Anyone who has explored my site very far will have found that I write about the Third Reich in an obviously sympathetic way. Why, then, don't I go ahead and say I am a National Socialist? There are several reasons.
My thoughts have evolved over a period of years, and this page, like several other pages, has turned into a mini-blog. Instead of rewriting the whole thing, I add new thoughts at the end. If I did rewrite the whole thing, it would be very different. I am going to let it remain as it is, as a record of my journey... at least for the time being.
For a context, I refer you to the What is National Socialism page and the links found on that page (which was rewritten on May 2, 2006).
I have little interest in politics. I have no patience with political slogans, let alone invective. When people split into Reds and Blues and start going Nyaah Nyaah Nyaah at each other, I walk away shaking my head. I can't imagine anybody getting excited about Democrats and Republicans. As Alexandra Weber Morales said in an editorial in Software Development magazine, "Politics is always about sleight of hand, about non-issues being paraded about as do-or-die struggles."
Nor do I understand why anybody would join brown shirt/skinhead movements. Mussolini said "Fascism should rightly be called corporatism, as it is the merger of state and corporate power." That's pretty close to the system we have now, and I'm not happy with it, to say the least. I think there should be a balance of power between government and corporations, so they cancel each other out. Things should be arranged so that no institution has too much power. People should be able to live their lives without being controlled by either big government or big corporations.
When I was younger, my political philosophy was the same as Jefferson's: "That government governs best which governs least." I haven't changed my mind, but I have come to understand that Jefferson's quaint principle has no force in the Orwellian world we live in now. Orwell said "In a time of universal deceit, telling the truth is a revolutionary act." That's the only kind of revolution that makes sense, and it can only be done by philosophers, historians, writers, critics, journalists, and teachers. Unfortunately, intellectuals have almost unanimously abandoned Orwell and gone over to the other side. Telling truth to power is the last thing on their minds. I don't know what to do about this.
You can't be a National Socialist without being a nationalist, and nobody could be less of a nationalist than I am. I don't like to watch the Olympics, because the athletes represent countries, instead of competing as individuals.
Hitler expected everybody to put the nation at the center of their lives. That's just wrong. The nation shouldn't be the most important thing in anybody's life. It should be in the background.
Modern nationalism originated in France, in the aftermath of the revolution. It was and is a pernicious thing. When it spread to Germany, that was a step backward, not a step forward. German culture reached its high point before Bismarck.
Bach, Handel, Mozart, Goethe, Gauss, and Riemann were not German nationalists.
I sympathize with people like Guillaume Faye, who call themselves "nationalists," but until they start calling things by their right names, they are just wasting everybody's time. They aren't nationalists any more than Charles Martel was.
I never bought into the "we are all in it together" concept. One of the basic principles I follow is: I don't have to do the same stupid things everybody else does, and I don't have to let them get me entangled in their stupidity. I live my own life, and I expect other people to live theirs. I don't have much patience with people who lead random lives and have a crash landing, and I refuse to spend my time trying to straighten them out. It's their problem. This attitude is the very opposite of National Socialism, or any kind of socialism. As far as that goes, it is the opposite of Christianity. Some people would say that my attitude is the opposite of basic human decency, but I don't care. I'm selfish. Sue me.
When I lived in Texas, I used to see billboards put up by the Department of Education. The billboards said
BOY
Drop out of school now,
and that's what they'll call you
all your working life.
That is how I feel about people who cannot understand and use the financial system. They are boys in a man's world. I know the banking system exploits them, and sometimes I sympathize with them, but I only sympathize up to a point. I have known working class people, and lived among them at close quarters, but I was never really one of them. I was like Prince Hal hanging out with Falstaff and the others at the Boar's Head Tavern. When it was time to leave Eastcheap behind and move on to other things, I moved on. (This is an allusion to Shakespeare's Henry IV plays.)
What if it were possible to reorganize society so that the economic system did not exploit people? How would I feel about that? Well, I reject the premise of the question. It isn't possible. There will always be social classes, and the working class will always be exploited. I know them too well to think their lives could ever really change. They exploit themselves. They are doing what they want to do. Their incoherent lives are a reflection of their incoherent minds. Their limited lives are a reflection of their limited horizons. There is nothing anybody can do about it. If you give them freedom on a platter, they don't know what to do with it - an idiot who wins the lottery is still an idiot.
Besides, any attempt to change the system would require giving the government too much power. I would not trust any government with that much power.
On the other hand, it might be said that if Joe Sixpack had a good, stable job, and could support his family, he would be under a lot less stress, and that would be a good thing for everybody. That is how it was in Germany in the Hitler era, and in America in the 1950's and 1960's. It's not really a question of socialism vs. capitalism, it's a question of balance. If we could go back to that - a national economy, whether you call it National Socialism or American Capitalism - would I be in favor of it? Of course. That would be better than the system we have now, where Joe Sixpack and his wife and kids have to hold down three or four jobs just to get by, and still can't keep up.
When our present financial system implodes, people are going to be wondering what to do. The correct answer would be "Do what Hitler did." However, considering the extent to which National Socialism has been demonized, that proposal won't even be on the table. We may get fascism, in the worst sense of the word - the sort of thing that is usually associated with South America - but we won't get Hitler's economic program. We will get something like Roosevelt's program.
In other words, we will get the worst of all possible worlds, and National Socialism (i.e. the essence of it, the economic program) is so far out of the question, it's a waste of time to even think about it.
I am going to leave this section as it is, for the time being, but I am having a lot of second thoughts about it. When the financial system implodes, that will be a different situation, and all options will be on the table. When everybody is wondering what to do, "Do what Hitler did" will indeed be the right answer, and that answer will be considered if someone advocates it with a strong, articulate argument. What Hitler did was not exactly socialism as the term is understood today, so my aversion to socialism in general is beside the point. As for selfishness, maybe it's time for me to get over that. I can see myself going to the opposite extreme.
Nazi Germany was a deeply conservative society. Hitler wanted to promote small-town, family-oriented culture, as opposed to cosmopolitan, big-city culture. I grew up in a small, conservative city (Midland, Texas). I hated it. I couldn't wait to get out of there. I have spent most of my adult life in the most cosmopolitan places I could find, either college towns or bohemian neighborhoods in big cities.
I used to drive a Volkswagen bus, and I found out in no uncertain terms that conservatives have no use for me. Naturally the feeling is mutual. I don't care what happens to them. As far as I'm concerned, the bastards can all fucking die, and the sooner the better. I would rather be the only white man in a multiculti city than go back to Narcland, Texas.
I hope I have made myself clear on that point. (Come on, Lyle, tell us what you really think!)
The Nazi Party emerged from the Storm Troopers of the First World War. I have nothing to do with that scene. I'm either a loner or a ladies' man. I drink very little and don't have drinking buddies. The male bonding thing just doesn't happen for me.
I don't think Storm Troopers or soccer thugs should take over the country - any country.
Hitler's enthusiasm for war seems ridiculous to me. The two paragraphs in the box are quoted from that link:
When the 1914-1918 war broke out, a war described by
Field-Marshall Lord Allenby as 'a lengthy period of general
insanity', Hitler, believing the war would set everything
to right expressed himself thus: "For me it was a
deliverance. I am not ashamed to say it today: I fell on my
knees and thanked God."
On 20th October 1914, during the German advance on France
and confrontation with the equally belligerent 2,000,000
strong British army of the empire, Hitler in a letter to
Frau Popp his landlady confessed: "I find it hard to
contain my enthusiasm. How many times have I wished to test
my strength and prove my national faith!"
I never had any national faith. I despise patriotism. Patriots are the problem. I also despise war. I can't imagine going down on my knees and thanking God for a chance to go to war. I agree with Lord Allenby.
The problem with Hitler was that he was too much like Ariel Sharon. He wanted to create a world of perpetual war. That's not the world I want to create. War exists, and we have to deal with it, but as far as I'm concerned war is something to be gotten out of the way, so we can get on with our lives.
A reader has informed me that the Sharon link in the previous paragraph has been discredited. Holger Jensen called Amos Oz, who said "I have never met or interviewed Sharon." He interviewed an Israeli soldier, and it was generally assumed that the interviewee must have been Sharon. I am sorry to have cast aspersions on the character of such a distiguished gentleman as Ariel Sharon, who, I am sure, disagrees with the views expressed in the interview. However, this does not affect my point. Let me rephrase it this way: the problem with Hitler was that he was too much like the Israeli soldier in the Amos Oz interview, whoever that soldier may have been. Of course it's possible that Mr. Oz was lying about whether he interviewed Ariel Sharon, and it's also possible that the interview was imaginary in the first place, but that wouldn't affect the point either. In any case...
In Mein Kampf, Hitler said "The first and supreme duty of an organized folk community is to place the inventor in a position where he can be of the greatest benefit to all. Indeed the very purpose of the organization is to put this principle into practice... Therefore not only does the organization possess no right to prevent men of brains from rising above the multitude but, on the contrary, it must use its organizing powers to enable and promote that ascension as far as it possibly can."
So he said. But the men he attracted to his movement didn't feel that way. They hated intellect. There is an old saying among fascists, "Any thick book is a communist book." Hitler's followers attacked scientists, and he let them do it, flagrantly contradicting what he said in Mein Kampf.
During the Nazi era, there was an exodus of scientists like nothing that had been seen for centuries. I only know of a few precedents. In 145 BC, the Egyptians took control of Alexandria and persecuted the Greeks who had been running things ever since the city was founded by Alexander. Most of the Greek scientists had to emigrate, although some stayed. This marked the end of the golden age of Hellenistic science. A few hundred years later, the Egyptians drove the last remaining scientists out of Alexandria, and the Catholics closed the pagan schools in the Roman Empire, including Plato's Academy. The scientists emigrated to Persia and India. Finally, another thousand years later, the Catholics drove the Jews and Moslems out of Spain, and the scientists scattered wherever they could. All of these episodes were disgraceful, to say the least. These were the low points of human history.
There is one incident that epitomizes Nazism for me: one time Kurt Gödel was walking down the street minding his own business, and some S.A. men attacked him, knocked him down, and broke his glasses. If I had been there with a baseball bat, I would have evened things up a bit. Actually, all it took was a few blows from his wife's umbrella, and the big bad Nazis ran away.
An enemy of Kurt Gödel is an enemy of mine. Stupid punks!
Hitler grew up Catholic and retained the Catholic attitudes of his boyhood long after he left the church. But obviously he wasn't a serious Christian any more than Ghengis Khan was a serious Buddhist. He had only a superficial acquaintance with the Bible, and he knew nothing about Thomas Aquinas. He had no theology. He lived in Wagner's mythological universe. Wagner made quite a splash in his time, but he is largely forgotten now, and rightly so. (A few opera fans still listen to his music, but they pay no attention to his ideas.) Nazism was a bastardized amalgam of secular Catholicism, Wagnerism, and nationalism. It has no theological center, it has no philosophical foundation, and it just doesn't hang together.
The idea that Hitler was a follower of Nietszche is a myth. The word "Übermensch" and the expression "Blond Beast" do not occur in Mein Kampf. Hitler mentioned Nietzsche in passing, as an example of a famous writer, but he said nothing about Nietszche's ideas. Some of the other Nazis did talk about him, but only on the level of sound bites. If they had thought things through they wouldn't have had anything to do with him. Nietszche was, after all, the philosophical precursor of the modern music and art that the Nazis hated. But at the Reichchancellery, thinking things through was not a high priority.
Hitler's antisemitism was superficial. He had not studied the Torah. He didn't understand monotheism. He didn't understand what Judaism is in the general scheme of things. He kept repeating the cliché that "The Jews are a race, not a religion." That's as stupid as its inverse, "The Jews are a religion, not a race." Judaism can only be understood as a system. Both aspects of it are essential.
It's true that Jews don't have to believe any particular doctrine. An atheist can immigrate to Israel, as long as he's a Jew. But it doesn't follow that Judaism isn't a religion. Without the religion, the race would have disintegrated many centuries ago. The Jews would have disappeared from history just like the Scythians, the Akkadians, and many other tribes that played a role two or three thousand years ago but no longer exist.
Judaism is first of all an idea, and both the race and the religion are physical manifestations of that idea. Attacking individual Jews, or putting them in concentration camps, is as stupid as throwing a brick at your TV because you don't like the program.
Ideas can only be opposed by better ideas. The only way to resist the Jews is to contain them intellectually. You have to know what's going on in a way that they don't, just like a man knows what's going on and a child doesn't. In the Nazi era it was just the reverse. The Jews were the adults, and the Nazis were like children. The Storm Troopers had no use for intellect. They believed in acting without thinking. They thought they could just charge straight ahead at the matador's red flag and trample him. No, that doesn't work. The bull never wins.
I am not merely referring to the fact that Germany lost the war. Nazism also failed in more fundamental ways.
Hitler wanted to overthrow the international financial system. He didn't.
Hitler wanted to revive the German spirit. He didn't. The birthrate has continued to fall in Germany, as in most first-world countries. There was a notorious article on Reuters recently, which said that German women would rather stay single because it's easier to keep their houses tidy. We can't blame the Jews for this, can we? If the Germans are so anal that they don't want children messing up their tidy houses, then they are going to be extinct in the foreseeable future, and there's nothing anybody can do about it. It's not a political problem, and it doesn't have a political solution.
The birth rate isn't falling everywhere, at least not at the same precipitous rate. In Ireland, for example, they are still raising families. Ireland is also one of the few places where they still go to church. Hitler said "We will destroy religion." He succeeded in that, if nothing else (although religion has been destroying itself quite well without any external help). There was an article in a German magazine a few years ago in which a German pastor said "We are in free fall." It didn't occur to Hitler that if the churches are empty, the nurseries will also be empty.
Sometimes Hitler rose above nationalism and took a higher view of things, and he failed on that level too. Let me repeat something I wrote on another page:
In his essay on The State (Mein Kampf, Volume 2, Chapter 2), he wrote
The differences between the various peoples should not prevent us from recognizing the community of race which unites them on a higher plane. The conflict of our times is one that is being waged around great objectives. A civilization is fighting for its existence. It is a civilization that is the product of thousands of years of historical development, and the Greek as well as the German forms part of it.
In other words, as a political leader he was Führer of the Germans, but his larger aim was to revive European civilization.
But he didn't.
Johannes Brahms didn't have a successor. The generation of young men who attended Nazi schools and participated in the Hitler Youth movement didn't aspire to be Bach, Mozart, or Beethoven. After the war they went right on doing what their parents had been doing back in the 1920's. It was as if the Reich had never happened. In retrospect, it should be obvious that what Hitler did couldn't possibly have worked. When a government of Storm Troopers tries to impose classical culture by force, from the top down, on people who want to listen to jazz, it just isn't going to work.
To solve this problem you have to address its cause. Attacking the symptoms is a waste of time.
Mozart wrote a letter in which he explained how he composed his music. He said "First I see it, then I hear it, then I write it down." First I see it. Classical music and mathematics both came from an inner vision. That vision is well and truly lost, and that's the root of the problem.
When I used to smoke pot, I could "see" both music and mathematics. Eventually pot stopped having that effect. Now I'm trying (with some success) to get that vision back by just using my imagination. That's the only way it could possibly happen. The government can't do it for us. Those of us who care about classical culture have to go ahead and see with our inner vision, the way the great men of the past did. Of course, that's easier said than done. I don't know why it's so hard now. Sometime in the 19th century we lost the thread. It was not and is not a political problem, and it can't be solved by Nazi politics or any kind of politics.
The fact that Hitler was wrong doesn't mean the thought police are right.
Note added October 11, 2004.
I have just rewritten another page on this site, Agendas of revisionists and anti-revisionists. Specifically, I added this statement: when Jews put us in jail for questioning their lies, force should be met with force.
This was a big step for me.
We should not have to choose between a society in which Nazi thugs attack scientists, or a society in which Jewish thugs attack historians. There has to be another alternative.
Note added later: I am not sure the choice is fairly stated. The German government didn't attack scientists as such. Some S.A. men attacked Kurt Gödel. They were acting on their own, and they didn't even know who he was - he was wearing a black coat, and they thought he was a Jew. In my earlier remarks I blew that incident way out of proportion. The Nazi government did not do to Gödel (or Einstein, or any well known scientist) what the present German government is doing to Zundel. If scientists were anti-Nazi, they could leave. Hitler did not try to extradite Einstein and bring him back to Germany to lock him up.
In those days, a lot of scientists were pretty far left. Marxism was endemic in academia, just like political correctness is today. Most scientists wanted no part of National Socialism, so of course they emigrated. The Jewish scientists lost their academic positions, so they had little choice but to leave Germany. But that doesn't mean the German government attacked science per se. Far from it.
As for meeting force with force, I will come back to that below.
October 14, 2004
Recently I bought The Geometry of Physics by Theodore Frankel. It's a beautiful book. When I bought it, I was aware that the author is a Jew. I thought about the fact that Nazis attacked Jews, including Jewish scientists. I thought, if they attacked Dr. Frankel, I would come to his defense. But then it occurred to me that this is a one-way street. If he got in trouble for his "Jewish physics," I would come to his defense, but if I got in trouble for saying that a gas chamber is a gas chamber, and a non-gas-chamber is a non-gas-chamber; in other words, if I tried to assert my right to say that 2 + 2 = 4, he would not come to my defense.
Another day, another step.
February 26, 2005
Another day, a step back in the other direction... sort of...
Hitler and Goering were arguing about the Jews, Goering stating that they were quite clever people and Hitler vehemently denying they were any such thing.
Finally Goering told Hitler that they should go out in the city and Goering would show Hitler it was true. Hitler agreed, so they disguised themselves and went out on the street.
Goering took Hitler into a shop, went up to the counter, and asked the clerk: "Do you have any left-handed teacups?" The clerk stared at Goering for a moment and then said no, mein herr, I do not.
The two left with Hitler complaining that he did not understand what the point of this was, and Goering telling him to be patient. They went to another shop and Goering gave the same act: "Do you have any left-handed teacups?" The clerk stared and shrugged his shoulders.
They left with Hitler becoming incensed over this nonsense and Goering begging for patience. Finally they went into a Jewish shop. Goering again asked the clerk: "Do you have any left-handed teacups?"
The clerk smiled graciously, went into the back room and made a show of rummaging around, brought out a saucer and teacup, set down the saucer, and carefully placed the cup with the handle pointed so Goering could pick it up with his left hand. "There you are, mein herr!" the clerk said.
Goering bought the teacup, thanked the clerk, and the two men left. Goering turned to Hitler and said: "See, I told you the Jews were very clever people."
"I don't see what was so clever about that," Hitler snapped. "He just happened to have one in stock!"
May 8, 2005
The Reich came to an end sixty years ago today... an infinitely sad anniversary.
As I said on the Nazism and Transhumanism page, the Third Reich was humanity's last chance for a first-world future. Now the wheels of the world are grinding inexorably toward a dystopian future too bleak to contemplate. But it's even worse than that. There was no last chance. The Reich was so deeply flawed that it had to fail.
The storm that Hitler unleashed came back at him full force, and Germany was destroyed. Some revisionist historians say that Hitler didn't want war, it was forced on him. It may be true that Churchill wanted war as much as Hitler did. It may be true that Britain maneuvered Germany into war in 1939. It may even be true that Hitler thought of the war against the Soviet Union as pre-emptive. But I don't believe for a minute that Hitler didn't want war. As noted above, he was never anything other than an enthusiastic soldier. In 1914, he went down on his knees and thanked God. For him, the 1914 war was "a deliverance." When Germany lost, Hitler made it his mission to get Germany back on her feet and try again. The Second World War was a continuation of the first, and yes, he wanted it. Of course he wanted it. The bastard.
There was no occupied country that had fond memories of German occupation. The Germans were universally seen as bullies, not liberators. Everybody, with no exceptions, hated the Germans and wanted to get rid of them.
In fact it might be said that by 1945, everybody felt the same way about the Germans that they had always felt about the Jews, in the past.
The original idea of post-Nazism was to separate the valid parts of National Socialism from their historical baggage. But is that possible? Can you have National Socialism without storm troopers? Or without nationalism? Can you have nationalism without war?
Is it possible to replace our present system with something better? Or can it only be replaced with something just as bad, or worse? Is the world itself so totally evil that there is no hope of redeeming it?
There is no obvious answer.
Remember Matt Koehl's question on the What is National Socialism page: "Do these expectations of a good society sound unreasonable, or utopian?" Well, are they unreasonable? Are they utopian? Do we have to give up hope? Do we have to give up on the idea of "strength through joy," and just abandon it once and for all?
Hitler's most radical idea was that life should make sense - and not only that, life can make sense. Was he wrong?
"Life can make sense" - what does that mean, specifically?
Three essays by Germans who lived in the Reich
Ministry of Illusion - Nazi movies as a window into the Third Reich
March, 2006
Almost a year later...
Maybe this page should be titled "Why I am not (quite) a National Socialist."
I tried to work out at the gym this afternoon. They were playing nigger music in there. Rather than try to make an issue of it, I just left. There is no use trying to make an issue of it. This has happened many times before, and it always ruins my day to say the least.
They own public space. I don't.
One day I was out running errands, and I decided to eat lunch before going back home. I tried to eat at three different restaurants, and they were playing hip-hop in all three. If it's not hip-hop, it's some kind of muzak, "light jazz," Tina Turner, Patti LaBelle, whatever. There is no getting away from it. I have gotten to where I dread going out to almost any public place. If I lived in the Third Reich, I could stop anywhere for lunch and enjoy the experience - the food, the music, and the whole atmosphere. I would not feel like I was in a state of siege. I would be home.
If I could get into a time machine and go there, would I do it? You bet.
Meanwhile, back in the present, anyone who tries to tell the truth is in a state of siege. Ernst Zundel, David Irving, Siegfried Verbeke, and Germar Rudolf are in prison. Does force have to be met with force? Of course there is no way to do that - not in our present situation. But what if it becomes possible in the future? The problem is that if we try to fight them head on, we end up becoming the enemy. In other words, we end up trading places with them. As I said before, by 1945, people felt the same way about the Germans that they had always felt about the Jews in the past.
However, this observation contains the solution. In the future, things will revert to the historical norm. Jews will do what they have always done - they will keep pushing until they go too far. Their hate will come back at them. People have already started describing Israelis as "Nazis." That is the role they want to play, so let them. Eventually they will once again be universally despised, as they have been for most of the last 2,000 years. There is no need to meet force with force. They will destroy themselves. Just stand back and let it happen.
It is essential to let them play the "Nazi" role. When they accuse you of hate, don't take the bait. Eventually it will be obvious to everybody where the hate is really coming from.
When I use the word "we" in this context, I mean people who feel, as I do, that they are in a state of siege on many levels, and who are not willing to accept that situation. We have to do something. Well, what? What is to be done? Several pages on this site are addressed to that question.
We must abandon the word "Nazi" and everything associated with it. It is tainted forever with images of bombed cities, piles of dead bodies, etc. Never mind that the bombed cities were German cities, bombed by the Allies - the image is still attached to Nazism, and that isn't going to change. We should not use the swastika or the Nazi salute. We should not do anything that plays into the "Nazi" stereotype.
Let them be the Nazis, and let them take the bad karma that comes with it.
I am still not a political person, still not a nationalist, still not a socialist, still not conservative, and still not a goose stepping fascist. Not only that, as I said on the whiteness page, I think the race issue is a red herring. Nevertheless, when all that is taken away, something still remains, otherwise I would not be writing these pages in the first place.
If Hitler's philosophy was not coherent, well, let's create a new philosophy that is coherent. We must never abandon the idea of "strength through joy." We must never give up on the idea that life can make sense. We must not accept the dystopian future that awaits us under the present system. We must not give up public space to the other side.
We must never, ever give up our right to see that two plus two is four, and our right to think that two plus two is four, and say that two plus two is four.
One of the main reasons not to be a National Socialist is that Hitler put the emphasis in the wrong place. His slogan was: take back the streets. My slogan is: take back reality.
I guess Hitler would say you can't have one without the other. If people don't care about their own lives, they certainly are not going to care about abstract issues of "reality" and "unreality."
April 16, 2006
Come to think of it, one of my own pages calls for something like "take back the streets."
I have been doing a lot of soul searching. Of course, I know which side I am on. There is such a thing as being too subtle for my own good. It is time to simplify.
VERY BRUTAL RAPE - The 17 year old Somalian has several serious crimes on his conscience, but the worst is probably the rape of a young girl at Hoybraaten (Oslo suburb) one year ago. Oslo Court states that the rape was unusually brutal, and lasted for several hours. The young girl was threatened with a knife and beaten. The Somalian choked the girl so brutally and for so long, that the medical doctor who afterwards treated the girl, said that she could have died. Her voice has changed. She was raped without a condom in a very humiliating way. The girl is now suffering from severe psychological problems in the aftermath of the attack.
The Youth was sentenced to four and half years in prison, where three years was made conditionally, which means he will serve only one and a half years. The sentence also included another rape, where his Norwegian-Moroccan friend raped a 13 year old girl, whilst the Somalian helped to threaten her and keep guard. She was also brutally treated, and is experiencing serious problems after the experience.
The Court states that the girl was harassed by the family of the Norwegian-Moroccan and his friends. It went so far that the girl was angry at her own mother for giving the name of the rapists to the police. The girl wanted to pay the offenders to make them leave her alone. Her psychological condition became so bad she had to be forcibly sent to a psychological institution. Her schooling is destroyed.
The Norwegian government invited these Somalians and Moroccans to come to Norway, and now the Norwegians are supposed to feel guilty when the African immigrants attack them. All white people are supposed to feel guilty about their existence. In general, I am not a political person. It's hard for me to get worked up about most political issues, but I take this issue seriously.
The problem is that not many people care about it, and those few of us who do care can't do much by ourselves. We have to find some way to convince people that it's all right to stand up for themselves. In other words "take back reality" comes first, as I have said all along. This leads to the stories page. On this site, or at least this part of the site, all roads lead to that page.
The same thing is happening in all "Western" countries - western Europe, the US, Canada, and Australia. Consider how bizarre this is: governments set out sytematically to destroy their own societies. I don't think there is any precedent for this.
(added later) Well, of course there is a precedent: the Soviet Union.
April 23, 2006
More soul searching... Do I really know which side I'm on? Can subtlety be avoided? Maybe not. There is nothing simple about this. Of course any Jew who reads this page, not to mention some of my other pages, will know instantly that I am pretty far off the reservation. I am certainly not on their side. But what does it mean, not to be on their side? What is the alternative?
Today I discovered that one of the pages on the gnosticliberationfront site links to one of my pages. It ruined my whole day. [Since I wrote this, the link has been removed.] I don't have much respect for gnostics. Gnosticism sounds like something I ought to be interested in, but the more I learn about it, the less I like it. I used to go to lectures at Ecclesia Gnostica in Los Angeles. Some of the lectures were interesting, but most of it was just stupid. The last time I went, Dr. Hoeller (the Gnostic Bishop who gives the lectures) was using Tarot cards to tell somebody's fortune. I'm outta here.
I read a few pages on the gnosticliberationfront site. I clicked on a link called What is National Socialism and found something that gives me the creeps. (To state the obvious, this is not the same as my page of the same name.) That's not to say I disagree with everything on the page. There are several essays written by different authors, and some of their points are valid. If you take it sentence by sentence, I find things to agree with. Nevertheless the page as a whole, including the sidebar, stinks. [Now the page has been redesigned, and the sidebar is gone.] I clicked through to the main index page and found something even worse. It's ugly. Deeply ugly. Spiritually ugly. I can certainly understand why almost everybody despises these people... well, no, that's not quite right. I feel, on a gut level, more or less the same thing most people feel when reading this stuff. But I don't understand why I feel that way.
I have compared Neo-Nazism to a bull charging at the matador's flag, or somebody throwing a brick at his tv because he doesn't like the program, but I still have not found the exact metaphor to describe what's wrong with it. The problem is not just that they are aiming at the wrong target, or the wrong kind of target. Neo-Nazism is psychologically wrong, rhetorically wrong, artistically wrong, and metaphysically wrong. There is something deeply incoherent about it.
And yet what they are trying to do is basically valid. Why is it incoherent, and how can it be fixed? What should they be doing? How can they throw the right kind of rock at the right kind of target? If neo-Nazism is psychologically wrong, metaphysically wrong, etc., how can it be made right? Anyone who aspires to be a serious philosopher in the 21st century has to address this problem and think it through.
May 6, 2006
"Why I am not a neo-Nazi" is not the same as "why I am not a National Socialist" (in the original sense). "What is wrong with it, objectively" is not the same as "how I feel about it." My personal feelings are ultimately neither here nor there. If I am going to discuss this subject at all, I ought to do it in a more systematic way. This blog thing has gone on long enough.
As I said on my home page, I am tired of the whole subject, and I am trying to turn my attention to other things. However, I will be coming back to this. Whether I am tired of it or not, the subject is not going to go away. As I said on April 16, we - all of us in "Western" countries - are living under governments that are destroying their own societies. We are in a state of siege.
Kill the beast. Drive a stake through its heart. Kill it once and for all.
Easier said than done.