Why I am not a Nazi

by Lyle Burkhead

Note added in 2011: This page was originally written about 2003. There are some comments in italics which were added later. When I wrote this page, I still thought it was primarily about race. I did not know the difference between National Socialism and "Nazism." I didn't catch on about that until last year. The distinction between them is explained on my What is National Socialism page.

Anyway, here are my reasons for not being a National Socialist, as I understood that concept at the time:

I don't define myself in political terms at all.

I am not an -ist of any kind. I don't believe in isms.

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. It's not a political problem, and it doesn't have a political solution.

By the way, I think it was Paul Goodman, a Jew, who coined the phrase "tell truth to power."  (No, it was Freud, The Interpretation of Dreams, chapter IV, page 112 of the Joyce Crick translation. But of course Freud was also a Jew.)

I am not a nationalist.

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.

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.

Note added later: 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.

I am not conservative.

I grew up in a small, conservative city (Midland, Texas). I hated it. I couldn't wait to get out of there. I left and sought out Weimar-type environments. 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.

In the 1970s I used to drive a Volkswagen bus, and I found out in no uncertain terms that conservatives have no use for me. For example: I used to go back to Midland to visit my parents, and somebody shot my windows out when the VW was parked in front of the house. Naturally the feeling is mutual. 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.

Of course I should not have to make that choice.

Added later: I left the VW behind many years ago, decades ago. That's not who I am anymore, if it ever was. I think I was just role-playing in the 1970s. For the last 20 years I have been living in one of the Bluest of Blue areas, and I am sick and tired of it. Out here in liberal-land, I have been told that I am insane, and not fit to be around children, because I don't believe in teaching babies to listen to rap. It was a white woman who said that. Only a white liberal would be depraved enough to say something like that.

I have not changed my mind about Narcland, Texas. The punks who shot my windows in the middle of the night are too chickenshit to meet me face to face, in the daylight. I would be glad to shoot it out with them.

I have no interest in barracks culture.

The NSDAP 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. There used to be a link here to an article, but as of 2011, the link is dead. Why, oh why, do these pieces of shit put up websites and then abandon them???  Anyway, these two paragraphs are quoted from the dead 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 agree with Lord Allenby.

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.

This is another thing I am having second thoughts about.

In the circus they have a saying, "To be on the wire is to live. Everything else is just waiting." Combat is like that. It's one of those rare occasions when you are balanced on the high wire, pumped full of adrenaline, concentrating so hard that a minute seems like an hour. One of those rare occasions when you are fully alive.

"War is the father of us all and our king. War discloses who is godlike and who is only a man, who is a slave and who is freeman." - Herakleitos

As for Storm Troopers taking over the country - somebody has already taken over the country. I have more respect for the Marines than for them. Combat troops are solid, straight-ahead men, and that is just what we need at this point. My views about what needs to be done are found on the untouchables page and my home page.

The Nazis attacked scientists.

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!

Nazi philosphy (to the extent that there is such a thing) is incoherent.

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 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.) Hitler's philosophy 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, for or against. 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. It would never occur to Hitler and his associates to consult Heidegger or Jung, not to mention Frege if he had still been alive in the 1930s - even though all three of them were, in some ways, sympathetic to Hitler's cause.

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 don't really agree about the Jews.

In other words, I don't necessarily agree that Judaism per se is always pernicious.

It is just stupid to talk about "Jewish physics," as if that's a bad thing. The Jews do have their own point of view, and since the time of Jacobi the Jewish point of view has made essential contributions to mathematics and physics. Sometimes Jews see things that would not occur to the rest of us, or at least they see it a lot sooner. Max Born (a Jew) was able to look at the work of Heisenberg and Schroedinger (gentiles) and connect the dots in a way that they did not. Dennis Gabor invented holography, a typically Jewish idea. John McCarthy invented Lisp, the functional, recursive, self-reflective computer language. Jews have made many other fundamental contributions to computer science. Almost all computers are based on the von Neumann architecture.

It's not just the mathematical sciences. The very structure of modern English prose owes a huge debt to the Hebrew Bible. The following is from an essay by Gerald Hammond which appears in A Literary Guide to the Bible, edited by Robert Alter and Frank Kermode (page 657).

It is not easy to overestimate the effect upon English prose, and through it upon English culture, of the Renaissance translators' close adherence to the word order of their original texts. T.S. Eliot's claim that a sophisticated prose style is the sign of an advanced culture is, principally, a syntactic observation. While English poetry was already developing a high degree of complexity, prose remained an unwieldy medium avoided by imaginative writers, who preferred verse for drama, and by scholars, who preferred Latin. The disposition of clauses in an English sentence of the first half of the sixteenth century is often a painful matter, the writer soon losing control over them, with the result that some sentences extend aimlessly over hundreds of words. Translating the Bible into English helped change this situation radically, largely because the early translators like Tyndale had the sense to follow closely the syntax of their originals. This is as much a cultural as a grammatical phenomenon, for the highly developed, sophisticated prose which comes naturally to any modern writer of English... is based upon the syntactic patterns established by the writers of the sixteenth century. The temptation to regard biblical writings condescendingly, as coming from a more primitive culture, neglects to take into account how far our deepest structures of expression were formed by these more developed biblical texts.

When I was 15, I read This is My God  by Herman Wouk. He described his initiation into the Talmud. One day when he was 13, his grandfather took him aside and said "Za rabotu!" ("To work!" in Russian). The old man showed him how the Talmud pages are laid out. The main text is in the center, with large margins on all sides. In the margins, in a smaller font, there are comments that rabbis have made over the centuries. There are comments on comments, weaving a complex multilayered tapestry. You don't just start at the beginning and read it straight through. Over the years they have worked out a curriculum, a sequence of passages which form the most productive line of thought, the line of thought that trains your mind in the most powerful way. You don't read it on your own. It is not intended for autodidacts. You study under a tutor who is steeped in the tradition. So little Herman was starting his Talmudic studies, guided by his grandfather, and I, a 15 year old white boy from west Texas, went through this with him, vicariously.

I liked the rabbinical project of following a certain line of thought to train your mind. That's basically who I am and what I do.

It wasn't my grandfather who initiated me.

I had already started down that path before I ever heard of the Talmud. I was reading Russell and Darwin, and I was thinking about mathematics beyond my schoolwork. I was already trying to put it all together. I initiated myself. I was, perhaps unfortunately, perhaps not, an autodidact. I did have mentors, to some extent, but they were not my cracker ancestors. Some of them were Jews.

The rabbis were trying to find The Way In. They were trying to ascend The Ladder of Lights. The Nazis had no such quest. The Third Reich was an entirely secular society.

National Socialism failed.

I am not merely referring to the fact that Germany lost the war. National Socialism 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.

Note added in 2010.  I think that quotation about destroying religion came from Hitler's Table Talk, which is not necessarily reliable. Anyway this discussion is superficial. This is one of the things that needs to be pruned or rewritten. In Iceland the churches are empty but the nurseries are full.

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 1920s. 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.

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, acting on their own, attacked a man who was wearing a black coat. They thought he was a Jew. It turned out that he was Kurt Gödel, but they didn't know that. In my earlier remarks I blew that incident way out of proportion.

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.

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 wanted to leave, they could leave. Hitler did not try to extradite Einstein and bring him back to Germany to lock him up.

As for meeting force with force, I will come back to that below.

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.

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.

This speech by Matt Kohl used to be on the National Socialism page:

This morning I would like to talk about the good society. More specifically, I would like to discuss the economic and social aspects of a good society.

Among other things in such a society, we would want a stable and prosperous economy, one with full employment and living wages. We would want affordable housing, whether in the purchasing or renting of a home. We would want a system of health care accessible to everyone, regardless of economic circumstance.
We would want generous provision for disability, maternity leave and retirement. We would want free access to college education and vocational training for any qualified applicant. We would want a healthy farming community, one which favors small family farms over large agribusiness conglomerates.

We would want the kind of public safety where one didn't have to live in gated communities to feel secure, and where one could walk down the street of any city at any time, day or night-without fear of being mugged, assaulted, or worse. We would want rigorous protection of the environment under a regime that is more concerned about the condition of our forests, our earth, our air and our waters than about corporate profit and pollution.

These are some the things we would want - for every citizen of our good society.

Today, we have NONE of these things. Why? Do these expectations of a good society sound unreasonable, or utopian?

I say to you that they are not - as is proven by the fact that there once was a society which had all of these things and more.

"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?

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 Patti LaBelle, Tina Turner, whatever. Everywhere I go, Tina Turner is screaming WHAT'S LOVE GOT TO DO WITH 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.  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 National Socialism, 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, then it doesn't matter if they can tell what's real and what isn't, and they are not going to care about being able to tell the difference.

April 16, 2006

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.

What's love got to do with it, indeed.

And they accuse us of "hate." The accusations never cease.

The Norwegian government invited these Somalians and Moroccans to come to Norway, and now the Norwegians are supposed to feel guilty when the Africans attack them.

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.

All white people are supposed to feel guilty about their existence - because of the genocide against the Jews, of course. Because of the Big Lie, the genocide lie. This is where it leads. They accuse us of exterminating them in gas chambers, and the accusation has such force that we, most of us, have become convinced that we don't have a right to live.

Everyone must accept the blame. No one can claim that they didn't in some way take part.