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

Old February 4th, 2014 #1
Karl Radl
The Epitome of Evil
 
Karl Radl's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: The Unseen University of New York
Posts: 3,130
Karl Radl
Default '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
__________________
 
Old February 4th, 2014 #2
Crowe
Senior Member
 
Crowe's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2012
Posts: 6,141
Crowe
Default

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.
 
Old February 5th, 2014 #3
Paul Smith
Death Camp of Tolerance
 
Paul Smith's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Europa
Posts: 539
Paul Smith
Default

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?
 
Old February 7th, 2014 #4
cornelius
Member
 
cornelius's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2014
Location: aylesbury
Posts: 483
cornelius
Default Nazis a Jewish Creation

Quote:
Originally Posted by Paul Smith View Post
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?
Hmm. Some good points there. Basically, the term 'Nazi' conjures up all sorts of connotations such as sexual fetishism, 'zombies', Satanism and homicidal tendencies. You can thank Mr Jew and his control of the media for the denigration of that particular abbreviation.Thank you Hollywood and thank you Jewish controlled media!

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!!!
 
Old April 19th, 2014 #5
I. Flasher
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2014
Posts: 50
I. Flasher
Default

'Nazi'. Could the terrible Adolf Hitler have come up with something better, or worse? </sarcasm>
 
Old April 19th, 2014 #6
andy
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: london
Posts: 12,833
andy
Default

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
 
Old April 20th, 2014 #7
Jim Harting
Senior Member
 
Jim Harting's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Posts: 839
Jim Harting
Default

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: https://neworderorg.wordpress.com
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
 
Old April 21st, 2014 #8
andy
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: london
Posts: 12,833
andy
Default

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
 
Old May 1st, 2014 #9
Paul Smith
Death Camp of Tolerance
 
Paul Smith's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Europa
Posts: 539
Paul Smith
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by andy View Post
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
He was right.

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:
Exposing the “Nazi” Epithet – Who started it, why, how, and who benefits

As a German child growing up in a foreign country during the 60s, I was often called a “Nazi” by some of my peers when they learned that I was German. It was of course, simply ignorant repetition or “parroting” of what was said on TV in hundreds of TV shows, Hollywood movies, alleged ‘documentaries’, in newspaper and magazine articles, as well as in radio programs, not to mention classroom indoctrination, and probably by their parents too. The libraries, of course, were also full of books which spoke of “Nazis” (and still are). So to deny that there was ever such thing as a “Nazi”, to most people, would be akin to denying the moon-landing, or perhaps more accurately, like telling a frightened child that “no monster under the bed” or “no ghost in the closet”. And one would then not only be thought as a “Nazi”, but also a lunatic, because after all, “everyone knows Hitler was an evil Nazi, and a madman, and a war monger and he wanted to take over the world, yada yada yada!”. Well, if truth, justice, and honest history (as opposed to “convenient history) mean anything any more, then we need to un-learn this term, and to stop parroting it like little children, using it for convenience sake, and especially, from using it as a repressive weapon for the purposes of “stifling dissent”; the very thing everyone wants to accuse “evil Nazis” of having done!

It’s time to debunk the “Nazi” epithet, and to show you where it came from, who invented it, and why. The fact is, that the term “Nazi” was created by the enemies of the National Socialists (the NSDAP). It was a pejorative term; an insult or a slur. The Germans, not even Hitler nor any other top party officials ever called themselves “Nazis”! They called themselves “National Socialists” and nothing else. Those who can read German and have studied any of the original documents and speeches know this already, but most don’t.

Heiden - Progenitor of the term “The term “Nazi” (along with “Nazism”) is a political epithet invented by Konrad Heiden (7 August 1901 – 18 June 1966) during the 1920s as a means of denigrating the NSDAP and National Socialism. Heiden was a journalist and member of the Social Democratic Party. The term is a variant of the nickname that was used in reference to members of the SDP at the time “Sozi” (short for Sozialisten). “Nazi” was a political pun, based upon the Austro-Bavarian slang word for “simpleton” or “country bumpkin”, and derived from the fairly common name Ignatz. It would be like saying “nutsy”. So, if for no other reason, one should easily understand why the term was regarded as derogatory by the National Socialists and why they would never use it to describe themselves. One should also see why it would be used and popularized by Marxist-Bolshevik agitators and understand how it was seized upon by various other political opponents and subversive types, both within Germany and abroad, including the international media and political leaders of the western powers.” (Metapedia)

It should immediately become apparent that, if there is no such thing as a “Nazi”, except in the propaganda which was invented and spewed by this man, then it follows logically, that there is also NO such thing as a “Neo-Nazi” either. Those who would describe themselves as such are as ignorant as those who say they hate “Nazis” and they are equally decieved. Indeed, I highly suspect that some of those who promote “Neo-Nazism” are really agents whose job it is to keep the spectre of evil “Nazis” alive, and to effect the demonization of all those who would dare question the whole history about Hitler, the NS and WWII that we have all been sold.

What we must also know about Mr. Heiden, however, is that he was not just any other political opponent in the days of the Weimar Republic. He, himself was a “Jew”, and his father was a trade unionist, and that the trade unions were teaming with subversive, violent, Marxist-Bolsheviks. And NO, that is not “racist” statement, nor is intended to promote hatred. Merely to sate the facts. If you want to make such childish accusations then please start with attacking Wikipedia.

Wikipedia states that:
“Konrad Heiden (7 August 1901 – 18 June 1966) was an influential Jewish journalist and historian of the Weimar Republic and Nazi eras, most noted for the first influential biographies of German dictator Adolf Hitler. Often, he wrote under the pseudonym “Klaus Bredow.”

Heiden was born in Munich, Germany, on 7 August 1901, and graduated from the University of Munich in 1923. His father was a union organizer, while his mother had a Jewish background. At the university, he organized a republican and democratic student body and became a member of the Social Democratic Party.

Heiden was one of the first critical observers of the rise of National Socialism in Germany after he attended a party’s meeting in 1920. He worked for the Frankfurter Zeitung and the Vossischen Zeitung, but became a freelancer in 1932. A year later, he went into exile; first to Saarland, then to Switzerland, then to France, and finally to the United States.

Heiden’s book, “The New Inquisition”, published jointly by Modern Age Books, Inc. and Alliance Book Corporation, in New York in 1939, with a translation from German by Heinz Norden, includes a series of personal, but necessarily anonymous accounts by German Jews of violent persecution under the Nazi regime accelerating from the time of the fall of 1938 and an eerie and accurate prediction of the Final Solution planned by the Nazi regime:

To drive 600,000 people by robbery into hunger, by hunger into desperation, by desperation into wild outbreaks, and by such outbreaks into the waiting knife — such is the cooly calculated plan. Mass murder is the goal, a massacre such as history has not seen — certainly not since Tamerlane and Mithridates. We can only venture guesses as to the technical forms these mass executions are to take. In his book Mein Kampf, Adolf Hitler suggested that the people to be killed be kept “under poisonous gas”; however, he speaks of a mere twelve to fifteen thousand. Doubtless the destructive instinct in the ruling class of the regime has grown in the meantime…”
There are a number of things there that should immediately send up “RED flags”! But let’s just look at the most blatant distortion of the fact. As I recently demonstrated with an article from the largest German-Jewish organization in 1933 (at the time when Hitler came to power and when Heiden set about telling his lies) defended Germany, and said to the world that they were doing fine, and they appealed for end to the atrocity propaganda. By the way, the Jewish population was less than 6oo,000 as Heiden had said.

Now let’s look Adolf Hitler actually did say, and in what context he said it He was discussing World War I, in which he himself had courageously fought, and had been decorated numerous times for his bravery :
“The fact that the German people carried on the War proved that the Marxist folly had not yet been able to penetrate deeply. But as the War was prolonged German soldiers and workers gradually fell back into the hands of the Marxist leaders, and the number of those who thus relapsed became lost to their country. At the beginning of the War, or even during the War, if twelve or fifteen thousand of these Jews who were corrupting the nation had been forced to submit to poison-gas, just as hundreds of thousands of our best German workers from every social stratum and from every trade and calling had to face it in the field, then the millions of sacrifices made at the front would not have been in vain. On the contrary: If twelve thousand of these malefactors had been eliminated in proper time probably the lives of a million decent men,who would be of value to Germany in the future, might have been saved. But it was in accordance with bourgeois ‘statesmanship’ to hand over, without the twitch of an eyelid, millions of human beings to be slaughtered on the battlefields, while they looked upon ten or twelve thousand public traitors, profiteers, usurers and swindlers, as the dearest and most sacred national treasure and proclaimed their persons to be inviolable. Indeed it would be hard to say what is the most outstanding feature of these bourgeois circles: mental debility, moral weakness and cowardice, or a mere down-at-heel mentality. It is a class that is certainly doomed to go under but, unhappily, it drags down the whole nation with it into the abyss.” (Mein Kampf, James Murphy Translation, 1939, Page 518)
Do we see the difference? And do we see the deception at work? Do we see the intention to mislead the world at large?

Regarding the camps, Heiden gives no mention to the fact those people being interned in labour camps were subversives. Nor to the fact that these people could be, and were often released back to their communities. I will have more on that, however, in a future post. Also ignored is the fact that such camps were far more common and horrific in the Soviet Union, with little or no hope of getting out. And of course, such camps had been invented and used very cruelly by the Brits, and also the American hypocrites too.

Regarding the ‘Frankfurter Zeitung’, “during the period of the Weimar Republic, the paper was treated with hostility by nationalist circles because it had pronounced itself in favour of the Treaty of Versailles in 1918. At that time it no longer stood in opposition to the government and supported Gustav Stresemann’s policy of reconciliation.”
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Frankfurter_Zeitung

As to the ‘Vossische Zeitung’, it was based in Berlin which was a bastion of decadence in the Weimar period. It catered to the liberal-Bourgeois crowd and was very “international” in it’s views. “Until the second year of the Third Reich’s reign over Germany, the publication was generally regarded as Germany’s national newspaper of record, just as The Times and Le Temps were to Great Britain and France, respectively. “
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vossische_Zeitung

Now, you may want to dismiss me as being a “biased German”, and I am sure that some will reflexively shriek that I am an “anti-Semite” (which I am not) for daring to bring up this man’s background, and questioning his character and motives, but any objective observer who has done his or her own research, and who is at all familiar with the realities of the Weimar Republic, and with the true, publicly stated objectives of the National Socialists should immediately see that there was a huge conflict of interest there and bias on Heidens part. And that bias and his special interests would not only cause him to engage in childish name calling and insults such as “Nazi!”, but far more serious and injurious behaviours, such as LYING HIS ASS OFF off to foment another World War, that would eventually cost nearly 60,000,000 million lives, incalculable misery world wide, and a bogus legacy that still haunts us all today.

No, Mr. Heiden was certainly NOT an objective “journalist”, he was a “propagandist” and an “opportunist”! For if he was really concerned with “human rights” then where and when did he criticize the bloody red Bolsheviks and the brutal genocide of tens of millions of Christian Russians and the starvation of the 7 million Ukrainians? Much less the plight of the starving, unemployed, destitute and desperate Germans who were being held as slaves in their own country by the dictates of the Versailles Treaty and the dealings of self-described “Jewish” bankers and financial barons of Wall Street, London and Paris, while at the same time, being primed for Bolshevism by the Comintern and the trade unions. The bloody Russian Revolution was brought about by those very same Ueber-Kapitalist scoundrels, who also fomented World War I. Hitler had been openly discussing these things and fighting then from the beginning! Do you think just maybe they may have had a little something against him and the National Socialists, hmmm?

All things being equal, Heiden should NEVER have been given much (if any) credibility for his claims, as he and his interests (ie the status quo) were under the threat by the NSDAP. It was entirely in his interest, and that of his father, his family, his associates, etc to smear the National Socialists, both at home and abroad, to preserve their own interests, at the expense of everyone else. Not only that, but also with a major interest in perpetuating his lies after the war too, in order to continually justify it.

One would have to be very naive to not know that he found a waiting and welcome soapbox in America, partly because of who controls the media there, but more importantly, because America, after World War I and especially during the Great Depression had fallen totally into the hands of the International Bankster Gangsters who happen to call themselves “Jews” (…and are not). The very same bunch of crooks who gave you the Federal Reserve and which rules you today, as well as Germany, and most other countries. The National Socialists had a rescue plan for their people and their economy, which threatened their hegemony and the long-term global plans, ie the NWO agenda. Are we getting it yet?

Heiden was not alone in his efforts either. As soon as Hitler came to power, many of the most influential Jews bailed out and headed straight to America, to literally “raise hell”. That, of course, takes us back to what I had stated in my earlier post “World War II started in 1933!” (which detailed the world wide Jewish initiated boycotts). And for the Germans, that war has never ended. Nor will it, until people really begin to grasp the level of deception that has gone on, and is still being used to manipulate the world today.

Again, if people are truly seeking truth, justice, and peace on this planet, then it is high time they begin to learn and to research these things for themselves, stop trusting the media, and many in the alternative media, and stop perpetuating their lies, and stop using their jargon, not only for the sake of the honour of the Germans, but because it is self-defeating. All humanity has suffered from this injustice, and shall continue to do so until we all take personal responsibility, by researching and learning the truth, and speaking the truth, and for holding the real liars, haters and war mongers accountable!

But, to those who want to persist in using that nasty epithet, then perhaps we need to start calling you a bunch “Heidis”!

How do you like that, hmmm?

http://justice4germans.com/2013/04/1...-who-benefits/
 
Old May 8th, 2014 #10
Paul Smith
Death Camp of Tolerance
 
Paul Smith's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Europa
Posts: 539
Paul Smith
Default

Short article from Matt Koehl.
Quote:
there's a big difference
We Are National Socialists, not 'Nazis'

In the ideological discourse of our time, no term is more emotionally charged than the epithet "Nazi." Is it an accurate descriptive label for the National Socialist philosophy and those who embrace it, or does it carry connotations that suggest something else—something quite different, in fact? In the following editorial, which appeared in the November 1980 issue of White Power, NEW ORDER Commander Matt Koehl discusses this question, as he sets the record straight

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?

This is more than a mere academic question. On the proper answer hinge certain significant implications for us as National Socialists.

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 from 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.

A device coined by the enemy

It is a fact that the label "Nazi" was originally used by a hostile press during the Weimar period [in Germany] 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 true name, but it connotes a certain lack of substance and seriousness, which in turn makes it difficult for anyone to take our message seriously. Indeed, if the public is to gain a credible perception of us, then we must present ourselves honestly and forthrightly as exactly what we are—National Socialists—and not as some sort of political caricature. Otherwise we can expect to have as much credibility as dedicated Marxist-Leninist revolutionaries would if they were to go around referring to themselves as "Commies."

There is perhaps a more important reason, 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.

Good people repulsed

But if the "Nazi" image has repelled good people, too often it has 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 boys 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 quite another matter.
The truth is that we don't need any nicknames. We are National Socialists, not "Nazis." There's a BIG difference!


THIS IS A "NAZI" — This lovely specimen of the "master race" is, in fact, a disgrace to the race. In an act of ultimate desecration, this particular character chose Hitler's birthday on April 20 to get married—to someone who is half-Hawaiian and half-Mestizo! In NS Germany defective types such as this would have been taken out of society before they even got so much as a single tattoo!

http://theneworder.org/news/2014/05/...sts-not-nazis/
 
Reply

Tags
holocaust fiction, holocaust mythology

Share


Thread
Display Modes


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 08:25 AM.
Page generated in 0.17025 seconds.