Well, Metzger's made the point many times, and I happen to agree with him on a certain level.

We DO need a big intelligence apparatus and a standing army and modification of the bill of rights, on and on and on, if we would ever come to power, to uproot Jewish power in this country. Make no mistake about it.

If the cancer were removed, and White sovereignity and racial order restored, THEN and only then we could go back to some kind of classic-liberal style liberty system. But, let's be frank. Our enemies once in the USA used our liberties against us, and once in power they are taking them away from us. That is a game with no ideal solution. Let's consider Mithradates'solution to ausrotting Roman power:

PS guess who his grandfather was?

King Pharnakes

Whoops. I mean "subscribe" (not "ascribe"). Thanks for the gentle correction.

Actually, I hadn't even noticed.

Well, thanks for the unintended correction.

That is exactly right. Avoid the topic if the audience can't get it, but DO NOT feign agreement with our enemies over Hilter and NS. That creates real credibility questions doesnt it?

Also, why would someone go through all the trouble of "denying the Holocaust", with all the flak that entails, just to condemn Hitler and the Third Reich anyway?

Also, why would someone go through all the trouble of "denying the Holocaust", with all the flak that entails, just to condemn Hitler and the Third Reich anyway?

The whole thing is bizarre. What is the goal? To create an Anti-Hitler/Anti-Jewish movement? In other words, because the Jewish media owns what the lemmings think of Hitler we have to hate Hitler to thus defeat the Jews?

White Nationalists often have flawed reasoning patterns when it comes to Hitler and the Holocaust. What they can't quite comprehend is that Anti-Semitism hasn't held any weight in American politics in the last 100 years even prior to Hitler coming to power. It doesn't make any difference whether most Americans didn't like Jews 80 years ago, how was it represented in the political system? President Herbert Hoover didn't wake up everyday naming the Jew and neither did Calvin Coolidge or Warren Harding.

Jew-wise Henry Ford never even ran for president. So how much did Anti-Semitism really accomplish in this country back then?

I do think that no one, not even our best, can or should place themselves above criticism by those who also only want us to win. Some course corrections must always be considered. Honest counselors should be listened to.

Agreed. I've watched this thread develop, meander and grow to a critical mass. Time for me to address at least some of the issues raised, I suppose.

First: I am no Hitler fan. Obvious, I suppose, but I am no Hitler basher, either. As I said on one of those obscure cable shows, "Hitler did some good things. Hitler did some bad things." He was, after all, a man. An exceptional man, to be sure - even JFK acknowledged that fact - but fraught with human shortcomings.

I think of Hitler as having been a benevolent dictator -perhaps the single most efficient form of government. Problem is that not-so-benevolent men tend to succeed such dictators. Books have been written.

Let me remind you of just a single negative, though: German dissenters were branded as traitors by the Nazis (just as is being done by Bush and his followers right now) and, later in the regime, were found hanging from lampposts with signs around their necks that said, "I am a Traitor." There are others. There are a great many positives. Read my book for a thoroughgoing discussion of Hitler's Germany that passed muster with even Martin Lindstedt.

Fact is, if Hitler were alive today, he would walk his own path and not attempt to revive any past movement. He would have availed himself of anything to advance his cause, even to the point of using popular imagery to achieve his ends, though he might personally disagree with how that imagery is viewed.

You aren't going to revive Naziism. You aren't going to rehabilitate Hitler's image and reputation. Stop trying. Yes, Bush is more akin to Stalin than to Hitler, but that isn't the growing popular perception and you know it. Hitler was a fascist and today is universally hated. Bush is seen as becoming a fascist, albeit of a different sort. The tar is there to use against Bush. Use it. Hitler would, believe me.

I have found nothing more effective in dealing with Jews than calling them Nazis. They stop dead in their tracks and get confused. That is when I cut them open. They are, you know...nazis, that is. Same approach and they know it. We become that which we resist. Jews make a career of resisting Nazis and Hitler.

People seem to think there is a single WN ideology. There isn't. Even WN make that mistake, so why is it any surprise that the rest of the country sees anybody to the right of conservatives as being pure KKKers?

In fact, I am more of a liberal than anything else. A liberal who still is wrestling with abortion but is inclined to outlaw it altogether. A liberal who is fiscally as conservative as was Thomas Jefferson. An isolationist, populist liberal. A liberal who believes in mandatory racial separation from some races, though not all. Hmmmmm....maybe I'm not all that much a liberal, after all.

One thing I am not, however, is a National Socialist. But, some of my best friends are. If you can't accept that, then how about accepting my comradeship because we indisputably have common enemies?

The original hallmark of liberalism was a belief in personal freedom above all other things. My freedom ends where yours begins, that sort of thing. That's me. I am absolutely opposed to big government and big business - indeed, big anything - in any form. Big anything breeds control freaks. The Nazis were control freaks. So were the communists. So are the Neocons.

Don't tread on me. A motto that we should have stuck with.

You can be what you like and I will accept that (if you aren't trying to harm me or mine) - why can't you accept what I seem to be?

As for races, let me repeat that I have no problem with Asians...nor any of a number of other races; most of the world, in fact. I have problems with Blacks, Mestizos, Jews, some Pacific Islanders and anybody else who threatens or harms me or mine. I can, and have, articulated specific reasons and statistics why. Can you honestly justify why you dislike all other races, if indeed you do? If not, why not?

I believe we should have the right to live apart from any and all races if that is what we wish, regardless of whether we can articulate reasons. I believe in mandatory segregaton from races with a proclivity to do us harm (see list above), but will not prevent those Whites who wish to live among them from doing so. Their funeral, and all that.

I kind of intend to do a series of papers on what makes a White Separatist vs. White Supremacist vs. White Nationalist, etc. Problem is in getting an accurate fix on the differences. Hell, even we can't agree on them.

Only you can decide whether you think me worthy to carry the standard for any segment of White America. Pastor Richard Butler, though he knew of our differences, thought me worthy to represent him in court and, afterward, to deal with me as a personal friend. Unlike so many, I have been willing to stand by those I call friend and refused to be vilified for having done so. Above all else, I think that was what Pastor Butler most valued in me - my simple honesty.

I watch this board, as I do others, insofar as my schedule allows me to do so. I pay attention to what is said. Many of my attitudes and beliefs thereby have been altered.

Ed:

1. I hear what you say about Hitler never being rehabilitated. Sadly, the Western public is so brainwashed [about Hitler] that that will not happen.

2. However, Hitler was probably the only world leader who truly understood the Jews. That, by itself, is important.

3. Re: White supremacism: if Whites aren't superior to all other races, who is? Granted, some people don't want to use the word "superior," but nonetheless it is accurate.

[edited]

---------------------

Ed:

1. I hear what you say about Hitler never being rehabilitated. Sadly, the Western public is so brainwashed that that will not happen.

2. However, Hitler was probably the only world leader who truly understood the Jews. That, by itself, is important.

3. Re: White supremacism: if Whites aren't superior to all other races, who is? Granted, some people don't want to use the word "superior," but nonetheless it is accurate.

---------------------

But if the masses have been brainwashed into hating Hitler, what makes us believe that those same masses can be molded by us into hating the Jews? Haven't the Jews spent decades using their mass media control to declare that opposition to Jews is the ultimate in evil?

Is that the only "bad things" you can come up with, that they were "control freaks"?

I'd be curious to know your sources for this frumpy charge anyway. First hand accounts? Research? Estimation based on seventy years of lies? The fact is, if you compared them to European societies throughout history you'd find them more liberal than most.

I appreciate your putting present day politics ahead of vindicating Hitler and the Third Reich but I don't think you're accomplishing anything with your particular methods. Like tomorrow's conservative, everything you say publicly is in furtherance of your own personal distance from the truth tellers of yesteryear. I know you won't believe this but it won't accomplish anything good. It's the equivalent of "Heritage Not Hate", which is merely begging for inclusion in the Jews' universal quagmire.

Please get off of the Hitler kick, since you know little of it. Stick to the courtroom, and rant about things going on now that don't require Hitlerian context. In fact, the next time a talking head readies you for inanities about NS, give him a heart attack and tell him he's an idiot for believing the Jews' propaganda, and then go back to current events.

I suspect that most americans widely believe they know for sure many things that are just not so. Like the so-called facts about Hitler, the NSDAP, Mussolini, Stalin, etc. What I *thought* I knew from growing up came mostly from my parents and clan, what I heard on the radio, and, to an extent much larger than I wish, from MOVIES. I remember in high school my father was reading a book "The Rise and Fall of the 3rd Reich". He was aghast at the horribly things depicted in that book - fables about german atrocities and all. I didn't read the book, but I got the propagands anyway. This method of influencing what we believe probably has a name, but I think of it as something like repeated media dunkings. It has such an effect on us that we ourselves don't even know that we have been played like cheap violins. When I was very young, my dear mother worried about her little boys (my brother and me) being snatched up by evil Nazi's and used as blood doners for thier injured soldiers. She had me convinvced that such atrocities really did happen during the war. It wasn't until after she has passed away that I saw a ww2 propaganda film (starring Walter Hustin) which depicted the very scenes my Mother had had nightmares about (small slavic children being drained of their blood by evil Nazi doctors). This movie was captivating (well acted, well scripted, and all that), but, when it came to the blood-draining scene, I snapped out of my messmerized state because I realized that my dear mother's nightmarish fears MUST have been from having seen this wartime propaganda movie - she had swalloed it whole, and even passed it on to me and my siblings. The point I hope to make is that we really don't KNOW for sure what went on over there, and, for me, I am willing to admit that I have been so infected with expert propaganda from 60 years of top-notch jewish carnival barkers, that I really don't know even the things I think I know. But, to the question of making citations about Htiler (or any other historical figures), it would be better to become an expert (in the David Irving style - lots and lots of reading of a wide variety of writings about the person) before opening our mouths about them. The little bit I have read about Hitler, up until the start of the 3rd reich, is very impressive. He seems like a one-in-a-million amongst we mortals. Who argues amongst themselves more than Germans? But he managed to get over 90% of them to agree with his programs and thus presented a formidable force in the world not ikely to be equaled for a long time. Contumacyman

I suspect that most americans widely believe they know for sure many things that are just not so. Like the so-called facts about Hitler, the NSDAP, Mussolini, Stalin, etc. What I *thought* I knew from growing up came mostly from my parents and clan, what I heard on the radio, and, to an extent much larger than I wish, from MOVIES. I remember in high school my father was reading a book "The Rise and Fall of the 3rd Reich". He was aghast at the horribly things depicted in that book - fables about german atrocities and all. I didn't read the book, but I got the propagands anyway. This method of influencing what we believe probably has a name, but I think of it as something like repeated media dunkings. It has such an effect on us that we ourselves don't even know that we have been played like cheap violins. When I was very young, my dear mother worried about her little boys (my brother and me) being snatched up by evil Nazi's and used as blood doners for thier injured soldiers. She had me convinvced that such atrocities really did happen during the war. It wasn't until after she has passed away that I saw a ww2 propaganda film (starring Walter Hustin) which depicted the very scenes my Mother had had nightmares about (small slavic children being drained of their blood by evil Nazi doctors). This movie was captivating (well acted, well scripted, and all that), but, when it came to the blood-draining scene, I snapped out of my messmerized state because I realized that my dear mother's nightmarish fears MUST have been from having seen this wartime propaganda movie - she had swalloed it whole, and even passed it on to me and my siblings. The point I hope to make is that we really don't KNOW for sure what went on over there, and, for me, I am willing to admit that I have been so infected with expert propaganda from 60 years of top-notch jewish carnival barkers, that I really don't know even the things I think I know. But, to the question of making citations about Htiler (or any other historical figures), it would be better to become an expert (in the David Irving style - lots and lots of reading of a wide variety of writings about the person) before opening our mouths about them. The little bit I have read about Hitler, up until the start of the 3rd reich, is very impressive. He seems like a one-in-a-million amongst we mortals. Who argues amongst themselves more than Germans? But he managed to get over 90% of them to agree with his programs and thus presented a formidable force in the world not ikely to be equaled for a long time. Contumacyman

Children grow up believing that their parents are these geniuses who "know everything" but it simply isn't true. Most of our parents were just willing drinkers of the mass media kool-aid and we need to be aware of that and move on. :cheers:

http://www.vnnforum.com/showpost.php?p=326890&postcount=52

http://www.vnnforum.com/showpost.php?p=326910&postcount=54

I think of Hitler as having been a benevolent dictator -perhaps the single most efficient form of government. Problem is that not-so-benevolent men tend to succeed such dictators. Books have been written.

There is no possible way to determine what a successor to Hitler would have been like(save for Doenitz) simply because they never had the chance. The National Socialist system was unlike other historical models in this sense, and stressed that leadership shold be reserved for those with proven capability. We cannot say how well that would have worked but it is unlike the system in manner failed dictatorships.

Let me remind you of just a single negative, though: German dissenters were branded as traitors by the Nazis (just as is being done by Bush and his followers right now) and, later in the regime, were found hanging from lampposts with signs around their necks that said, "I am a Traitor." There are others.

Let's not forget that Germany was surrounded by enemies that had totally raped the nation once after WWI and were interested in doing it again. Many of the measures Germany took toward dissenters in WWII were either undertstandable given the stakes involved or identical to those carried out by every other major player of the war. Most dissenters were simply locked up in camps. They only started hanging traitors(summarily) late in the war.

You aren't going to revive Naziism. You aren't going to rehabilitate Hitler's image and reputation.

Then why not stop questioning the Holocaust? Sure point out how it is used as a propaganda tool for Jews to get their way, and point out that there are comparable atrocities, etc. But why send letters to congressment questioning the Holocaust if you are not concerned with rehabilitating Hitler? Just so you know I feel the same way you do on this matter]
Stop trying. Yes, Bush is more akin to Stalin than to Hitler, but that isn't the growing popular perception and you know it. Hitler was a fascist and today is universally hated. Bush is seen as becoming a fascist, albeit of a different sort. The tar is there to use against Bush. Use it. Hitler would, believe me.

Fascist is simply thrown around too much, used to describe regimes and governments far from Fascism. For one thing, Fascism is an ideology. Hitler was not a Fascist. There are crucial ideological differences between National Socialism and Fascism, and the importance of those differences are borne out by the difference in performance in WWII between that of the Third Reich and its Fascist allies.

My question on this matter is, and I put this to people of all sorts of ideologies when they play the analogy game, "Why must Bush be like Hitler or like Stalin?" Can he not be a figure on his own, like every historical figure? Similarities can be drawn between any two figures. Bush, like any historical figure, is not defined by the trivial similarities he shares with Hitler or Stalin, but rather the key differences. Bush is defined by his ignorance, arroagance, and moral cowardice. That is George W. Bush; no more is he like Hitler or Stalin than he is Pol Pot or Syngman Rhee.

I liked your rant Ed. Good job.

You are right, attempting to rehabilitate Hitler is a waste of time. Too much negative ink has been spilled about him. Might as well try to rehabilitate Old Scratch himself. Still, I can understand why some people revere him. He was the last white leader who was FOR his own people. Personally, I never make allusions to Hitler or Facism when I want to make the point of how corrupt our leaders are. I use Stalin and Communism instead.

Frankly, I think this brings up another point in WN that is worth pointing out and that is the disconnect between our ideals and what we ultimately must do.

As somone who has been (mostly) libertarian, one of the things that helped me gravitate toward WN was the utter gall I felt as I became more and more aware of the repression toward whites as they attempted even the most rudimentary defense of their culture, heritage and genetic integrity. I hate anyone trying to tell me what I have to think or say. I hate the insane sentimentality masquerading as moral philosophy that swaggers holier-than-thou over me and screams its hate at me for my failure to genuflect. I just want to be left alone, and not be shanghiaed into anyone's agenda.

I suspect, at least from what I've read, there are a lot of WN just like me. Edgar Steele is one of those people. People who hate more than anything the lies and oppression of any government. That is why we turned to WN political philosphy. We realized that the crux of this oppression was directed at our racial identity and we have sought to counter that oppression in kind. From a racial perspective.

But here's the thing: There is no "nice" way out of our predicament. There is no way to use ideals of liberty and freedom In order for us to acheive liberty and freedom. Our ideals of liberty have been co-opted and freedom is just another word for "sucker bait." If we are going to achieve our goals, we are going to have to be very un-nice and very un-free.

Interestingly, VNN has been a prime example of this. back when it first started, the VNN forum was considerably more open than it is now. Alex Linder was adamant that VNN was a unique repository of free speech on the web where people could come and speak the truth that other "free" forums denied them. Over time however VNN fourm has succumbed to the necessity of stricter moderation. It was perfectly sensible thing to do, there are just too many troublemakers to do otherhwise.

Similarly, those of us who dream of a truly free society know that the only hope for such a society is in an all white context. Multicultural societies have never been free and ours is becoming increasingly hostile by the day. If what we want if freedom, then what we want is white, and there is no happy way from here to there.

-Brian

I liked your rant Ed. Good job.

You are right, attempting to rehabilitate Hitler is a waste of time. Too much negative ink has been spilled about him. Might as well try to rehabilitate Old Scratch himself. Still, I can understand why some people revere him. He was the last white leader who was FOR his own people. Personally, I never make allusions to Hitler or Facism when I want to make the point of how corrupt our leaders are. I use Stalin and Communism instead.

Frankly, I think this brings up another point in WN that is worth pointing out and that is the disconnect between our ideals and what we ultimately must do.

As somone who has been (mostly) libertarian, one of the things that helped me gravitate toward WN was the utter gall I felt as I became more and more aware of the repression toward whites as they attempted even the most rudimentary defense of their culture, heritage and genetic integrity. I hate anyone trying to tell me what I have to think or say. I hate the insane sentimentality masquerading as moral philosophy that swaggers holier-than-thou over me and screams its hate at me for my failure to genuflect. I just want to be left alone, and not be shanghiaed into anyone's agenda.

I suspect, at least from what I've read, there are a lot of WN just like me. Edgar Steele is one of those people. People who hate more than anything the lies and oppression of any government. That is why we turned to WN political philosphy. We realized that the crux of this oppression was directed at our racial identity and we have sought to counter that oppression in kind. From a racial perspective.

But here's the thing: There is no "nice" way out of our predicament. There is no way to use ideals of liberty and freedom In order for us to acheive liberty and freedom. Our ideals of liberty have been co-opted and freedom is just another word for "sucker bait." If we are going to achieve our goals, we are going to have to be very un-nice and very un-free.

Interestingly, VNN has been a prime example of this. back when it first started, the VNN forum was considerably more open than it is now. Alex Linder was adamant that VNN was a unique repository of free speech on the web where people could come and speak the truth that other "free" forums denied them. Over time however VNN fourm has succumbed to the necessity of stricter moderation. It was perfectly sensible thing to do, there are just too many troublemakers to do otherhwise.

Similarly, those of us who dream of a truly free society know that the only hope for such a society is in an all white context. Multicultural societies have never been free and ours is becoming increasingly hostile by the day. If what we want if freedom, then what we want is white, and there is no happy way from here to there.

-Brian

Nicely said, Brian.