View Single Post
Old August 9th, 2006 #5
Paul Kruger
Junior Member
Paul Kruger's Avatar
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 9
Paul Kruger
Default Some more criticism


To compare the NSDAP with the DNVP and only point at differing economical programs is ludicrous. We are talking about essentially different parties, comprised of different personalities with different strategies.
You might want to over-emphasize the economical aspects, fine, but it goes without saying that this is a very personal approach, not so much an historical one.
While it is certainly true that the NSDAP used socialist themes most of all existing nationalist parties, that still doesn't have a meaning in evaluating our present strategies.
Maybe you are confusing correlation, consequence and non-related items? It might as well be possible that the NS success was due to other factors.

And for exact-historical usage: the figures I have seen clearly demonstrate an under-representation of workers within the party.
At no moment in history did workers comprise the majority of party members.
Although the German society was comprized of 45,9% workers, they were underrepesentated with a mere 28,1% in party membership. Entrepreneurs with their tiny share of 9% of the total population brought in 20,7% of party adherance.
I am not ignoring all the wonderful workers programs the NSDAP implemented, but I regard these as peripheral compared to their true heeding.
Personally I deem the people's perception of an historical aspect less decisive than its true nature. I am not doubting that the people's perception of FRD was that of a peace-monger, the subtle reality was that FDR implemented war, contrary to people's perception. If we were to evaluate FDR in 2006 we would use the facts at our disposal and not the dated, clearly misled perception.
Of course I am not comparing Hitler to FDR but the basic analogy is valid.

I repeat my criticism on Alex' answer to Kevin MacDonald's analysis of National-Socialism as a reactive phanomenon, a fairly new evolution towards collectivism amidst individualist European history. Saying that this is "middle class" is utter nonsense and a basic phalacy: either an argument works or it doens't work. We are not here to castigate worthwile people and their ideas as "middle class" when their basic analysis is right.

Furthermore I have absolutely no bias against pro-workers programs. However I object to over-emphasizing class struggle and under-emphasizing race struggle. My reference to two great examples (Adolf Hitler and Jack London) within the broad proto-socialist movement was valid. However we see here an economist approach (at least part of it) to achieve racial goals. Not the other way around.

Being of Belgian descent hasn't stopped me exploring the German scene in the slightest way. I am very much up to date with the German nationalist milieu.
Yes, Faustrecht is popular. So what? So are the hundreds of animalistic Oi-Oi-bands who glamourize fighting and drinking. The selling of cd's honestly can't be the standard of gaining momentum.
Even if the neo-Strasserists would see a rise of 100% in adherence, basically from 0,2% to 0,4% of German nationalists, that still remains marginal.

To conclude I would like to state that I don't have the slightest objection to airing dissident voices within the nationalist community. "Du choc des idées jailleriat la lumière!". Ours is a movement of 1000 chambers where all ideologies and subcultures may reside.
It is in this context that I critisized the over-emphasis on "workers struggle" and other neo-Trotskyte vocabulary. These are fine, as line as the basic line is met.
BBET - De gecultiveerde speerpunt tegen de Shylock -