Vanguard News Network
VNN Media
VNN Digital Library
VNN Reader Mail
VNN Broadcasts


Go Back   Vanguard News Network Forum > The Struggle > The Strategy
Donate Register Multimedia Blogs Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Login

 
Thread Display Modes Share
Old May 14th, 2011 #1
Alex Linder
Administrator
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Posts: 45,338
Blog Entries: 34
Alex Linder
Default Analyzing Fundamental Differences Between NS and Bourgeois (Conservative) Approaches

xxxxx xxxxxxx xxxxxxx xxxxxx
 
Old May 14th, 2011 #2
RickHolland
Bread and Circuses
 
RickHolland's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: Jewed Faggot States of ApemuriKa
Posts: 6,666
Blog Entries: 1
RickHolland
Default

In this passage from Mein Kampf, Hitler described the patriotic bourgeois meetings.

Chapter VII: The Struggle with the Red Front

Quote:
In 1919-20 and also in 1921 I attended some of the bourgeois meetings. Invariably I had the same feeling towards these as towards the compulsory dose of castor oil in my boyhood days.

It just had to be taken because it was good for one: but it certainly tasted unpleasant. If it were possible to tie ropes round the German people and forcibly drag them to these bourgeois meetings, keeping them there behind barred doors and allowing nobody to escape until the meeting closed, then this procedure might prove successful in the course of a few hundred years.

For my own part, I must frankly admit that, under such circumstances, I could not find life worth living; and indeed I should no longer wish to be a German. But, thank God, all this is impossible. And so it is not surprising that the sane and unspoilt masses shun these 'bourgeois mass meetings' as the devil shuns holy water.

I came to know the prophets of the bourgeois philosophy, and I was not surprised at what I learned, as I knew that they attached little importance to the spoken word. At that time I attended meetings of the Democrats, the German Nationalists, the German People's Party and the Bavarian People's Party (the Centre Party of Bavaria).

What struck me at once was the homogeneous uniformity of the audiences. Nearly always they were made up exclusively of party members. The whole affair was more like a yawning card party than an assembly of people who had just passed through a great revolution.

The speakers did all they could to maintain this tranquil atmosphere. They declaimed, or rather read out, their speeches in the style of an intellectual newspaper article or a learned treatise, avoiding all striking expressions. Here and there a feeble professorial joke would be introduced, whereupon the people sitting at the speaker's table felt themselves obliged to laugh – not loudly but encouragingly and with well-bred reserve.

And there were always those people at the speaker's table. I once attended a meeting in the Wagner Hall in Munich. It was a demonstration to celebrate the anniversary of the Battle of Leipzig. The speech was delivered or rather read out by a venerable old professor from one or other of the universities.

The committee sat on the platform: one monocle on the right, another monocle on the left, and in the centre a gentleman with no monocle. All three of them were punctiliously attired in morning coats, and I had the impression of being present before a judge's bench just as the death sentence was about to be pronounced or at a christening or some more solemn religious ceremony.

The so-called speech, which in printed form may have read quite well, had a disastrous effect. After three quarters of an hour the audience fell into a sort of hypnotic trance, which was interrupted only when some man or woman left the hall, or by the clatter which the waitresses made, or by the increasing yawns of slumbering individuals.

I had posted myself behind three workmen who were present either out of curiosity or because they were sent there by their parties. From time to time they glanced at one another with an ill-concealed grin, nudged one another with the elbow, and then silently left the hall. One could see that they had no intention whatsoever of interrupting the proceedings, nor indeed was it necessary to interrupt them.

At long last the celebration showed signs of drawing to a close. After the professor, whose voice had meanwhile become more and more inaudible, finally ended his speech, the gentleman without the monocle delivered a rousing peroration to the assembled 'German sisters and brothers.' On behalf of the audience and himself he expressed gratitude for the magnificent lecture which they had just heard from Professor X and emphasized how deeply the Professor's words had moved them all.

If a general discussion on the lecture were to take place it would be tantamount to profanity, and he thought he was voicing the opinion of all present in suggesting that such a discussion should not be held. Therefore, he would ask the assembly to rise from their seats and join in singing the patriotic song, Wir sind ein einig Volk von Brüdern. The proceedings finally closed with the anthem, Deutschland über Alles.

And then they all sang. It appeared to me that when the second verse was reached the voices were fewer and that only when the refrain came on they swelled loudly. When we reached the third verse my belief was confirmed that a good many of those present were not very familiar with the text.
But what has all this to do with the matter when such a song is sung wholeheartedly and fervidly by an assembly of German nationals?

After this the meeting broke up and everyone hurried to get outside, one to his glass of beer, one to a cafe, and others simply into the fresh air.
Out into the fresh air! That was also my feeling. And was this the way to honour an heroic struggle in which hundreds of thousands of Prussians and Germans had fought? To the devil with it all!

That sort of thing might find favour with the Government, it being merely a 'peaceful' meeting. The Minister responsible for law and order need not fear that enthusiasm might suddenly get the better of public decorum and induce these people to pour out of the room and, instead of dispersing to beer halls and cafes, march in rows of four through the town singing Deutschland hoch in Ehren and causing some unpleasantness to a police force in need of rest.
No. That type of citizen is of no use to anyone.
__________________
Only force rules. Force is the first law - Adolf H. http://erectuswalksamongst.us/ http://tinyurl.com/cglnpdj Man has become great through struggle - Adolf H. http://tinyurl.com/mo92r4z Strength lies not in defense but in attack - Adolf H.
 
Old May 14th, 2011 #3
RickHolland
Bread and Circuses
 
RickHolland's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: Jewed Faggot States of ApemuriKa
Posts: 6,666
Blog Entries: 1
RickHolland
Default

They ain't alright just because they're White

Quote:
I've been involved in the so-called "right-wing" for a number of years now, but when I step back and look at our so-called movement, especially more recently, I can't help saying to myself, "Why am I surrounded by so many 'misfits'?"

I'm sure that if you are honest, you would have to agree with me, so let's go back to the Third Reich and look at the differences between then and now. Then, the people who flocked to the National Socialist cause, were young idealists fighting for what they believed in: their race and their nation. Self-sacrifice was commonplace and heroism was an everyday occurrence, both before the victory in 1933 when the Brownshirts fought the reds, losing over 25,000 men in the streets alone, and afterwards on the battlefields of World War 2 when legions of men from every European nation were decimated time and time again in the Crusade for Europe.

You just can not compare these men with the dregs that call themselves "right-wingers" today. National Socialists then were the elite of our race, the cream of European youth. Most of the so-called "right-wingers" around today wouldn't have been fit to dig the latrine pits for the Waffen SS yet they claim to represent the White race and declare themselves to be the so-called vanguard.

Why is there such a difference I hear you ask? The problem now is that since the war, pro-White groups have been desperate for the numbers and will accept absolutely anyone just because they're White and call themselves racists. It doesn't matter what sort of lowlife they are as long as they are "our way". Quite simply, the Nationalist organisations that exist at the moment will accept anyone. The only condition of membership they seem to have is the ability to pay an annual subscription.

Obviously not everyone on the so-called "right-wing" falls short of the high standards of the past: there are people out there who believe in our cause and are willing to stand up and fight for it but let's take a look at some of the "problem cases" who are attracted to movements like ours so you will be able to recognise them and then deal with them effectively.



1) The cowards: these unfortunately make up the bulk of the right-wing. Blokes who are nothing by themselves join up to be part of a gang, give it the right large one when they are at a Nationalist event, sticking the boot in when the numbers are on our side but in reality are the sort of blokes who would watch a couple of spades push in front of them in a queue and do nothing about it, just look away. You all know the sort; without the beer for "Dutch courage" they're nothing.



2) The inadequates and losers: again the "right" is full of these types. They join because no-one else will have them. They don't fit into any mainstream groups and so they turn to the groups that accept anyone - the "right-wing" - where they have instant friends and drinking buddies.



3) Faggots: because of the nature of the movement, which is comprised of a lot of young blokes, queers tend to be attracted to it for deviant reasons. Some of these perverts will claim to be racist but don't be fooled by this: they are nothing more than subhuman degenerates. Most of the faggots who worm their way into Nationalist organisations often find themselves being very quickly booted out - quite literally.



4) Passing-trade: these are people who suddenly appear in the movement out of nowhere, have a short burst of activism, and then disappear as quickly as they arrived. These people may just be looking for a new experience - something different to the mundanity of their everyday lives - or they may be among us for more sinister purposes. Whatever the reason, they are a complete waste of space and should never be trusted.



5) The sickos and wierdos: these are the sort of freaks who believe in the Hitler=Evil equation that is spread by the media. These types are usually involved in "Satanism", cults, paedophilia, you name it. Luckily these people are very few in number but always prove to be the most embarrassing when they are exposed in the press etc, and we are all then tarred with the same brush. These people do not belong among us; if they hadn't infiltrated the "right-wing" they would probably be in some sort of cult. Our enemies love deviants such as these (often because they share the same interests) and will often encourage them to join us.



6) Drunks: mentally, these people are among the weakest specimens of humanity. They are in their element in the "right wing" because most of it is just a big drinking club.



So there it is: you may not want to hear it but it's true. The "right wing" accepts anyone and everyone - it has NO standards. We set ourselves up as though we are better than everyone else and talk about the general population as though they are all scum. Well the truth is that, percentage-wise, we most probably have far more scumbags in our midst than exist in the so-called "non-racist" general population.

The "right-wing" has a choice to make: either it cleans up its act and introduces some standards to ensure the quality of its recruits or it carries on being a freak-show for the liberals to laugh at on the TV. Personally, I don't want it to be the latter and I doubt if you do. It's up to all you decent activists out there to make a stand and help clean up the movement. If that means a significant drop in numbers then so be it. It is far better to have a small but hard core of decent, clean-living, committed activists than a sprawling membership of inadequates.
http://www.skrewdriver.org/alrightwhite.html
__________________
Only force rules. Force is the first law - Adolf H. http://erectuswalksamongst.us/ http://tinyurl.com/cglnpdj Man has become great through struggle - Adolf H. http://tinyurl.com/mo92r4z Strength lies not in defense but in attack - Adolf H.
 
Reply

Share


Thread
Display Modes


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 03:39 PM.
Page generated in 0.10769 seconds.