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

Old March 30th, 2009 #61
Lasher
Banned
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: The South
Posts: 216
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Subrosa View Post
Well, Hitler is not above criticism, but insults we can do without. It's dangerous to start putting people on a godlike pedestal.
How so?????
 
Old July 6th, 2009 #62
KraftAkt
Senior Member
 
KraftAkt's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Posts: 926
KraftAkt
Default Hitler's Ideas and Writings

Nepotism, in fact, is the most formidable protection imaginable : the protection of the ego. But wherever it has appeared in the life of a State—the monarchies are the best proof—it has resulted in weakening and decay. Reason : it puts an end to the principle of effort. In this respect, Frederick the Great showed himself superior to Napoleon—Frederick who, at the most difficult moments of his life, and when he had to take the hardest decisions, never forgot that things are called upon to endure. In similar cases, Napoleon capitulated. It's therefore obvious that, to bring his life's work to a successful conclusion, Frederick the Great could always rely on sturdier collaborators than Napoleon could. When Napoleon set the interests of his family clique above all, Frederick the Great looked around him for men, and, at need, trained them himself.

Despite all Napoleon's genius, Frederick the Great was the most outstanding man of the eighteenth century. When seeking to find a solution for essential problems concerning the conduct of affairs of State, he refrained from all illogicality. It must be recognised that in this field his father, Frederick-William, that buffalo of a man, had given him a solid and complete training. Peter the Great, too, clearly saw the necessity for eliminating the family spirit from public life. In a letter to his son—a letter I was re-reading recently—he informs him very clearly of his intention to disinherit him and exclude him from the succession to the throne. It would be too lamentable, he writes, to set one day at the head of Russia a son who does not prepare himself for State affairs with the utmost energy, who does not harden his will and strengthen himself physically.

Setting the best man at the head of the State—that's the most difficult problem in the world to solve.

In a republic in which the whole people is called upon to elect the chief of the State, it's possible, with money and publicity, to bring the meagrest of puppets to power.

In a republic in which the reins of power are in the hands of a clique made up of a few families, the State takes on the aspect of a trust, in which the shareholders have an interest in electing a weakling as President, so that they may play an important part themselves.

A hereditary monarchy is a biological blunder, for a man of action regularly chooses a wife with essentially feminine qualities, and the son inherits his mother's mildness and passive disposition.

In a republic that sets at its head a chief elected for life, there's the risk that he will pursue a policy of personal selfinterest.

In a republic where the Chief of State changes every five or ten years, the stability of the government is never assured, and the execution of long-term plans, exceeding the duration of a lifetime, is thereby compromised.

If one sets at the head of the State an old man who has with-drawn from all worldly considerations, he is only a puppet, and inevitably it's other men who rule in his name.

Thinking over all that, I've arrived at the following conclusions :

1. The chances of not setting a complete idiot at the head of the State are better under the system of free elections than in the opposite case. The giants who were the elected German Emperors are the best proof of this. There was not one of them of whom it can truly be said that he was an imbecile. In the hereditary monarchies, on the other hand, there were at least eight kings out of ten who, if they'd been ordinary citizens, would not have been capable of successfully running a grocery.

2. In choosing a Chief of State, one must call upon a personality who, as far as human beings can judge, guarantees a certain stability in the exercise of power for a longish while. This is a necessary condition, not only so that public affairs can be successfully administered, but in order to make possible the realisation of great projects.

3. Care must be taken that the Chief of State will not succumb to the influence of the plutocracy, and cannot be forced to certain decisions by any pressure of that sort. That's why it's important that he should be supported by a political organisation whose strength has its roots in the people, and which can have the upper hand over private interests.

In the course of history, two constitutions have proved themselves :

(a) The papacy, despite numerous crises—the gravest of which, as it happens, were settled by German emperors—and although it is based on a literally crazy doctrine. But as an organisation on the material level, the Church is a magnificent edifice.

(b) The constitution of Venice, which, thanks to the organisation of its Government, enabled a little city-republic to rule the whole eastern Mediterranean. The constitution of Venice proved itself effective as long as the Venetian Republic endured—that is to say, for nine hundred and sixty years. The fact that the Head of the Republic of Venice was chosen from amongst the families who composed the framework of the State (numbering between three hundred and five hundred) was not a bad thing. Thus power was allotted to the best man amongst the representatives of those families who were traditionally linked with the State. The difference between this system and that of hereditary monarchy is obvious. In the former, it was impossible for an imbecile or an urchin of twelve to come to power. Only a man who had pretty well proved himself in life had a fair chance of being appointed. Isn't it ridiculous, by the way, to think that a child of twelve, or even of eighteen, can rule a State? It goes without saying that, if a king is still a minor, power is provisionally gathered in other hands, those of a Council of Regents. But supposing the members of this Council disagree (and the more competent the councillors are, the greater are the risks of disagreement, in view of the complexity of the problems to be solved daily), then the absence is felt of the personality capable of taking a sovereign decision. A youth of eighteen cannot take a decision that requires deep reflection—that's difficult enough for a man who has reached full maturity! It's enough to imagine where King Michael of Rumania would be without the support of a man as remarkable as Field-Marshal Antonescu. As it happens, the young man is stupid. Moreover, he has been rotted by his spoilt child's upbringing, his father having entrusted him entirely to women during the most important period of his development. To sense the tragic nature of this abyss, it's enough to compare the development of any man who's ambitious to do something in life, with that of a prince by inheritance. Think of the amount of knowledge that a man of normal rank must acquire, of the desperate work he must do, without truce or rest, to succeed in having his own way. There is a tendency to believe, on the contrary, that one can prepare budding kings for the task that awaits them by keeping them amused. A third of their time is devoted to the study of foreign languages, so that they may be able to utter trivialities in several tongues; a second third to the sports of society (riding, tennis, etc.). The study of the political sciences takes only the last place. Moreover, the education they receive has no firmness. Their tutors are weakness itself. They resist the temptation to distribute the smacks their princely pupils deserve—for fear of calling down the disfavour of a future monarch. The result is obvious. That's how creatures like Michael of Rumania and Peter of Yugoslavia were formed.

As regards the government of Germany, I've come to the following conclusions:

1. The Reich must be a republic, having at its head an elected chief who shall be endowed with an absolute authority.

2. An agency representing the people must, nevertheless, exist by way of corrective. Its role is to support the Chief of State, but it must be able to intervene in case of need.

3. The task of choosing the Chief shall be entrusted, not to the people's assembly, but to a Senate. It is, however, important that the powers of the Senate shall be limited. Its composition must not be permanent. Moreover, its members shall be appointed with reference to their occupation and not individuals. These Senators must, by their training, be steeped in the idea that power may in no case be delegated to a weakling, and that the elected Fuehrer must always be the best man.

4. The election of the Chief must not take place in public, but in camera. On the occasion of the election of a pope, the people does not know what is happening behind the scenes. A case is reported in which the cardinals exchanged blows. Since then, the cardinals have been deprived of all contact with the outside world, for the duration of the conclave! This is a principle that is also to be observed for the election of the Fuehrer: all conversation with the electors will be forbidden throughout operations.

5. The Party, the Army and the body of officials must take an oath of allegiance to the new Chief within the three hours following the election.

6. The most rigorous separation between the legislative and executive organs of the State must be the supreme law for the new Chief. Just as, in the Party, the SA and the SS are merely the sword to which is entrusted the carrying-out of the decisions taken by the competent organs, in the same way the executive agents of the State are not to concern themselves with politics. They must confine themselves exclusively to ensuring the application of laws issued by the legislative power, making appeal to the sword, in case of need. Although a State founded on such principles can lay no claim to eternity, it might last for eight to nine centuries. The thousand-year-old organisation of the Church is a proof of this—and yet this entire organisation is founded on nonsense. What I have said should a fortiori be true of an organisation founded on reason.

(Table Talk, 3rd March 1942, at dinner)
 
Old July 9th, 2009 #63
Alex Linder
Administrator
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Posts: 45,378
Blog Entries: 34
Alex Linder
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Revisionist View Post
The NSDAP had staved off a Bolshevik revolution within Germany's borders in the years preceeding 1933, and was charged with preparing for inevitable conflict with the Soviet Union after Hitler's ascension. It would have been lunacy to encourage (or even permit for that matter) the Jewish 5th column to remain in Germany.

Hitler did the right thing. Criticizing Third Reich Jewish policy is just Monday morning quarterbacking. In reality, you're chiding Hitler for losing, not for incompetent executive decisionmaking.
No, Hitler did the wrong thing. Nazi thinking was that by flushing jew-commies, they would solve their internal problems and create anti-semitism wherever the kikenturds landed. Instead, the kike vermin quickly rose to the top in America and repaid Hitler's foolishness with the utter demolition of Hitler's party and people. I didn't say he should let the fifth columnists run free, I said he should keep them under control and use them for leverage.
 
Old July 10th, 2009 #64
Alex Linder
Administrator
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Posts: 45,378
Blog Entries: 34
Alex Linder
Default

From Hitler and the Power of Aesthetics (2002), by Frederic Spotts, an exceptional book, one of the most persuasive takes on Hitler I've seen.

Spotts discusses Hitler's antipathy toward Modernism in painting (p. 161):

Hitler's antipathy, however, had two unique elements. One was the centrality of anti-Semitism. The association of Jews with Modernism had no basis in fact. Chagall apart, there were no Jewish painters of note and only five or six minor ones, none the equivalent in painting to Schoenberg in music or Erich Mendelsohn in architecture. In truth, he tacitly recognized this fact. His speeches condemned not Jewish painters but Jewish influence on painting, which had made itself felt through art commentary in the Jewish-controlled press. He once explained to Christa Schroeder what he was driving at. Jews new very well, he said, that Modernist painting was worthless and decadent. But they bought it and made a tremendous fuss about it; as a result prices were inflated and they then sold it and made huge profits. With these they acquired valuable Old Masters for themselves. He believed this was borne out when private Jewish art collections began being seized in the late 1930s. 'What is so remarkable,' he told Goebbels, 'is that Jews -- as is now becoming evident from the confiscation of Jewish property -- spent all the money that they swindled from peopled for [Modernist] kitsch on outstandingly good and valuable pictures.'
 
Old May 30th, 2010 #65
Anglo
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2010
Posts: 16
Anglo
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Antiochus Epiphanes View Post
first off, Hitler proved his balls in the First War as did Goering. I think you know that so we'll skip the exposition of Hitler's daring as a courier and infantryman or Goering's exploits as a fighter ace.

As for Himmler, not the same story and yes he punked out at the end by many accounts.

Now back to Hitler. Elsewhere we have discussed his dedication to Germany and the NS ideal. He was the incarnation of that ideal matter of fact and his totat committment showed right up until the fight was lost and the Red army had over run the positions in Berlin. Hanna Ritsch and Ernst Rudel both offered to evacuate him via emergency landing on Berlin streets and he refused. As a commander he directed defensive positions until the very end. He requited the loyalty of the German soldier not be acting the fool and trying to make a bayonet charge into the arms of the drooling sadists of the NKVD but instead fell on his sword like a Roman of old. I normally dont approve of suicide but in this case his deeds were exceptional and you puking forth of that kosher vomit about him here will not be appreciated.

As for Goering I to was ignorant of his own last deeds prior to his suicide. Please obtain a copy of David Irving's book Nuremberg and read up on this. Goering stood for the trial that Himmler was afraid of; Goering denounced the non-existent "jurisdiction" of this "trial" which was little more than a drumhead courtmartial and execution of a foreign diplomat in violation of the settled laws of war and diplomancy. Say that again: NUREMBERG WAS NOT A TRIAL IT WAS A VIOLATION OF THE EXISTING LAWS OF WAR IN 1945. It was nothing more than the victor executing the foreign chief. It was a setback to a barbaric age of war that threw out centuries of European conventions and customs and even Christian theology and existing conventions such as the Geneva accords and was no better than the Romans marching Vercingetorix through the streets in chains.

But Goering stood up against this illegal humiliation and denounced it and defended his actions as Reichsmarshall and the NS government. Thankfully David Irving for all his faults has told the true story of this. Goering overcame his addiction to morphine and dropped many pounds at Nuremberg and at them time shined again like the hero of old. It's amusing to contrast the true record with the whining of the abjectly apologizing Speer who blamed this that and the next thing on Goering who stood up like a man and refused apologies.

Finally when the whole charade was more or less done, Goering deprived them of the Jewish opportunity to gloat over his hanging by suicide. One wonders where and how he was able to obtain the cyanide capsule and successfully keep it hidden throughtout the trial. Perhaps he had the aid of a merciful US gaurd. WHo knows, that is a mystery. But in spite of our normal disapproval of suicide, in my view his actions were gallant and noble and his suicide excusable.

In a subtle irony, after forty some years of captivity, the unarguably innocent Rudolph Hess also "committed suicide" even though it would seem more likely he was murdered. Another mystery.

Daisy if you cant get Irving's book in Germany, if you live there, you can still read his website. free download available here:

http://www.fpp.co.uk/books/Nuremberg/index.html

Real History conference in Cinci in three weeks:

http://focal.org/speaks/
My favorite Quote of Hitlers was in the Rise and fall of the Third Reich He completely lost his head and Kept interrupting the reading by screaming THE GERMANS ARE BEING TREATED LIKE NIGGERS!! Thats page 397 in the Rise and fall of the Third Reich one of the best books ever written.
 
Old July 1st, 2010 #67
joeylowsac
RaHoWarrior-SKINHEAD
 
joeylowsac's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Location: Shingletown, CA
Posts: 456
Blog Entries: 12
joeylowsac
Default Mien Kampf

Chapter eleven of Mien Kampf could have been writen yesterday.
 
Reply

Share


Thread
Display Modes


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 06:06 PM.
Page generated in 0.11970 seconds.