|
February 4th, 2014 | #1 |
The Epitome of Evil
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: The Unseen University of New York
Posts: 3,130
|
'Nazis': A Jewish Creation
'Nazis': A Jewish Creation Nazis are a creation of the jews: this probably seems to my audience like an out-of-character statement for me to make especially as I identify as a National Socialist. However let me explain myself on this score. My point is simply this: that the idea of the 'Nazi'; the prototype of all evil in the modern world, is both firstly obviously a phantasm (i.e. a fantasy that has no basis in any sort of historical fact) and secondly a fantasy of the jews. That the idea of the 'Nazi' is a fantasy of the jews projected upon a historic country (the Third Reich) and a political creed (National Socialism) needs little defence if we but note that 'Nazis' are always at their most visceral and extreme as a stereotype among the jews. The fact that this idea of the 'Nazi' has largely not clung on among popular literary tropes other than in their treatment of the jews and in jewish writing is suggestive of the stereotype's origin. After all it is not difficult to read the early jewish accounts of the pogroms in the Russian Empire from the 1880s to the 1920s and to see in their descriptions of the perpetrators (the Tsarist authorities and the Black Hundreds) a prototype for the modern 'Nazi' stereotype. The pogromist is a callous creation motivated by jealously and irrational hatred of the jews into performing the most beastly of acts against them when given the opportunity to do so. The pogromist will bayonet pregnant jewesses after repeatedly raping them and any female jewess encountered (regardless of age), club jewish babes to death, torture rabbis by lighting their beards and fringes, force pious Chasidim to eat pork and so on. (1) Sounds familiar: doesn't it? That is because like the 'holocaust': it is a presentation born out of the troubled arena of the Pale of Settlement during the reign of the last members of the Romanov dynasty. These elements naturally form part of atrocity propaganda in general and more specifically Allied propaganda against the Germans during the First World War. However what marks out the 'Nazi' stereotype is that it is essentially a synthesis of Anglo-French hangover propaganda from the First World War that has been meshed with the jewish nationalist narrative of eternal victim hood and brutal persecution at the hands of non-jews. As has been commented elsewhere propaganda of this kind is very difficult to undo and take back, because things said and popularly believed cannot be unsaid or popularly disbelieved very easily. Indeed the fact is that if we look merely to cinema as being representative the tropes of the eternally evil Germans turned into the nasty Nazis were still in use well into the 1970s and 1980s, but only then had the audiences who had been originally fed this information begun to die off and the popularity of the 'eternally evil enemy' (of the completely plastic and dastardly variety) begun to wane. Such a two-dimensional view of 'the enemy' (so-to-speak) has only continued really among jews who continue to propagate (albeit often in somewhat more sophisticated form than the original) the stereotype in their own work as well as trying to get others to buy into it. Recent examples of this at the box office are 'Schindler's List', 'The Boy in the Stripped Pyjamas' and the latest bit of farcical nonsense: 'The Monuments Men'. The reason that this has continued to be propagated among the jews is; as a biographer of Hitler observed in relation to the 'Hitler as Occultist' claims, (2) that to consider their enemies any other way than as two-dimensional 'Nazis' would be an invitation to consider the possibility that the jews share at least some of the responsibility for their own 'persecution' throughout history. To even consider this possibility is to doubt the central defining element of jewish identity since the expulsion of the jews from Palestine by the Emperor Hadrian: that the jews have been eternally persecuted because of how unique (i.e. they are punished for disobeying Yahweh by his getting others to persecute them) or how capable they are (i.e. they are persecuted because gentiles are inherently less able and thus are jealous of the jews). Both come down obviously to a distinct sense of superiority over non-jews among the jews. To doubt this narrative (and thus to doubt one's superiority over gentiles) means to doubt one's identity as a jew and as such means that the jew in question begins to 'self-hate' (to use Zionist parlance) as they begin to critically look at their own jewish heritage and thus begin to understand that what jews as a group has done has often smelt more of manure than roses. Essentially to consider the opponents of the jews as anything other than 'Nazis' (aka irrational psychopaths who want to kill all jews because they are jews in spite of 'everything they have done for humanity') is to doubt one's self for your average jew. The stereotype is a necessary emotional and intellectual crutch for jews, because it allows them to continue to believe the unbelievable about their own history (i.e. jews never did anything wrong and were always wonderful) as well as their present (i.e. jews are eternally being persecuted thus all gentiles have an obligation to follow jewish instructions to cease the persecution or help persecute those who the jews say want to persecute them). This irrationality in believing your opponents (of whatever stripe) to be ipso facto irrational is a way of rationalizing, contextualizing and justifying ones own behaviour as I will explain in the companion article to this one ('Why do Zionists behave like Nazis?'). However the origin of the 'Nazi' is nothing to do with National Socialism or the Third Reich, but rather to do with jewish perceptions of themselves being projected as the negative end of a duality onto those who they regard (rightly or wrongly) as their opponents. We can see this in the fact that the description and tales offered by jews of the pogromists in the 1880s to the 1920s in Russia were the almost identical to those they have offered since 1933 about 'Nazis' and since 1945 about anyone who dares to criticise the jews or Israel. This then informs us that what we are dealing with here is not a factual representation of a particular sub-section of society or civilization, but rather a fantasy of a group who believe the proverbial bogeyman is eternally out to get them. In essence then we can see that the concept of the 'Nazi' as represented by the jews today is not a factual one, but rather a fantasy of their creation which acts as a kind of make believe stalker following the delusional paranoids (the jews) around. There will never be an end to 'Nazis' for jews precisely because 'Nazis' do not have any existence other than in jewish brains. References (1) For a suitable example of this type of atrocity propaganda see Elias Heifetz, 1921, 'The Slaughter of the Jews in the Ukraine in 1919', 1st Edition, Thomas Seltzer: New York (2) J. Sydney Jones, 1983, 'Hitler's Weg begann in Wien, 1907-1913', 1st Edition, Niedermayer und Schulter Verlag: Munich, p. 126 ---------------------------- This was originally published at the following address: http://semiticcontroversies.blogspot...-creation.html
__________________
|
February 4th, 2014 | #2 |
Senior Member
Join Date: Jul 2012
Posts: 8,093
|
Nice job, and its well written! And explains the problem with using the term "Nazi" very well. I think most National Socialists feel that way, but can't quite put it into words like that. And you explained it quite well.
|
February 5th, 2014 | #3 |
Death Camp of Tolerance
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Europa
Posts: 539
|
I don't like when our people use that word 'Nazi', maybe with an exception of George Lincoln Rockwell as he had reasons for it..
In most other cases it makes people look intellectually lazy and phony in my eyes.. Even someone like Ben Klassen was guilty of that.. and probably most of the other movement figures.. And it's not always necessary to spell out "national-socialist", not that it should be that big of a problem, but respectable way to say it, for short, is just to say NS. Not the bullshit attack word marxist and jews used to shout all the time during the "period of struggle" (Kampfzeit) prior to National-Socialist revolution. Obviously same slime was and is using "nazi" ever more as a slur word after WW2, so why in the hell should we also adopt it? |
February 7th, 2014 | #4 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: Jan 2014
Location: aylesbury
Posts: 522
|
Nazis a Jewish Creation
Quote:
We should stick to the term 'National Socialist'. Yes, I know it's a mouthful but who ever heard of National Socialist zombies, who ever heard of National Socialist sex slaves? The Jews have shot themselves in the foot using anacronyms and we can seize back the name from the sleaze! Not 'Nazi' but NATIONAL SOCIALIST AND PROUD!!! |
|
April 19th, 2014 | #5 |
Junior Member
Join Date: Apr 2014
Posts: 50
|
'Nazi'. Could the terrible Adolf Hitler have come up with something better, or worse? </sarcasm>
|
April 19th, 2014 | #6 |
Senior Member
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: london
Posts: 12,865
|
Josef Goebbels a much greater authority on the subject used the term throughout his copious diaries and even wrote a book entitled Nazi - Sozi as a guidebook for would be adherents. This is not the first time the OP has raised this issue I have him on ignore.
https://archive.org/details/Goebbels...-Der-Nazi-Sozi
__________________
The above post is as always my opinion Chase them into the swamps |
April 20th, 2014 | #7 |
Senior Member
Join Date: Sep 2011
Posts: 1,293
|
We Are National Socialists, not "Nazis"
by Matt Koehl Is a "Nazi" the same as a National Socialist? The news media, our opponents and an uninformed public would all say so. But are they correct? It is true, of course, that in its early phase our Movement was referred to as the "American Nazi Party." This designation was consciously and deliberately exploited for its publicity value. Some have questioned the feasibility of this approach, arguing that it would have been better if the term, National Socialist, had been employed exclusively and consistently since the very beginning. Whether or not this argument is correct is rather moot at this point. Whatever utility the name "Nazi" may or may not have had in the past, the important point is that for our present and future work as National Socialists it is useless. It is a fact that the label "Nazi" was originally used by a hostile press during the Weimar period as a term of contempt and derision against Adolf Hitler and his Movement. Nowhere did the Leader himself use this designation, either in his speeches or in Mein Kampf. Not only is the expression a distortion of our real name, but it connotes a certain lack of substance or seriousness, which in turn makes it difficult for anyone to take our message seriously. Indeed, if the public is to gain a credible conception of us, then we must present ourselves honestly and forthrightly as exactly what we are--National Socialists--and not some sort of political caricature. Otherwise we can expect to have as must credibility as dedicated Marxist-Leninist revolutionaries would have if they were to go around referring to themselves as "Commies." There is perhaps a more important reason to, however, why we National Socialists must reject the term "Nazi." If this label was originally used to belittle the National Socialist cause, subsequent wartime propaganda introduced sinister new connotations. Conjured up was the monstrous image of hate and evil, an image which every decent person must find repulsive. But if the "Nazi" image has repelled good people, too often has it had another unfortunate effect: it has attracted the very ones who fit the "Nazi" stereotype--the unstable, the unsavory, the mentally sick and spiritually defective--marginal types who may make good Hollywood props, but who have absolutely no place in a true National Socialist movement. Therefore we can only conclude that at best, continued use of the term "Nazi" is self-defeating. At worst, it is nothing but an opportunistic gimmick by misfits and mini-fuehrers craving lots of personal attention--little men who don't have the slightest idea what real National Socialism is all about. We, of course, have no control over what our enemies may decide to call us. But what we choose to call ourselves is another matter. The truth is that we don't need any nicknames. We are National Socialists, not "Nazis." There's a big difference. -88- Source: White Power: The Revolutionary Voice of National Socialism, number 96 (November-December 1980), p. 8.
__________________
NEW ORDER Website: http://theneworder.org NEW ORDER on GAB: https://gab.ai/NEW_ORDER NS Publications: http://nspublications.com VNN National Socialist Union: https://vnnforum.com/group.php?groupid=58 |
April 21st, 2014 | #8 |
Senior Member
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: london
Posts: 12,865
|
We had this debate in England in 60's and 70's. Usually the pretentious bourgeoisies with dubious "comrades" such as Colin Jordan made much play of how the term National Socialist should be used at all times
( It is noteworthy that over the years the most hot for the elongated terminology such as Tyndall, Edmonds et al of course all later renounced National Socialism ) Further other divisive traitorous scum have also championed the use of the term National Socialist over the Goebells approved Nazi. I cite Morrison and hill here in the UK as obvious examples of this tendency . McLoughllin had a much more pragmatic solution to the problem that the faint hearts and those with a feminine agenda for the promotion of National Socialism via tea and crumpets in tea shoppes could carry on whimpering that they are "National Socialist" while the true activists could get on with trying to emulate Goebells amazing achievement of winning red Berlin over to the cause. Of course the whole argument is pointless and worthless as National Socialists the world over do nothing for the race by any usual political measuring device or method. Not even as much as a graffiti swastika. Granted they like banquets on Hitlers birthday I went to one myself yesterday it was like a morgue or museum sixty or so nostalgics and crackpots. About as politically active as a kerbstone
__________________
The above post is as always my opinion Chase them into the swamps |
May 1st, 2014 | #9 | ||
Death Camp of Tolerance
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Europa
Posts: 539
|
Quote:
Goebbels diaries are quite dubious source and could hardly be considered as 'approving' document. This is from NS movie Hans Westmar. Einer von vielen. Ein deutsches Schicksal aus dem Jahre 1929 depicting a communist mob holding the banner with "NAZI VERRECKE" (death to nazis). Quote:
|
||
May 8th, 2014 | #10 | |
Death Camp of Tolerance
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Europa
Posts: 539
|
Short article from Matt Koehl.
Quote:
|
|
Tags |
holocaust fiction, holocaust mythology |
Share |
Thread | |
Display Modes | |
|