View Single Post
Old June 19th, 2009 #39
Antiochus Epiphanes
Ἀντίοχος Ἐπιφανὴς
 
Antiochus Epiphanes's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: flyover
Posts: 13,175
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by cillian View Post
Enlighten me.
How long after his death was there significant support for him or national socialism in germany?

quite a bit. study up on "denazification process." the Americans had to call it off because there were too many nazis to denazify.

then you had things like Ernst Remer's Social Reich Party, which had to be banned because it was too nazi and too popular. and a host of other parties with incipient electoral success in its way, banned, banned, banned.

Outside of Germany other rulers aped many aspects of Hitler's regime. If we took an inventory of the social policies of the Third Reich we would see that they were adopted wholesale by the west by way of imitation, in the late 30s, 40s, and decades beyond. To some extent this is an extension of Prussian innovations in developing a social welfare state, but, the things people take for granted as fixtures of government social adminstration from pensions to workplace safety regulations, were mostly developed in Germany. They adopted things mechanistically though, and took the spirit of the German folk out of them, in favor of some bland generic interchangeable "people" instead.

This is something of a diversion from the thread topic I understand but a long term interest of mine, namely, how the Nazis were vilified and yet imitated.

Even recently a lot of study has been made of Carl Schmitt's national socialist juridical concepts by Leo Strauss' admirer (neocons). That's in America of course, and I couldnt say whether or not he's admired in Germany though.

The power of controlling discourse is what the rabbis developed in the wake of the destruction of the Temple. They honed and flexed their rhetorical pinhead-dancing and made it into a tribal expertise. The German national socialists especially Goebbels perceived how this had been done, and that it needed to be done again against them. Political correctness is an exercise in Marxist-Jewsymp-decontstructionists setting the frames of linguistic debate in academia and then beyond. To smash political correctness is itself necessarily an exercise in reframing debates, retaking the moderation of conversations, and reclaiming language from alien interloctuors.

From the first days of VNN when Linder was recommending Cuddihy's "Ordeal of Civility," Linder has been accomplishing this at VNN and training others in doing the same.

The process applied to your contacts with other people outside the internet and WN entails a constant awareness of the unspoken premises and limits of debate that people bring with then into conversations. That awareness gives you the ability to think of different premises to try to inoculate others with as vaccines against the Jewish intellectual bacilli, and how to defy the limitations in a most constructive way for our ends.

Understanding of course that defying conventions imposes a cost. So, if you are going to defy conventions by trying to reframe the terms and limits of debate, you had better be strategic how you do it, so that you're not snuffing yourself out with expensive defiances in the long term.