RSS
Knut Hamsun is widely acclaimed as one of the greatest Norwegian authors—perhaps even the greatest of all time.[1]And the way that Norway is destroying its genetic stock, it will never produce such an author again.� He visited the United States in the 1880s; he found, “In the [eighteen-] fifties there were signs of an intellectual elite in two of the oldest Southern states, but the war came and uprooted it before it was established….� Instead of founding an intellectual elite, America has established a mulatto studfarm.”[2]Knut Hamsun, The Cultural Life of Modern America (1889), translation by Barbara Gordon Morgridge, pp.�143–144.� I have previously quoted this here.� Soon thereafter, he wrote the novel that first established his fame, which established the genre of the psychological novel.� I am particularly sympathetic thereto, for I understand, as he did, that it is sometimes the destiny of artists to starve.� Hamsun’s career as a novelist grew, and he was eventually awarded the Nobel Prize in Literature.
In 1943, after the two men met, Hamsun sent his own Nobel Prize medal, the symbol of his achievements, to Reichsmininster Dr.�Goebbels with the words:[3]Letter from Knut Hamsun to Dr.�Goebbels, June�17, 1943, as quoted by the Hamsun Center (archive).� The Hamsun Center’s English-language version seems to lack a corresponding page.
Note to Proems readers:� I request assistance obtaining archival scans of Hamsun’s letter to Dr.�Goebbels of June�17, 1943, and of Dr.�Goebbels’ reply of June�23, 1943.
Nobel established his prize as an award for last year’s “idealistic” poetry.� I know of no one who, so tirelessly year after year, has written and spoken the cause of Europe and humanity as idealistically as you, Mr.�Reichsminister.� I apologize for sending you my medal.� It’s a completely useless thing for you, but I have nothing to send.
There is scurrilous speculation about why Hamsun did this.� I think that it is unwarranted.� Hamsun had expressed pro-German attitudes in both world wars.� He was consistently pro-German, anti-British, and anti-American.� The 1917 book that won him the medal he gave to Dr.�Goebbels, Growth of the Soil, had strong National Socialist undertones before National Socialism even existed.[4]As translator W.�W. Worster said of Growth of the Soil, “Its dominant note is one of patient strength and simplicity; the mainstay of its working is the tacit, stern, yet loving alliance between Nature and the Man who faces her himself, trusting to himself and her for the physical means of life, and the spiritual contentment with life which she must grant if he be worthy.”� (Worster, “Hamsun”, published in Growth of the Soil, Volume Two, Knopf, New York, 1921, p.�258�[260].� Other links: Volume One; a color scan of the British edition including both books in one volume, Gyldendal, London, 1920.)� This list of arguments could be much extended; but it is unnecessary:� Most tellingly, Hamsun eloquently eulogized Hitler at a time when many former sympathizers were already trying to distance themselves from the National Socialists—when praise for the recently deceased German leader could bring no advantage, and only personal detriment.
In its hostile and derogatory article about this noble tribute, Wikipedia’s current version gives the translation:
Adolf Hitler
I’m not worthy to speak up for Adolf Hitler, and to any sentimental rousing his life and deeds do not invite.
Hitler was a warrior, a warrior for humankind and a preacher of the gospel of justice for all nations.� He was a reforming character of the highest order, and his historical fate was that he functioned in a time of unequaled brutality, which in the end failed him.
Thus may the ordinary Western European look at Adolf Hitler.� And we, his close followers, bow our heads at his death.
Knut Hamsun
And thus, regardless of whatever convolutions and illogical contortions may be indulged by those who wish to distance Hamsun from the German National-Socialists, the record is clear:� The same brilliant mind whose stories inspired millions of readers truly and sincerely admired Adolf Hitler—and he awarded the symbol of his own highest achievements to Reichsminister Dr.�Goebbels.
For my part, I have drawn some important lessons from the perpetual controversies about Hamsun.
The attempts to “rehabilitate” Hamsun are abhorrent:� Creatures who covet Hamsun’s work attempt to split the man down the middle, override his will, dissociate him from those whom he respected, and repudiate on his behalf that which he endorsed.� It is a cowardly theft of the spirit.� And I never want for that to happen to me.
If, perchance, I may exercise whatever talents I have to create value for others, then those others must accept me as I am—or else my value is not theirs to take.� Although I am not a National Socialist, I stand on Hitler’s side of history:� On his side, and on the side of every German who fought for him; and for reasons that I may elaborate in future Proems, I especially admire Dr.�Goebbels.� You may agree or disagree—but if you find it unacceptable, then you do not deserve me, and you do not deserve anything that I ever make.� Be that so, the loss is yours and not mine.
Let those with creative talents pass such judgment, and have the moral courage to stand by it.� For creativity is power:� It is the power to move the world.�®
Notes
[1] And the way that Norway is destroying its genetic stock, it will never produce such an author again.
[2] Knut Hamsun, The Cultural Life of Modern America (1889), translation by Barbara Gordon Morgridge, pp.�143–144.� I have previously quoted this here.
[3] Letter from Knut Hamsun to Dr.�Goebbels, June�17, 1943, as quoted by the Hamsun Center (archive).� The Hamsun Center’s English-language version seems to lack a corresponding page.
Note to Proems readers:� I request assistance obtaining archival scans of Hamsun’s letter to Dr.�Goebbels of June�17, 1943, and of Dr.�Goebbels’ reply of June�23, 1943.
[4] As translator W.�W. Worster said of Growth of the Soil, “Its dominant note is one of patient strength and simplicity; the mainstay of its working is the tacit, stern, yet loving alliance between Nature and the Man who faces her himself, trusting to himself and her for the physical means of life, and the spiritual contentment with life which she must grant if he be worthy.”� (Worster, “Hamsun”, published in Growth of the Soil, Volume Two, Knopf, New York, 1921, p.�258�[260].� Other links: Volume One; a color scan of the British edition including both books in one volume, Gyldendal, London, 1920.)
[5] I am unsatisfied with this translation, and several similar translations that I have seen floating around on the Internet.� Following is my attempt at working out a translation that is both more accurate, and more idiomatic; readers with mastery of both Norwegian and English are invited to critique it, and to suggest their own improvements:
Adolf Hitler.
I am unworthy to speak for Adolf Hitler, and his life and deeds do not invite sentimental raptures.
He was a warrior, a warrior for mankind, and a preacher of justice for all nations.� He was a reformer of the highest rank, and his historic destiny was that he worked at a time of exemplary brutality, which in the end felled him.
The common Western European dares to see Adolf Hitler thus.� And we, his close followers, bow our heads at his death.
The original text:
Adolf Hitler.
Jeg er ikke verdig til at tale høirøstet om Adolf Hitler, og til nogen sentimental Rørelse indbyder hans Liv og Gjerning ikke.
Han var en Kriger, en Kriger for Menneskeheden og en Forkynder av Evangeliet om Ret for alle Nasjoner.� Han var es reformatorisk Skikkelse av høieste Rang, og hans historiske Skjebne var den, at han virket i en Tid av den eksempelløseste Raahet, som tilslut fældte ham.
Slik tør den almindelige Vesteuropæer se paa Adolf Hitler.� Og vi, hans nære Tilhengere, bøier nu vaare Hoder ved hans Død.
Knut Hamsun.
If I receive appropriate feedback on a better translation, then I may replace the Wikipedia translation in the main text of this article.
I also request assistance sourcing a relevant poem which some websites allege Hamsun wrote at the time; I suspect it of being spurious, and I am always cautious in such matters.
English
Arabic
Chinese (Simplified)
Dutch
French
German
Hebrew
Hindi
Italian
Japanese
Korean
Persian
Polish
Portuguese
Russian
Spanish
Swedish
Turkish
Vietnamese
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oSAUmsM8eHk
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M1HMw4Xw4KU
“And I never want for that to happen to me.” ~says Raches. Try not to coif your hair with too fine a comb, you may pop your head.
The word ‘Rørelse’ is actually Danish. Even at the time Hamsun used it in 1945 it had become unusual. Pre WWI written Norwegian was much closer to Danish.
https://ordnet.dk/ddo/ordbog?query=r%C3%B8relse
My parents were in their 20’s in Germany during the regime of National Socialists. And they were in tune with the times and spoke highly of Adolf Hitler’s social and economic achievements. My mother had amusing anecdotes in dealing with officialdom to get a passport for foreign travel.
I was ambivalent about those times as I was born after the war. Fortunately I was too young for the denazification programs to have any lasting effects on me.
When I became a middle aged adult, with adult children of my own, the skepticisms of my younger son got to me and we had a serious talk about his views.
Readings of my own choosing confirmed that my son was right; subsequently there was no turning back for me. No more acceptance by me of the proffed versions of recent history!
It was during these times I formulated the mantra:
“Everything one is told by the public media about Germany and the two world wars, the exact opposite is much nearer to the truth”.
So far I have never been proven wrong.
When faced with opinions regarding the nasty nazis, my standard retort is: “Point me to the verifiable scientific evidence to support your assertions”. Not one, let me repeat that, not ONCE in over 20 years of writing commentaries to newspaper articles or blogs on the ‘net, has any such evidence been furnished.
It warms the cockles of my heart that other, prominent and thinking individuals shared my convictions.
I am certain that there are many more free thinkers with a similar outlook but are reluctant, like myself, to take a public stance for fear of reprisals. These fears are mostly for my sons and granddaughter whom I do not wish to saddle with undue hardships.
They are, however, aware of my beliefs.
Thanks to Ron Unz for making this, the most free speech blog, available.
Translation looks fine, except, I’d substitute “exemplary” with “unparalleled.” The literal translation is “most example-less”.
Nazis, again!
The Roman republic, the Icelandic republic, and 18th century Britain afford feasible examples of aristocracy. Nazi Germany, on the contrary, was the result of a collapse of democracy. It was the very model of tyranny, as Plato taught, the lowest most degraded form of government.
Quote from The Republic follows:
The people have always some champion whom they set over them and nurse
into greatness.
Yes, that is their way.
This and no other is the root from which a tyrant springs; when he
first appears above ground he is a protector.
Yes, that is quite clear.
…
At first, in the early days of his power, he is full of smiles, and he
salutes every one whom he meets;—he to be called a tyrant, who is
making promises in public and also in private! liberating debtors, and
distributing land to the people and his followers, and wanting to be so
kind and good to every one!
Of course, he said.
But when he has disposed of foreign enemies by conquest or treaty, and
there is nothing to fear from them, then he is always stirring up some
war or other, in order that the people may require a leader.
To be sure.
Has he not also another object, which is that they may be impoverished
by payment of taxes, and thus compelled to devote themselves to their
daily wants and therefore less likely to conspire against him?
Clearly.
And if any of them are suspected by him of having notions of freedom,
and of resistance to his authority, he will have a good pretext for
destroying them by placing them at the mercy of the enemy; and for all
these reasons the tyrant must be always getting up a war.
He must.
Now he begins to grow unpopular.
A necessary result.
Then some of those who joined in setting him up, and who are in power,
speak their minds to him and to one another, and the more courageous of
them cast in his teeth what is being done.
Yes, that may be expected.
And the tyrant, if he means to rule, must get rid of them; he cannot
stop while he has a friend or an enemy who is good for anything.
He cannot.
And therefore he must look about him and see who is valiant, who is
high-minded, who is wise, who is wealthy; happy man, he is the enemy of
them all, and must seek occasion against them whether he will or no,
until he has made a purgation of the State.
Yes, he said, and a rare purgation.
Yes, I said, not the sort of purgation which the physicians make of the
body; for they take away the worse and leave the better part, but he
does the reverse.
If he is to rule, I suppose that he cannot help himself.
It appears to me that what you quoted from Plato applies, practically verbatim, to the so-called “free” democracies of today.
Especially the USA, Britain, and France, which are the most murderous, warmongering, “democracies” that ever existed on God’s green earth.
If you have any verifiable PROOF that Plato’s writings applied to Nationalist Socialist Germany, please list them here. Thank you.
Just an observation. In the most recent federal election in Canada, the ruling minority government was elected with about 35% of the popular vote.
In 1933 the NSDAP was elected with a very similar percentage of the popular vote. Within 4 or 5 years the NSDAP government had the German economy booming, while the “free democracies” were still mired in the Great Depression. There must be a moral!
During July, 1944 Knut Hamsun toured a German sub, an event which was both filmed and photographed and was presented in an August 3 edition of the Munich based Illustrierter Beobachter and a German newsreel of the same date, both linked below.
Maybe someone who knows German can tell us if this visit took place in Germany proper, or, rather, at a Norwegian port, the latter being my suspicion.
As an aside, I once saw a WWII documentary which noted the British disgust with the occupied Scandinavian countries, and their populations in general, as they seemed to be (to the Brits at least) to be too friendly, and on too good of terms, with their German occupiers.
I suspect (in reality) all it was, that while the Scandis were probably not exactly happy with the occupation, that at the same time they hadn’t entirely forgotten (as the Brits had) that they were a Germanic people, just as the Germans were, and were not quite able to gin up the desired amount of anti-German hatred.
https://archive.org/details/illustrierter-beobachter-19.-jhg.-folge-31-3.8.1944/page/5/mode/2up
https://archive.org/details/1944-08-03-Die-Deutsche-Wochenschau-726
The episode with the submarine was at a naval base in Germany. A meeting with Hitler was the main purpose of the trip. That meeting is described in detail in Ingar Sletten Kolloen’s two-volume biography in Norwegian, which came out in 2004. A book about Hamsuns trip to Germany and his meeting with Hitler was also published i 2014. Hamsun could use his fame to achieve a meeting with Hitler. But it did not at all turn out the way he – and some Norwegian National Socialists, including his wife encouraging him – had hoped. The plan was to persuade Hitler to remove Terboven, the Reichskommissar in Norway. In Hamsun’s view, and that of quite a few Norwegian National Socialists, Terboven was hurting Germany’s cause in Norway. Hamsun raised this issue directly, Hitler scolded Hamsun and left the room, while Hamsun cried. https://www.dagsavisen.no/kultur/2014/07/02/skriver-om-hamsuns-mote-med-hitler/
Hamsun seems to have been a great man, and of a good heart, who truly cared about his Norwegian people, while simultaneously having a sincere empathy towards other peoples besides. I’d put him in the same league as an Alexander Solzhenitsyn or a Charles Lindbergh.
The peoples of the world, and humanity as a whole, desperately need more of that type.
Raches,
I find your unapologetic appreciation for the Third Reich refreshing to the point of exhilaration.
Thank you.
L
My parents were young Germans in their teens when the war ended. They came to the USA after the war, where I was born, raised and have lived most of my life. I think very similarly to you. Unfortunately, my brother does not. My parents were proud Germans to the end of their lives, even as they became proud Americans. Whatever else can be said of Dr. Goebbels, no one could speak like he did. My mother told me how inspiring Goebbels speeches were as the war was nearing its end. He spoke to the German women, sympathized with their hardship, told them this was the most important time in all history and kept peoples spirits up and preserved the will to keep fighting. My mother was young and probably naive but she told me she thought Germany would still win the war two or three months before its end.
If the German people do not recover some semblance of pride and stop looking to the USA on how to do everything (including Covid-19) Germany will continue its gradual decline. They used to lead in everything.
Thank you for your positive confirmation of my thoughts.
The German people have withstood many, many, attacks from external enemies and recovered, and surpassed, those enemies with economic well-being. For example, over a period of 400 years France invaded, what is now Germany, 40 times!
Nowadays it appears to me that the attacks are usually internal, ie. a political correctness that demands a thought adherence to a theme that cannot withstand a modicum of questioning. 90+ year old grandmothers languish in prison for publicly decrying that political correctness.
Where is the international outcry condemning this outrage?
So much for our “free democracies”.
Hollywood, comic book publishers, and lying college profs, have much to answer for.
Personally I am firmly convinced that the current malaise that has befallen the western world may be traced back to all the lies that were propagandized during and after WWI and WWII.
A very Merry Christmas, and a Happy and Healthy New Year to you and yours. HdC
You’re welcome and I hope you and those close to you have a very Merry Christmas too.
OT a bit, but the Occidental Observer blog has a couple of intriguing recent entries on Houston Stewart Chamberlain (1855-1927) linked below in regards to some wartime (WWI) essays of his. Chamberlain was from a British elite family, had in time become a Germanophile, and would ultimately marry the German composer Richard Wagner’s daughter.
Wikipedia paints Chamberlain as part buffoon, part madman, and implies self-hatred. The loaded terms ‘racist’ and ‘anti-semite’ are liberally used throughout the Wiki article to describe him. Readers must decide for themselves of course what to make of the man.
From the Wiki article, Chamberlain believed a self destructive Britain to be the primary instigator of WWI, and England’s only chance of self preservation was if she were to lose the contest:
Also from Wiki from the early 20th century, what Chamberlain thought about the United States, a place he refused to visit, and what he thought of it’s future:
I’ve posted before about the now largely forgotten geo-political book The New Rome, a widely distributed and widely reviewed book at the time it was published, in 1853, by the US establishment publisher G P Putnam (now Penguin).
It exposits that a future reunited United States and United Kingdom (ie the ‘Anglo-Saxon empire’) will unleash a ‘world’s war’ upon the Earth when it attempts to take control of continental Europe’s center of power, Germany, for itself. After Germany, according to this book, Russia is next to be on the chopping block.
I see the book as possibly being ‘a suggestion’ placed in the US public’s mind as to what would be expected from it in the future:
https://www.theoccidentalobserver.net/2021/12/12/houston-stewart-chamberlains-england-translated-and-with-an-introduction-by-alexander-jacob/
https://www.theoccidentalobserver.net/2021/12/13/houston-stewart-chamberlains-england-trans-alexander-jacob/
https://archive.org/details/newrome00poes/page/104/mode/2up
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Houston_Stewart_Chamberlain
Beispiellos it would fit in German. Which brings me to ‘Raahet’ that I guess ended up translated as Brutality and by feel I’d translate into Rohheit in German, indicating how far removed from civilization the times were.
Don’t speak any Norwegian, just its sometimes fascinating similar to German, and afaik English is the most removed germanic language, it’s a fun guessing game (rigged in my favour).
https://www.dict.cc/?s=Rohheit
https://www.dict.cc/german-english/beispiellos.html
Hitmarck, I had a university prof scold me publicly and loudly when I asserted mildly a connection between the Swedish language and the German language. I’d thought there was a connection through Old Norse. Do you know anything more?
I have had a similar experience with more than one American when telling them English is a Germanic language, with my Princeton graduate friend vehemently denying it. This is a chart of the Indo-European languages. You will see the same chart indicating an Indo-European language’s roots wherever you look on the internet. Only the format of the chart may differ. They used to put this language chart at the back of dictionaries. There are no disputes regarding the lineage of these languages. Both Swedish and English are Germanic languages. “High-German” is the German spoken in Germany today. English and Swedish belong to different branches of German.
http://mnabievart.com/oldwebsite/old/info_mn/article_5.html
@Petermx @JackOH
My knowledge is limited to
a) I doubt linguistics because Chomsky
and
b) I’d seen a YT video by langfocus https://www.youtube.com/c/Langfocus/videos
I guess it was the one simply named the German language, and in it he spoke about out of all (germanic) languages it took Americans the longest to learn German, and despite the small differences in grammar it is mostly foreign words making for the difference.
Example in German would be “the nose” “Die Nase” in German with Latin root or “Der Gesichtserker” as Germanic word. Gesicht = face and Erker = alcoves
In school I’ve been taught we should be able to express everything without even the Latin and Greek based words, which may sound hard, but there’s the special word creation power.
https://www.dartmouth.edu/~deutsch/Grammatik/Wortbildung/Komposita.html
So that’s my way to clean German from the foreign words, and the rest I guess is some Germanic skeletton
From what limited knowledge I got it is as you two say, they are related, to different extends.
Isnt it wonderful how Elite Education tries to destroy peoples linguistic brotherhood.
Maybe they envy the Komposita, one might think, if thinking is your profession, being able to build new tools aka words would be a nice feature to have.
Next week, Komposita in Yiddish, which I’d really love to know about.
No doubt in large part that’s residue from the two world wars.
In the UK (as in the US also to quite an extent) there was a drive to not just reject their Germanic heritage, but even that they were European at all.
It’s excessive and absurd, but if you were wanting to direct your people to do things harmful (as in conquest) to not ‘just’ other Germanics, but to Europeans as a whole, you would want to psychologically distant your own people from these ‘others’, lest they become sympathetic towards the cousins, and refuse to do as they were told.
Of course, aliens amongst the elites would tend to have even less qualms about such a destructive course.
Regarding German and English, there are entire sentences at times that will match English practically word for word. The language of the Dutch is also eerily quite close (it would seem) to English, for obvious reasons.
S, I was wondering just that after that old battle-axe laid into me. (See my comment above.) Paul Gottfried pretty much hinted directly in one of his essays that the American academy in his grad student days presented something of a “permissive environment” for German-bashing.
I had a book of Anglo-Saxon poetry dating from the early 20th century. In the front matter, the editor, an American, decried the slighting of the Anglo-Saxon (i. e., Germanic) roots of modern English.
I hesitate to think of anti-German bigotry as an explanation. I may have appeared an obnoxious lout to that old crone; Gottfried’s judgment may be off; lack of student interest and competition for academic funds may have been a stronger reason for the diminution of teaching Anglo-Saxon in pre-WWI America and England. Still, I wouldn’t want to rule out Germanophobia as a “residue” influencer on modern thinking.
What a great read! Wasn’t acquainted with your work, Sir, will make sure to read any future (and past) contributions of yours.
The intermarriage between German and English royalty such that Kaiser Wilhelm II was Queen Victoria’s grandson and Prince Philip’s (Queen Elizabeth’s husband) sisters married German nobles (including an SS officer) as well as intermarriage with Russian aristocracy (Czar Nicholas II from Russia’s wife was German) suggests to me this was a way of keeping peace in Europe. Despite the different languages, different religions, different cultures and histories they belonged to the same continent. To use today’s language, they were “White”. Unfortunately, they often could not keep peace.
What’s your take on Ol’ Doc Mengele? I don’t think I’ve seen much written by you on him…
Germanic settlements were more extensive as most people today realize. Even in France (“FRANKreich”, the Franks being the principal force in Europe), there remained but a few spots, in +/- 450 AD, where the Gallo-Roman element was near 20% (max.); for the rest of it “(…) tout ce qui est compris entre les Alpes et les Pyrénées, l’Océan et le Rhin (…) par le Quade, le Vandale, le Sarmate, l’Alain, le Gépide, le Hérule, le Saxon, le Burgonde, l’Alaman” and “(…) il y avait des Teutons dans la région de Chartres, des Bataves et des Suèves autour de Bayeux et de Constance, des Suèves près du Mans, des Francs près de Rennes, des Lètes de diverses provenances autour de Langres (…) et à Autun, (…) des Suèves à Clermont-Ferrand, des Sarmates et des Taifales, à Poitiers, à Paris, entre Reims et Amiens, dans la Haute-Loire, à Langres” (J.J. Hatt, Histoire de la Gaule romaine, Payot, Paris 1959, pp. 351 sq.) Northern Italy was similar; Ferdinand Gregorovius, in Geschichte der Stadt Rom im Mittelalter, dtv-Bibliothek 9/1978, speaks of Rome AD +/- 550 as of “almost empty”, the population by that time, in Northern/Central Italy, having become > 85% Germanic also (“Langobarden”). Centuries later still, a dialogue between emperor Otto I. and his brother Heinrich run as follows: “Cannot we speak Saxon? It is very well understood everywhere.” – “I have remarked that in Paris for example, one doesn’t understand it no longer quite well. I was amazed how much my brother-in-law speaks differently already. Have you remarked how much they speak through the nose there, and how many Latin words coming from the Romans do remain?” (Joachim Fernau, Deutschland über alles, Goldmann Taschenbuch 1982, p. 45).
Belgium has the Saxe-Cobourg-Gotha as reigning dynasty
I can believe it, and not ‘just’ in academia.
For decades after WWII, in the US corporate media, if you wanted to emphasize that someone was particularly evil, you’d link them with Germany in some subtle (or not so subtle) way. The psychopath Scorpio character in the 1971 movie Dirty Harry doesn’t just use any machine gun in shooting up and seriously wounding Callahan’s Hispanic partner, the one with a White blonde wife, but it’s a war era German MP-40.
The Hawaii 5-0 1968 pilot features a German ship captain illicitly working for the Red Chinese in their kidnapping and brainwashing of McGarret, who in a shoot out pulls out a Luger.
The 1960’s Get Smart comedy series has their regular schlocky German character working for ‘KAOS’ played by the Love Boat series doctor, thpugh I can’t recall the guys name, off hand.
A lot of that overt stuff, though not all, kind of faded as the decades went by as the WWII generation died off.
One thing that did immense harm to Anglo-Saxon identity in the states was chattel slavery, and it’s later matasticization, the even more malignant wage slavery, ie so called ‘cheap labor’ acquired via ‘mass immigration’.
Ben Franklin was right when he said (paraphrasing) that unless the chattel slave situation was handled deftly it could prove a disaster to the US. That was an understatement.
This thread has seen some personal stories that have frankly moved me, plus significant discussion about Germanic languages and other topics.� Unfortunately, it has collided with some irrelevant things on my end, which have left me without opportunity to do it justice in reply.� Please do not mistake quiet for lack of interest.
This discussion is most welcome here.� My thanks (and due apologies) to the commentators who, in my own opinion, have made this thread much more important than the article which incited it.�®
https://www.unz.com/pub/jhr__lessons-of-the-mengele-affair/