts which which I strongly disagreed. My impression of the book’s author was someone who was highly intelligent, ethnocentric, opinionated, self-taught, and who’d gleaned some basic insights into human psychology. As an example of this last, Hitler wrote that people expect of a leader the same traits a woman expects of a man: strength, decisiveness, courage, etc.

The writing and content were of much higher quality than I’d been led to expect….My impression of the book’s author was someone who was highly intelligent, ethnocentric, opinionated, self-taught, and who’d gleaned some basic insights into human psychology.

That figures Kurt.

Actually, the consensus is that the few coherent bits in the book were written by Hess. Whatever you think of Hitler’s world view, he was a lousy writer. In the middle of discussing the limits of Greater Germany he’ll go off on a long rant about venereal disease. Hitler was later on embarrassed by the book, though it did make him a rich man.

The majority of American colonists were against the Revolution; it was only French intervention that tipped the balance. Essentially the USA was an invention of a narrow masonic clique who’ve pretty much monopolised power ever since; most Presidents being related to each other several times over.

@Flashman:

Actually, the consensus is that the few coherent bits in the book were written by Hess. Whatever you think of Hitler’s world view, he was a lousy writer. In the middle of discussing the limits of Greater Germany he’ll go off on a long rant about venereal disease. Hitler was later on embarrassed by the book, though it did make him a rich man.

The majority of American colonists were against the Revolution; it was only French intervention that tipped the balance. Essentially the USA was an invention of a narrow masonic clique who’ve pretty much monopolised power ever since; most Presidents being related to each other several times over.

You have not read the book, and are relying on the opinions of reviewers who have. If you think those reviewers are doing their very best to give a fair and unbiased appraisal of the work, then nothing I write is going to change your mind.

I don’t know enough about the subject of America’s ruling class to agree or disagree with your second paragraph. I’ve heard that both George W. Bush and Kerry were members of the Skull and Bones society; with the implication that the U.S. was going to get an Establishment president no matter how that election played out. I suspect that if I delved deeply into this subject I would not like what I found. But that’s only a suspicion, not something for which I have much evidence.

@KurtGodel7:

You have not read the book, and are relying on the opinions of reviewers who have. If you think those reviewers are doing their very best to give a fair and unbiased appraisal of the work, then nothing I write is going to change your mind.

Funny that especially you say something like that. :lol: :lol: :lol:

Funny also is that you still try to convince peoples of your own ideas  :lol: :lol: