On October�25, 2021, I wrote:

(I intend to cover a comparison and contrast of Roman and Chinese ancestor worship on Proems; it is a fascinating parallel between these two great civilizations.)

https://www.unz.com/proems/haas-ancestor-worship-romans-chinese/

Incidentally, apropos this topic, I think that the book thereby referenced could do much to lessen the moral-universalist warmongering that plagues the modern world.� The difference of minds should be studied, and not only as between East and West—more generally.� People should understand that other peoples’ minds work differently than their own, such that they will not try to impose their own ways of life on each other.� The Americans, in particular, have the idiotic notion that the “American way of life� is the One True Way; and if you don’t adopt it yourself, then you must be bombed into “liberation�.� For your own good, of course!

Set aside, for the moment, the problem that the American way isn’t working out so well even for Americans.� Assume for the sake of argument that Americans are happy, successful people living in peace and domestic harmony in their own country.� Even if that were so, the Americans should understand that, for example, the Chinese really are different people, with deeply different thought processes—and the Chinese accordingly must run their own country the Chinese way, not the American way.� Mutatis mutandis, the same principle can be generalized to every other nation in whose affairs the Americans insufferably, oft very violently meddle.�®

If you are full of hate and negativity and you look for that then you will find that. Guess which kind of person you are.

I am not the one doing apologetics for people who collect skulls like serial killer trophies, and proudly publish photos of them in a major mainstream magazine.� (Not to mention firebombing the heart of Europe to ashes and rubble, and nuking Japan twice.)� That’s you.

Well, Americans have long excelled at accusing others of their own crimes.

People who have no religion or spiritual knowledge think that they can get away with evil because

Oh, you don’t know me:� Religion is a special area of study for me.� It doesn’t mean that I believe in Jewish fairytales or worship Jewish gods, the matter which seems to be what got you upset.

You started off from the standpoint of hating 300+ million people, and then feebly tried to back it up with some historical references which happened before most people were even born.

No, I myself started off from my standpoint of contemplating a nation that has spent more than a century starting aggressive wars to satisfy its “world police� megalomania—including within the lifetime of everyone who is old enough to read this, and with worrisome saber-rattling towards China and others today.� Then, I picked some widely-published examples from popular culture to illustrate my pointed contrast between America, a Nation of Hate, versus Hitler’s Germany, a nation that offered peace and friendship to good people around the world.

If you are American, as I presume, then your comment reflects a stereotypical lack of self-awareness and historical perspective.

Only the most honest and honorable Americans admit to American war guilt.� They are, perforce, American dissidents.

Nowadays, as America rots in its own filth, some Americans are, at least, realizing in various general ways that their country has now gone completely crazy.� But they seem to be in the minority—even on the margins, deemed “fringe� by the American mainstream.� Unfortunately for more or less sane Americans, I think that America’s internal dissolution is the historically inevitable result of fighting more than a century of aggressive wars to inflict the American sickness on others.� For my part, I also think that it is condign—natural consequences; just deserts.

Americans fought WWI “to make the world safe for democracy�, WWII against “racism� and “fascism� and “Nazism�—more recently, Americans have spilled an ocean of blood to spread democracy in the Middle East.� They have done massive human sacrifice on the altar of the god of Equality—a hateful, nihilistic god, whose commandments can be satisfied only by reducing all to the lowest common denominator, universal misery and universal slavery, such that “the meek shall inherit the Earth� (Matthew�5:5).� Now, their god consumes them from the inside.

——————————

Notice:� Although I welcome anonymous comments, and two or three of my very favorite comments thus far have been anonymous (including one that I gold-boxed), I will perforce start to judge these more strictly than comments from those with at least a pseudonymous reputation.�®

The problem of a “melting pot� is not only one of “superior� versus “inferior�, although it can be that.� It destroys the unique character of a people, even between peoples of high quality.

As for Rome, objectively considered, the Romans must have had some superior qualities if “a city and its hinterland� managed to conquer vast amounts of territory, and to subjugate far more numerous people.� And I think that notwithstanding individual exceptions (or some notable general historical exceptions), people who are taken as slaves are ipso facto generally inferior to their masters:� Weaker, more passive, more submissive.� I argue that this factor must be considered, when analyzing why a state that had claimed Mars, the god of war, as its patron officially converted to a religion that preaches about the poor and the sick.

Rome succeeded as long as it did not absorb conquered peoples, but kept them more or less separate while imposing on them Roman dominance.

Roman citizenship was difficult to obtain, but the restrictions on citizenship had a huge loophole:� Household slaves were considered part of their owners’ families; and they attained citizenship if emancipated, taking the family names of their former masters.� Some slaves (I presume, the ones with the best personal qualities) made their own money (as was usually allowed), saved up, and purchased their own freedom—and therewith, the rights and privileges of a Roman citizen.� According to Professor�Oliver, Jews often exploited this loophole:� They would arrange to sell themselves into legal slavery to a corrupt Roman who would immediately free them, whereupon they would attain the prize of citizenship.� And as citizens, they could not be expelled in the instances in which the city of Rome tried to rid itself of its Jewish problem.� I will take Oliver as authoritative on that, since he was a professor of the classics.

I see a nation as a very broadly extended family, and a nation’s homeland as the extended family home.� You can’t properly join a family just by filling out some paperwork—and although guests should be treated graciously when visiting the family home, it is not their home.� You should marry someone similar to yourself, whose ancestors are genetically and culturally compatible with your ancestors—that is good general life advice; marriages between drastically different people tend to be personally disastrous; and in any case, they are the dissolution of the family, not the reproduction thereof.� Families do need to reproduce themselves, lest they go extinct; and you should not call a family successful, if it bears no children but “adopts� completely different people from all over the world.�®

Tell me sir, if America is a nation of hate filled ugly racists;

That is quite a strawman argument to toss at a self-declared racist who admires Adolf Hitler.

In the Second World War, the Americans were driven by hatred of the Germans (who, as you may have noticed, were white people) as well as by hatred of the Japanese.� I accuse America of being a nation of hate, not a nation of “racists�:� Indeed, from hatred of the Germans, the Americans fought a war against racism!� Whereas the Germans, those evil, racist “Nazis�, made friends with nations of other races.� You need to rethink your liberal conditioning about these issues.

why have people (for many years now) literally risked everything to come here?

Why do poor, desperate people, the “wretched refuse� proclaimed in the inscription at the Statue of Liberty, go to America—while many people who have better options run away from America?

I know Europeans who swear that they will never set foot on American soil for any reason.

In another blog post, I recently embedded a technical video from a highly educated, American-born Chinese who moved to Singapore—because America does not have enough freedom for him.

https://www.unz.com/proems/kxpq/#p_1_2

You need to rethink your American jingoism.� You obviously do not know how America is seen outside of—America.�®

Für die Töchter, für die Söhne, für das Wahre, Gute, Schöne

For the future in which Adolf Hitler will take his proper place in history—and people will admire Germans who take pride in their nation and their history:

https://www.unz.com/proems/normalization/

It is the first in a series examining this issue from different angles.�®

Please note that I edited what appears to be a tracking parameter out of one of your links, to protect your privacy (and others’, if it gets passed around).� Those are pernicious; I see them passed around all the time.

I am curious about Sylvia Stolz, because I think that a lawyer who was imprisoned for trying to present an effective defense for a client charged with thoughtcrimes, and then imprisoned again for protesting for free speech at a free-speech conference, is a sympathetic character, to say the least.� Casual websurfers are unlikely to find objective information about her:� A brief search to spot check finds mostly either hostile hit-pieces, or the type of strident political writing that I think contrasts with the measured, professional public statements that I have occasionally seen her make on her own behalf.� (I do some firebrand political writing myself; but I know what I am doing, and it is not how I would present someone like Stolz.)

Thanks for the links re Haug.� I should look into that sometime.� On some brief searching, I should note, I doubt that forming a KRR is a viable political strategy.

As a general note, it is very much needed to break into the mainstream.� The various parties running the current system are aware of this; and I believe that they take quite some measures to prevent it—to keep “extremists� at the margins, where they are powerless.� I will cover this topic more soon.

Amazingly enough as a consequence Haug is no longer a taxpayer in Jewermany. The Finanzamt (am. “IRS”) has deleted him legally.

Without having examined his arguments, just for your own safety, I would urge caution about this sort of thing.� American political observers will understand that in the U.S., there are “tax resisters� sitting in prison after making similar types of arguments (or believing what they read on the Internet about it).� I think that some of their arguments are technically meritorious; but when the courts are a strictly controlled environment, and a part of the same thoroughly corrupt system, what do you expect?

In some countries, maybe including Germany (and most notoriously including the U.S.), the tax system is sometimes abused as a political weapon against dissidents who commit no crime—both to get them into prison, and to help smear their reputations.� (Just for an off-the-cuff example, although I never tried to dig deeply into the details of his tax case, I suspect that that is why the Wikipravda hit-piece on David Duke can label him as a “convicted felon� in the very first sentence.� He did spend 15 months in prison for tax charges.)� It is one of the hidden threats to free speech.� As a result, some dissidents are scrupulous in such matters, so that they don’t get suppressed through “tax problems�—not that they agree with the system, but as a matter of picking one’s battles.

(I assume the Jew pays nothing in the JewSA).

No, the Jews pay taxes in the U.S.� Many individual Jews may be quite adept at avoiding or saving on taxes, whether legally or illegally.� But it is the same situation with Jews in every country, including Germany; and when the corrupt tax systems of corrupt governments are essentially de facto systems of slavery, I’d guess that some shrewder Gentiles may adapt by developing the same skills at minimizing their tax burdens.� Of course, for those who keep it legal, it’s probably easier for Jews to work with the Jewish tax lawyers and Jewish accountants who stereotypically predominate in those professions.

There are many tricks and traps for those who want to fight for right, and get pushed to the fringes.� The Internet is full of disinformation—some of it from people who just want to hear themselves talk; some of it is probably planted by the enemy, to support discrediting operations.� It is always important to be cautious, and stick to the facts.� A few of your comments have said things that I pretty much presume to be the product of what happens when people live under crushing censorship—where the flow of information is so suppressed that the truth can be buried from all directions, and those who seek it are most liable to trip into rabbit holes.� For a German today seeking information about the Jews, in particular, I think that the situation is comparable to someone in the Soviet Union foraging for samizdat, trying to find reliable information on facts not disclosed by the Pravda.� No, I do not think that is an exaggeration!� Compare the above note on how Germans can be imprisoned even for protesting that they are not allowed to talk about certain things.

For another example, it must be emphasized that Hitler’s German Reich never deliberately killed Jews for being Jews.� The historical situation that gave rise to that propaganda is complicated, and I don’t want to go off onto a long discourse here; suffice it here to say that whatever political conclusions one may draw from the facts of the deportation program and its results, or the war in the East against partisans who obeyed no rules of warfare, it is important to stick to the facts, and avoid the Jewish lie-propaganda of the Holohoax.

After Germany has been shattered and drenched in foreign acid for several generations, it will require almost superhuman levels of both wisdom and willpower for any surviving Germans to save their posterity from final dissolution.� With my best wishes, I will be pleased to help with my Proems, insofar as I can.�®

I am generally against the whole “melting pot� idea, and Rome is a good example of why.� Of course, this does not imply hostility towards others.� Consider by analogy that as an individual, you can be friends with other people from around the world—without marrying them and bringing them to live in your house.

In the German-Japanese romantic drama film that I cited in the article, the blonde German woman is good friends with a handsome Japanese man.� He is engaged to marry the Japanese woman seen in the screenshot; and (spoiler!) they eventually marry and have a baby, after their German friend helps to smooth over some trouble between them.� I think it is a part of the moral of the movie, which obviously must have been approved by both the German and Japanese propaganda authorities of the 1937 era.

The decline of ancient Rome was, as usual, a race problem.

I recently watched a good video addressing this issue by Shaun. In a nutshell what he posits is that immigration per se is not the problem. Indeed immigration if handled well can be a benefit for the society. It is only when incoming people are not integrated well that problems start to arise.

Mr.�Shaun’s video is quite irrelevant to anything that I said.� It is a good example of why I rarely ever watch these types of videos (although I am now learning to make some videos of my own type; and I have recently embedded a few technical conference videos); and since it says around 04:09 that it extends a reply to Stefan Molyneux, it is a very bad strawman for me!� Never mind all the screenshots of arguments on Twitter—I don’t use Twitter, and I have no idea what those people are arguing about.

You contribute good discussion here, which I appreciate; so please don’t take it personally.� I did watch about the first seven minutes of this.� Although the beginning of the video is mildly witty (and within the first ninety seconds, I could see where he was going with the “Nazi Germany� schtick), Mr.�Shaun sees fit to explain the difference between the Roman Empire in the West and the Eastern (Byzantine) Empire (04:22); it fairly well sums the level of this video.� Around 06:00–07:00, he contemplates events in the late Fourth Century, related to invading Germanic tribes—centuries after the time period of which I speak, and, I will note, after the conversion to Christianity, which I argue was itself an eventual result of earlier mixing of racial stock.

In my opinion, the old Romans would never have converted to Christianity.� They worshipped their national gods; and they also worshipped the spririts of their ancestors, similarly to the traditional Chinese but in a different way.� (I intend to cover a comparison and contrast of Roman and Chinese ancestor worship on Proems; it is a fascinating parallel between these two great civilizations.)� Their fortunes were safe, as long as they held sacred their ancestors and their ancestors’ gods, and maintained their families accordingly.� Their downfall came after they mixed with other people (primarily freed slaves, not invading armies!), and the upper classes stopped reproducing, so their families died out.� I had originally raised this racial question, after a commentator cited a scholarly paper by a researcher who has previously contributed to The Unz Review; Frost’s paper had examined evidence of the genetic decline of the Romans as relates to the rise of Christianity, without considering the racial question.

In support of Revilo Oliver’s theory of significant population replacement between 100 B.C. – 100 A.D., and that Trajan and Tacitus were, so to speak, the last of the Romans, my above comment referred to a 1916 academic paper by Tenney Frank entitled, “Race Mixture in the Roman Empire�.� Frank’s paper opens, on the very first page, by observing evidence of mass-immigration to Rome in Cicero’s time.� Frank then notes observations by Juvenal and Tacitus.

This is hundreds of years before the time period discussed in Mr.�Shaun’s video—and it has nothing to do with invading Germanic tribes near the end of the Empire.

Jumping to pp.�702–703 [sheet 15–16 of the PDF] of Frank’s paper (note that this is “Oriental� in the context of the Near East, not the Far East):

If we may, as I think fair, infer for these towns what we found to be true at Rome, namely, that slaves were quite as prolific as the civil population, that they merged into the latter, and that Greek names betokened Oriental stock, it is evident that the whole empire was a melting-pot and that the Oriental was always and everywhere a very large part of the ore.

At p.�704 [sheet 17 of the PDF]:

But the existence of other forms of “race suicide�, so freely gossipped about by writers of the empire, also enters into this question, and here the inscriptions quite fail us.� Doubtless, as Fustel de Coulanges (La Cité Antique) has remarked, it could have been of little importance in the society of the republic so long as the old orthodox faith in ancestral spirits survived, for the happiness of the manes depended upon the survival of the family, and this religious incentive probably played the same rôle in the propagation of the race as the Mosaic injunctions among the Hebrews, which so impressed Tacitus in a more degenerate day of Rome.� But religious considerations and customs—which in this matter emanate from the fundamental instincts that continue the race—were questioned as all else was questioned before Augustus’s day.� Then the process of diminution began.� The significance of this whole question lies in the fact that “race suicide� then, as now, curtailed the stock of the more sophisticated, that is, of the aristocracy and the rich, who were, to a large extent, the native stock.� Juvenal, satirist though he is, may be giving a fact of some social importance when he writes that the poor bore all the burdens of family life, while the rich remained childless:

�������������������jacet aurato vix ulla puerpera lecto;
Tantum artes hujus, tantum medicamina possunt,
Quae steriles facit.¹�

There may lie here—rare phenomenon—an historic parallel of some meaning.� The race of the human animal survives by means of instincts that shaped themselves for that purpose long before rational control came into play.� Before our day it has only been at Greece and Rome that these obstacles have had to face the obstacle of sophistication.� There at least the instinct was beaten, and the race went under.� The legislation of Augustus and his successors, while aimed at preserving the native stock, were of the myopic kind so unusual in social law-making, and, failing to reckon with the real nature of the problem involved, it utterly missed the mark.� By combining epigraphical and literary references, a fairly full history of the noble families can be procured, and this reveals a startling inability of such families to perpetuate themselves.

——————————
15. VI. 594–596.

I think it’s clear that Mr.�Shaun’s video is not relevant.�®

Notes on the German Plight� (etc.)

the socalled BRD – Federal Republic of Germany

I like the way you put it.

Not specifically in reply to your comment, but some points I have been wanting to raise about the predicament in which the German people are trapped:

What do you think of the legal analysis by Sylvia Stolz about “OMF-BRD�?� I do not have the requisite specialist legal scholarship to pass judgment on her theories, which invoke complicated questions of law and treaty; but I accord her the respect that she deserves, both for her intellectual credibility and, most of all, for her personal courage.� And for other reasons, which I will summarize presently, the gravamen of her conclusions seems obvious to me:� The Germans are held on an American leash, unable to take control of their own country.

Otherwise, I am often cautious of some of the claims that I find on the far-right (including the German far-right).� For example, I do not think that the claims about the “Kanzlerakte� are adequately substantiated (although I do not consider it disproved, either).� I am especially cautious, because such things could originate as enemy disinformation used to discredit people who are fighting for their existence.� And it is unnecessary to rely on such things!� In my opinion, it is always best in principle, for the truth, and strategically wisest to attack from the high ground, with solid, irrefutable evidence from unimpeachable sources.� This is a general point; and you will see that I apply it generally.� Thus, my enemies cannot smear me as a “conspiracy theorist� unless they lie about me, and make their own conspiracy theories about me—which I can then show for what they are.

It is why I push the point that, in fact—in undisputed, indisputable fact!—Germany is an occupied country.� When there are permanent U.S. military bases on Germany soil, which were built by soldiers who invaded very violently and overthrew the legitimate German government, anyone who denies that Germany is under military occupation has lost contact with reality.

Claims that the Germans now invite and agree to the American military presence are manifest absurdities with no credibility:� How can the Germans freely invite a foreign enemy who conquered them to keep an army on their soil, when they have the same foreign army on their soil?� Did they ever have any realistic chance to refuse?� Indeed, to the contrary:� Didn’t affirmatively they refuse this in the very strongest terms, by fighting a long war against it?� Need I provide a citation to show that WWII happened, and Americans entered Germany as enemies?� Or can consent now be legitimately obtained by applying force until consent is given?

If, in peacetime, with no foreign military occupation, with a government that had not been initially installed under forcible American authority, the Germans had one day just decided to invite the Americans to come in and build American military bases, then I would say that they agreed to it.� (I would also say they were total idiots.)� I don’t think anyone tries to claim that that’s what happened, or anything even remotely like it.� As such, it is a transparent “protection� racket, not different than a mafioso who claims that the stores in his neighborhood “invite� his thugs to make sure “nothing bad happens�.

When the fact of a hostile foreign army invading and remaining on German soil is combined with the Enemy State Clause, plus American official propaganda that openly declared from the outset that, in substantial effect, their army would remain for as long as necessary to force the Germans to discard their traditions, the illusion of an “independent� German government is a palpable sham.� (I will be documenting what I just said on my blog—with reliance on “official� and otherwise “mainstream� sources, and no contentious or disputed evidence, and with other arguments similarly supported.)

From another angle, some Germans dare to say what should be readily apparent to any rational observer.� When I first began to investigate these topics some years ago, I was impressed by these relatively obscure remarks in a 1999 interview with Germar Rudolf:

SR:� While Grundlagen was seized and burned in Germany by court order, and you are a fugitive from German justice for offending against your country’s censorship laws, we Americans are subject to what Harry Elmer Barnes called the “historical blackout and smotherout.�� Do you think Holocaust revisionism has a better chance of an initial major breakthrough in the U.S., in Germany, or elsewhere?

GR:� Holocaust revisionism must never, never succeed in Germany first.� A revisionist breakthrough in Germany regarding the Holocaust would almost certainly be followed by political revisionism, and that could very well lead to a final destruction of Germany by its “friends,� e.g. maybe with a few atom bombs.

That would be more or less equivalent to what the Allies did to Germany after World War I, when revisionism succeeded there, and was followed by political revisionism.� Holocaust revisionism must succeed in the world’s leading nation, the United States, or it will never succeed.

So, if the German people try to stand up and take control of their country, they will be put down by force just like last time, and maybe outright annihilated this time—I think that conclusion should be obvious, to any astute political observer who knows the history of the Twentieth Century.� It does not require any complicated legal arguments.� It also does not require any disputed evidence, or anything that could be accused of being a “conspiracy theory�.

Herr�Knispel, re-arranging this quote for better flow of my reply:

The Jew were given full emancipation in the last Kaiserreich.� Unfortunately.

The Jews had so much power in the Kaiserreich, I do not see any reason but sheer hatred against the German people for any Jew to want to overthrow the Kaiser.� From a cynical perspective, why not go along for the ride, let Germany become a global economic power in competition with the British, and skim off profits on both sides through usual Jewish ways (banking and otherwise) while having a fertile environment for many Jewish businesses?� Only race-hatred and the urge to destroy could explain it, not simple selfishness.

(Republic is always a Jewish construct, just like democracy.
Republic & democracy are codenames for Jewish rule.)

Setting aside the question of how the enemies of civilization have misappropriated and perverted the whole concept of a republic, I think that it’s interesting that a very prominent Jew proclaimed thousands of years ago that there would be a single world government, that it would be a world “democracy�—and that this was a so-called “divine plan�.

I will blog it sometime, with references.� Although I am careful about difficult-to-prove theories, it is just the sort of thing that makes me wonder what I was not taught in “history� class.

“Nazi-Germany� also used a Jewish influenced flag with the Red of blood & socialism.

Eh, I am unwilling to let the Jews own a color, all for themselves.� Surely, the Jews would want to claim a color as exclusively Jewish—just as queers try to claim the whole rainbow for their own.� In my opinion, colors belong only to Nature.

I think that among other talents, Hitler was a grandmaster of semiotics.� He seized many Jewish mind-weapons, powerful symbols and powerful substance, and turned them around to free the German people.� Replacing Jewish International Socialism (Communism) with German National Socialism, conquering the enemy Red Flag by stamping in the middle of it an Aryan symbol in black and white—such things drive the Jews crazy!

I explain this because you will see that in my own way, and sometimes quite differently than him, I strive to do similarly:� Take the weapons of my enemies,¹ and use them against my enemies.� I learned this pattern, in the abstract, by studying the 1920s German struggle; and it is a conscious goal that I have referenced somewhere.

I strive also to master, as Hitler did, what has sometimes been called the “political alphabet� (a term that perhaps you may recognize), which is almost impossible to a non-Jew who was not raised in a royal family or the old upper-nobility.� In essence, how to hold the levers of power—for the political is more art than science.� One who thinks too simplistically can spend twenty years reading political philosophy without comprehending this.

——————————

Something else that may interest you:� The decline of ancient Rome was, as usual, a race problem.� In another thread on Proems, there has been some discussion of this; according to some scholars, the old-stock ethnic Romans suffered self-inflicted population replacement; and this happened a long time before “Rome� converted to worship Jewish gods.�®

——————————

1. Not to be confused with that:� I also sometimes outright troll the Jews with Judaica, and even with some bits of Hebrew, artfully applied; but that largely has a different purpose.� I know that for the Jewish activists who come here to hunt for evil “antisemites�, it will inflict emotional agony when they see Haman call Amalek a tzaddik, etc.� How dare such a wicked goy touch Jewish things, or even know them!� I do not intend it to offend Mr.�Unz, and I doubt that he even knows what I am talking about.

Moderation Note

Thanks for your support, and for the information that you state.� I let through a comment from “apollonian� in reply to you, because you made an accusation against him, and he denied it.� In fairness, I thought that I should let his response be published on the record.� Since then, I have saved you and my other readers from a number of his illegible, illogical screeds, which are generally unwelcome here.

I take this opportunity to give notice that I quietly banned “geokat62�.� Mr.�Geokat’s comments are often spam-filtered—I wonder why!� Digging around in the trash about a week ago, I discovered, via one of Mr.�Geokat’s spamfiltered comments, that another commentator whom he had claimed to be me on the basis that we both know English words had a prior history of defending the rapist-murderer Leo Frank.

On principle, I have a well-known policy of never admitting or denying accusations of alternate identities.� I do not admit or deny Mr.�Geokat’s accusation.� However, I will say that find it outrageous and extremely offensive to be accused of being a crackpot who defended Leo Frank here.� For the crime against me of knowingly accusing me being someone who defended Leo Frank, Mr.�Geokat is banned from Proems.

I provide this note now because he continues to pepper this thread with stuff that never gets published.� I am letting through his latest comment as his last one here, just to show readers that nothing of value is lost.�®

Thanks for your substantial reply.� I am still mulling this…

This is an important line of discussion; and from my own perspective, I face two problems.� I admit that I am out of my depth with Far Eastern history; it is why I ask these questions.� And more generally, there are certain issues that must be approached first and foremost with a ruthless, dispassionate scholarly objectivity.� This is difficult when it is entwined with a political discussion, where a diplomatic approach is necessary to avoid offending the national honor of several peoples whom I respect.

It’s nothing to be ashamed of since the Chinese one, usually held their own militarily, two, held very high positions in those foreign dynasties.� And every race on earth has been one time or another been subjugated and the Chinese have proven to be possibly the most resilient.

I agree with this.� In the abstract, by analogy of military conquest and cultural influence, what you posit is essentially similar to how no Japanese should take offense to someone pointing out that the Japanese imported from China the Han writing system, and many Chinese cultural elements.� And no German should take offense to contemplate how, from the Renaissance, the Germans imported many elements of classical, pre-Christian culture from Greece and Rome; indeed, Hitler was proud of how the Germans picked up the mantle of Western civilization.� For their part, the ancient Greeks respected Egyptian civilization for its great antiquity, even if it was alien to them—and they eventually conquered it, resulting in the Ptolemaic Dynasty and the flowering of Hellenistic culture at Alexandria, Egypt.

And I don’t know of any neighbors, each proud and more or less powerful peoples, who lived alongside each other for a very long time without ever fighting any wars between them.

On another note—for the same general point, not to open this debate with you here—I suggest that if you still accept Shire, et al. as authoritative about history, perhaps consider that (as littlereddot said a few times), history is written by the victors.� —Just as much of modern Japanese “history� was “written� by American warmongers, who generally traduce and insult China except when they find it convenient to praise China, so that they can provoke conflicts with Japan—the Japan whom they nuke, insult, and then claim as their “friends�.� As all of the great nations revisit and review their histories to correct distortions and falsehoods from the lie-propaganda of their mutual enemies, the prospect for peace increases.

——————————

I thank you again for the information you provided me about my racial question.� Sometimes, when I have tried to ask such questions before, I have been beset by unintelligent responses from all over the political spectrum—with conclusions not authorized by the scholarly evidence, ranging from insults to the Chinese to liberal promotion of race-mixing.� It is good to have a higher quality of discussion about this.� I look forward to continuing this discussion with you, in this thread and/or elsewhere, as I learn more about the subject.�®

Your outstanding effort and fight for truth is highly respected and honored.

Thank you for your kind words.

I had intended to reply here with a link to a forthcoming blog post; alas, it is delayed by my perfectionism, a trait that a German may understand.� I will follow up here later.

In the interim, if you are not already familiar with his work as you well may be, I recommend to you the later writings of Revilo P. Oliver, an American patriot who became an American dissident, and who, as a non-German, had a great influence for the postwar cause of the Germans.

In the above article, I quoted from Professor Oliver’s expression of American war guilt, from one of his articles in Herr George Dietz’s Liberty Bell.� I think that that’s especially significant, since, despite his vehement disgust for Roosevelt, a younger Oliver had loyally served his country doing cryptanalysis work against the Axis; I can only imagine what horror he must have felt personally.� I have also noticed that Mr.�Unz quoted from Professor Oliver’s declaration that “the foul murders at Nuremberg� had “brought on the American people an indelible shame�, as he said in his political memoir.

Amidst the broad range of topics in his Liberty Bell articles, one of Professor Oliver’s recurring themes was the wartime heroism of the German people, the sham of the Holohoax, and the injustice that the Germans were, as he put it, punished for wanting to have their own country.� (He was also one of the only authors who dared to express sympathy for Frau Magda Goebbels; accordingly, I sometimes quote him in my memorials to the Goebbels family.)� This carries special weight:� He himself had been on the other side of the War, he was not a German, and he was a retired university professor, a scholar of authoritative intellect and unimpeachable character.� He could have had no plausible motive but to tell the truth as he saw it.� And he was objective in his view of history; he sometimes respectfully criticized Hitler for his mistakes—e.g., Hitler’s too-trusting nature and almost blind personal loyalty to his early supporters, which were exploited by the traitor Canaris.

Taken as a whole, I think that Professor Oliver’s opinions must have a profound effect—as he did on me.� Although I am independent, and I would not call myself an Oliverian, I generally account him as one of my greatest intellectual influences; and I have quoted him extensively in my commentary at The Unz Review.� I will be covering more Oliverian topics on Proems in the future.

Heil!

Heil!� And if you feel lost in these dark times, please remember the motto of Hans-Ulrich Rudel, which sustained him personally even in desperate circumstances, and with which he concluded his war memoir:� “Verloren ist nur, wer sich selbst aufgibt!�� (It is not the first time that I have quoted that here.)� Few situations are truly insurmountable; please keep alive the German spirit which, with my long-term view, I believe must someday be historically vindicated, if civilization is ever to be revived.�®

Thank you, Mr.�Unz.

Since this book was written in 1991, I wonder how Wang’s thought has developed.� Having briefly, somewhat superficially skimmed about half of his book thus far, a number of things jumped out at me.� I will reserve comment on most of that for now; maybe I missed something.

I noticed a statement that reflects widespread observations by non-Americans (and a few more intelligent Americans) about America.� It seems obvious to me, and I quite agree with it, altough it seems to be a syntactically ambiguous translation, sandwiched between statements that are much more positive towards America:

There is a nightmarish belief that they despise other nations and peoples almost to the point of paranoia.� They believe that their country is superior and that they are superior to others, and this sense of superiority produces a natural sense of mission and a belief that they are the highest hope of the world.

Now, I look to what seems to be an important recurring theme in this book:� Wang’s view of politics and technology.

In the context of discussing “the American belief that nothing is impossible and that we will not rest until we have won it all,� Wang says:

However, this belief can also be alienating. This belief drives Americans to come up with solutions to the problems they face, resulting in a high level of scientific and technological development, but the high level of scientific and technological development is often followed by the illusion that it is not man who ultimately solves the problem, but rather that science and technology become the ultimate power and man becomes its slave.

He shortly thereafter observes:

An important direction for humanity in the twentieth century is the high integration of politics and technology.� Politics without technology cannot be a strong politics, and of course, technology without politics cannot be a strong technology.

As a result of this combination of technology and politics, technology itself has been alienated.� This phenomenon is particularly stark in the United States.� Sometimes it is not the people who master the technology, but the technology that masters the people.� If you want to overwhelm the Americans, you must do one thing: surpass them in science and technology.� For many peoples it is different; having technology does not work; there must also be cultural, psychological and sociological conditions.

It is a theme to which he returns repeatedly, stating much later in another chapter:

[…] Whereas earlier advocates of the use of technology did not explicitly realize that they would become a means of managing people, today the application of technology has become one of society’s most powerful means of managing people.� To a large extent, American society is governed by technological processes.� People obey technology more than they obey politics.� Technological development has broken society into tiny interconnected spheres, one for each individual. […]

The radicals criticize this phenomenon as alienation, which can be valid from a human point of view.� But no society can do without science and technology, and the logic of science and technology is inevitable.� Valuing science and technology, admiring it, applying it, it is obvious that this is not just a productive, economic, or purely technical issue.� Therefore, while developing science and technology, I am afraid that the problem to think about is not that simple.� Everything has good and bad, the key is to make a choice under what historical conditions, and how to coordinate after the choice.

This is closer to my thinking than some of the other things I noticed on other issues.� As a self-declared antimodern atavism who embraces technology, I am aggrieved to find that some commentators who are completely ignorant of the technology reject it on a basis that, “remember J.R.R. Tolkien’s moral: it is futile to try to turn a device against the purpose of its maker. Electronics were created by the globalists; they will always serve their purpose.�� Whereas I strive to do exactly what is stated in the ultimate sentence of the above quote:� Apply my antimodern Weltanschauung to changed historical conditions, consciously choosing how to use technology (and my own talents for it).� To do otherwise would be to disarm myself against formidable adversaries—and I do think that technology can be applied for the greater good.

Given that Wang is so influential in China, his thinking from 1991 may shed some light on the brilliant rise of China as a technological power.

One of the first things that jumped out at me was that Wang devoted one of his short chapters to the Amish, with the astute observation:

This [the Amish] is a real social phenomenon worth thinking about.� In the heart of the modernized world, there is such a group of people who refuse to be modernized.� Their remoteness is not in the geographical area, but in the spiritual world.� They are voluntarily isolated from modernization.� From this we can draw an opinion that if people refuse modernization in the spiritual sphere, then it is difficult for modernization to invade them.� This phenomenon can be seen in different societies.� The real driving force of modernization is in the inner world of people.

Unsurprisingly, this was followed by a chapter about the Amana community, which immediately brought to my mind a comparison and contrast with “THE END OF COMMUNISM� (a trick title that I hereby quote in all-capitals for a reason), R.�P. Oliver, Liberty Bell, January 1989, pp.�8–14 (discussion of Amana itself begins at p.�12, with mention of its antecdents in eighteenth-century Inspirationists in Hessen-Darmstadt).

An author who sought to contextualize such oddities outside the American mainstream was undoubtedly seeking a deep understanding of America—to learn what makes the Americans tick, as the idiom goes.� Although I think that Wang may have missed some important points of American historical development, he achieved a deep understanding on the key point of technology in American society:� The power that Americans have achieved with technology, and also, the detriments that they have brought themselves with it.� Seeing this point of focus in Wang’s thinking from three decades ago may give, in turn, some insight into China today—and China tomorrow.

In my mind’s eye, I idly compare and contrast this with Spengler’s view of “technicsâ€�…

The foregoing is just a hasty first impression, dashed out at a glance.� I look forward further to examining this book.�®

So I look at Wang Huning’s influence in China as a positive one. He is enabling the country to evolve a more wholistic approach to governance. Combining the economic ideas of Marx with the humanistic governance traditions of the Confucians.

There’s been quite a burst of recent discussion on that Chinese academic and his large influence in the current government, including regarding his 1991 book America Against America.

https://palladiummag.com/2021/10/11/the-triumph-and-terror-of-wang-huning/

Apparently, it’s never been officially translated into English and isn’t available on Amazon, but someone found an English PDF somewhere on the Internet. Normally, I’m pretty cautious about copyright issues, but given the lack of other availability, I spent a couple of hours producing a much more convenient HTML version for people to read, which I’m here making available on a Fair Use grounds:

https://www.unz.com/book/wang_huning__america-against-america/

I’ll be glad to remove it if Mr. Wang or his representatives request.

I have made my reply to this in another thread, q.v.; note that I thereby formally request that you retract certain specific statements that you made.� Direct your replies there, except as requested.

To be clear, I am not trying to consign you to “Hate Speech�.� In a ridiculously long comment, I did promise my readers that, in effect, I would not continue to derail my own thread; and it is the only extant topic where this particular line of discussion even remotely fits.

Since the day before yesterday, I withheld this and other fully-written replies to you, because I wanted first to propound a detailed essay on my view of the Germans.� But it is an essay that has nothing to do with you, and it is of supreme importance to me—a line of thought that I have been developing since long before I got this blog, which I have all along intended to use, and indeed been using this blog to develop.� I have realized that I should not set my publishing schedule according to this discussion.�®

With such a name, you show up in a thread entitled, “America is a Nation of Hate�.� Are you perchance American?�®

Well Marx is quite clear on state ideology.

The state exists as a dictatorship of the proletariat. There is no other way as the entire ideology is anti-democratic.

That must be news to the historically overt-Marxist Social Democratic Parties, the Deutsche Demokratische Republik, the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea, etc., etc.

Of course, Americans with their two-faced one-party system have the conceit of believing themselves infinitely superior to a more honest one-party system.� They sneer at North Koreans who believe propaganda about a “democratic� system, while they lap up substantively similar propaganda like dogs drinking out of a toilet bowl.� Ultimately, modern “democracy� in the American sense is just bourgeois Marxism.

I observed years ago that window-dressings aside, in substance, America is now one of the most Communist countries on Earth, and China is the most Capitalist country on Earth in the types of ways that Wang Huning criticizes.� Hitler saw Communism and Capitalism as two sides of the same coin—different aspects of the same system.� If China now truly turns against Communism, it must perforce become less Capitalistic (in the sense of the primacy of liquid capital—not to be misunderstood).�®

Your extrapolation of a single Churchill quote, which you did not bother to cite, to a British policy of giving India to Hitler, demonstrates conclusively that you are not only ignorant, but also insane.

All Hitler had to do was go East first and Churchhill never would have became prime minister.

You know nothing of the diplomatic history in March–August 1939.� You are also unaware that Hitler did not want war at all.� (Quite possibly, it may have developed eventually due to the irreconcilable conflict between Bolshevism and Europe; but in 1939, Hitler was not looking to “go� anywhere in warlike terms, but rather assiduously to avoid it.)

Your understanding of German history is sophomoric at best

You and Carolyn Yeager, get a room.� Empty insults say more about the giver than the recipient, when the former and the latter are weighed by serious-minded observers.

At least she knows much more about history than you do.� You are just a waste of time for historical discussion—although I continue to be concerned by the prospect that people even less well-informed than you may fall for your act.�®

“Vicistis, Iudaei.�

In my history, I mark 1945 the beginning of the New Dark Age.� Others may agree with me, a few centuries hence (if any historians still exist).� Whereas those who live in a Dark Age cannot see it:� They know aught else.� They are blinded by the darkness, and they also suffer what CJKBTK called, “a 井底之蛙 Frog in Bottom of Well cognitive fallacy� (an expression I have also heard before, in another variant).

Those with short mental horizons may think me mad.� What they think is important is petty American jingoism, or ephemeral entertainments such as U.S. electoral politics—they are excited by bread and circuses.� They have writ their own doom, and I will watch them perish without a qualm.

When came the Apocalypse, intellectually astute Europeans grasped and gasped at its magnitude.� Perchance I happened across this anonymous poem, said to be written circa�1945, in some old stuff—I do not think you can find it by web search:

Le Cid fut pris, puis fusillé,
L’Archange étranglé dans l’ombre,
Siegfried brulé sous des décombres,
Et César pendu par les pieds:
��������Vicistis, Iudaei.

• Agree: Raches

See also:
https://www.unz.com/proems/hello-world/#p_1_5

Lack of sufficient hindsight makes people myopic towards the present and the future.� But who can have historical hindsight towards today and yesterday?

A mouse has not the view of an eagle; and insects never perceive mountains and valleys.�®

A short thought to consider, with apologies for the very hasty scribble of notes:

Marxism, as practiced in the late Nineteenth and early Twentieth Centuries, was called International Socialism.� Communist anthem:� The Internationale.� Look to the history of the First International (where Karl Marx established his dominance in the movement—which then split in Marx versus Bakunin dispute), Second International, Third International/Communist International (also known as Comintern).

Hitler’s political philosophy:� National Socialism.� Hitler’s pact with Japan and others:� The Anti-Comintern Pact.

This is no mere wordplay.� As a philologist such as Nietzsche may trace language to find the errors in philosophy and the genealogy of morals, the National versus International distinction is a key to understanding much of world history from the Nineteenth Century to this day.� It is, of course, only one aspect of a larger whole…� Hitler accepted and embraced the Zeitgeist of the era, which was radical Socialism; but he made it nationalist (therefore fundamentally anti-Communist), implemented it with old-fashioned Caesarism (using the power of the mob to destroy the power of the mob, to restore order), and integrated it with German traditions.

As I remarked elsewhere, the Second World War was “a war between aristocracy and degenerate democracy�.� By aristocracy, I mean rule of the best.� By democracy, I mean exactly what the Americans mean when they preach that China should have “democracy�—the American system, which is actually quite close to Marxism in many of its basic principles.� Democracy and Communism are not enemies; indeed, in Europe, the so-called “Social Democratic� parties used to be explicitly Marxist, the middle-class Marxist parties that more or less worked together with the lower-class Communist Party.

Examples of 1950s–60s Maoist propaganda, which I previously mentioned, were definitely International (also, anti-racist).

Please understand that I intend reply more to you and some others (principally CJKBTK), but I wish to put time and thought into this.� Other discussion ate too much of my time (and still needs to be addressed further).� I will loop back here after catching up on my own blog—I hope in the next few days.� Or I may address some of these issues in blog articles.

I do not treat discussions as ephemeral, or as Internet chit-chat just to spend idle time before moving on to other entertainments.� I would be pleased if this discussion continues.�®

With due apologies to those of my readers who are more interested in the subjects being discussed here:� Given the way that this developed, I do think that I need to address this upfront, at some length, and in the thread where it was raised.� If this line of discussion invokes any further long replies from me, I will probably make them in another thread and cross-link from here.� I doubt that will be warranted; I do not intend to be drawn into endless rehashing of the same points.

To be clear:� From this point, if you ever say that I ever identified myself as a Jew, you must be intentionally lying about me.� I only do not say that already, because I have granted you every favorable presumption.

Do you really want to accuse me of a

baseless and personally insulting response which traduces my [your]honesty

? I do suspect that it may have been here that you wrote that this was in Australia, where you live. I do suspect that you removed those words, but can’t prove it, of course, and I could be wrong. So I won’t mention it again.

Yes, I do want to accuse you of that.� You are doing it right here, and doing it worse.� You make here a serious accusation.� I never wrote here that I live in Australia, I never removed it—I unequivocally deny your accusation.

(To be excruciatingly clear, as suits a discussion where my words are being twisted and words are being put in my mouth:� I have never said anything whatsoever at The Unz Review about where I live.� Insofar as my public statements are concerned, Australia is as likely as Germany, America, China, Japan, or the North Pole with Santa Claus.� The point hereby is that I did not say that I lived in Australia, and I did not erase what I didn’t say.)

Whatever your intentions may be, it is exactly the type of smear-type of accusation that would sow paranoia about me, and make people reluctant to interact with me.� Equivocating by admitting that you can’t prove it, and that you could be wrong, only covers you while you are essentially planting the type of rumor that subtly follows people around.� It is a false accusation—and it is only one instance of you traducing my honesty.� What should I do about that?

In the other quotes, the boldface is yours; my boldface is added here:

You also wrote

Jews essentially scammed me into devoting some of the most valuable years of my life to them, … Then, they stabbed me in the back and discarded me as an unwanted tool.

That more than implies that you wanted to stay with them, you wanted to be a Jew, because it hurt you when they “discarded� you. Now, you are trying to turn it all around on me being dishonest, which is a very Jewish tactic, as we all know.

Which is what you are doing.� You suddenly, rather shockingly to me, started what at this point quite seems to be an attempt to discredit me.� Much of it is based on seizing single words and phrases out of context, hairsplitting over them, and then applying them elsewhere to turn the plain meaning of whole paragraphs upside-down; a Jewish lawyer could not do “better�.� Then, in the same breath (quoted below), you accuse me of “trying to play with language�.� You have insinuated in multiple ways that I am dishonest, done so in ways that do not speak well of your own honesty, and then—turned around and accused me of turning this around on you.

One of the reasons why I avoid certain types of “far-right� circles—not all of them, but too many—is that they tend towards infighting and character assassination, often laced with accusations and counteraccusations of who’s a Jew or behaving like a Jew, which run in endless circles.� It looks absurd to outsiders, and it is one of the reasons why they lose.� I should like to avoid that here, for my part.

——————————

You are repeatedly looping together two very different things:� Identifying as a Jew, and identifying as a Zionist.� Some Zionists are not Jews; and some Jews are not Zionists, which does not change the fact that they are Jews.

That is no mere wordplay—unless you deny that the Jews are a race.

As I have said many times and never contradicted, I identified myself as a Zionist; and now, I identify myself as an ex-Zionist.� That is very different from identifying as a Jew.� You, of all people, should know that:� Zionism is an ideology and a political movement, whereas Jewishness is primarily and unavoidably a matter of birth.

That point is so obvious to me, I did not remark on it before.� Do I need to explain it to you?� Evidently so:

It is, of course, way too long for what you have to say.

I think it’s rather unfortunate that you would ask me some questions compounded together with factual misstatements about me

I did not misstate anything about you, I repeated what you said, that you had wanted to belong to militant zionism, to be a part of something bigger than yourself. You said of me that I “explicitly alleged that you formerly had identified as a Jew and a Zionist.� Is that not identifying as a Jew and Zionist?! You’re trying to play with language, and that, sorry to say, is a game of dishonesty.

Here’s the full quote from you in comment 352:

From there, it is only a few short steps to having militant Zionism fulfill my latent craving for a group identity—to be no longer an individual atom floating in an anthropoid sea, to be a part of something bigger than myself, to have “my people�.� Of course, I knew that I was not a Jew; I was always almost-but-not-quite accepted.� As is typical in such situations with Jews, the door was sort of implicitly left open that I may someday marry into quasi-Jewishness.

Your boldface is an open cherry-pick of parts you want to emphasize, to support an interpretation that turns the plain meaning of this paragraph upside-down.� Try emphasis on, “Of course, I knew that I was not a Jew�, and, “I may someday marry into quasi-Jewishness.�� Why “quasi�?

Because I knew that I could never be a Jew.� Not myself, as an individual who was not born a Jew.� And I never had any notion of taking up the Jewish religion—which, beyond some Judaica that is more a matter of cultural tradition, was not even actively practiced by the Jews with whom I was primarily associated.

That is clearly not identifying as a Jew.

It should go without saying that the Jews of my acquaintance never identified me as a Jew, and very clearly identified me to the contrary—sometimes with the usual derogatory terms for Gentiles, in a friendly way.� That was just teasing—a tease with a point, since I was perpetually reminded of my non-Jewish status.� Worse, and very serious:� They loaded me personally, very personally, with collective Holocaust guilt—which in turn fueled my Zionism.� Where do you get from any of this that I “identified as a Jew�?� How many self-identified “Jews� do you know, who feel guilty about the Holocaust, the Six Million, the gas chambers, Jewish babies burned alive, Jews melted down and made into soap?� That was what I was identified as, in my relation to the Jews:� Every Holohoax tale you have ever heard, and some you probably never did; in retrospect, I suspect that my Jewish “friends� were sometimes embellishing on the spot.� Zionism was a way for me to atone for it.

It was probably a miscalculation to spend years brainwashing me, in graphic, gruesome terms, that if I ever stopped following the Jews, I would be their most ruthless and implacable enemy.

——————————

Returning to the above point:

Jews essentially scammed me into devoting some of the most valuable years of my life to them, … Then, they stabbed me in the back and discarded me as an unwanted tool.

That more than implies that you wanted to stay with them, you wanted to be a Jew, because it hurt you when they “discarded� you.

If my biggest sin were that I suffered stereotypical Jewish gratitude, after I lived a sincere and unimpeachable loyalty to swindlers in whose lies I too-trustingly believed, then I would be a saint.

As I have remarked before in my commentary a few times, I still stayed loyal to political Zionism after that.� I did not turn against the Jews because of personal grudges.� I never betrayed any of my principles.

I only switched sides later, after I discovered the historical truth about the so-called “Holocaust�, which stood at the foundation of my whole worldview.� After I understood that my whole life was based on a lie, I decided to see what Adolf Hitler had said for himself, in his own words.� I have learned the great importance of seeing directly what someone says.

I hold truth above all; and I will always defend the best, per that Greek line I previously quoted.� When I sincerely believed that the Jews were innocent people of the best kind, scholars and scientists and musicians who got mass-murdered for nothing, Zionism was a logical conclusion from those premises:� Jewish strength, Jewish power, Jewish independence, Never Again.� When I discovered that it was all a lie, a total inversion of the truth—the Jews weren’t so innocent, there was no extermination program, whatever was done to them (deportations, etc.) was done for a reason, and the people falsely accused of mass-murdering them were in fact the victims—I revised my conclusions accordingly.

——————————

Note the “You said of me that�—you do not even admit to a verbatim quote of your own words, from which you removed the quotes:

Carolyn Yeager, October 17, 2021 at 6:37 pm GMT:

You revealed in this thread (thank you) that you live in Australia, and formerly had identified as a Jew and a Zionist.

Raches, October 18, 2021 at 4:24 am GMT (boldface is in the original—my internal link was erroneous; the correct link is above the preceding quote):

You explicitly alleged that I “formerly had identified as a Jew and a Zionist.�

Carolyn Yeager, October 18, 2021 at 11:58 pm GMT (boldface is in the original):

You said of me that I “explicitly alleged that you formerly had identified as a Jew and a Zionist.�

Why did you remove the quotation marks, then say that “[I] said of [you] that� you said that?� I was quoting you verbatim.

I do not want to belabor these types of points, but I do observe them.

——————————

blah, blah blah. You chattering on about Greeks & Germans is just that. You’re like a parrot – repeating something you heard somewhere. You’re avoiding acknowledging why I call you a charlatan.

And you certainly have neither authority nor adequate basis for judging how much I know about German National Socialism.

Yes, I do. Because you don’t know anything but an assortment of odds and ends that are only a smidgen of the whole.

The very fact that you would say that, based on what seems to be a dogged determination to misunderstand me, says more about you than about me.� You seem more interested in attacking me personally than addressing the substance of my position, or even knowing what it is (insofar as many pieces are seen in my extensive commentary here) or how it will develop into a coherent whole (this blog is still relatively new, and I don’t publish on anyone’s schedule but my own).

Your most incisive criticism of me thus far is to point out that Hitler was not too fond of Nietzsche.� That is not news to me; and it is probably not news to you that many intellectuals who are attracted to the one are also attracted to the other, including some who are incomparably more knowledgeable than you are about these topics.� Intellectual influences work that way—a point that would not need to be explained to an intellectual.� (What will you do, when I thoroughly repudiate Schopenhauer’s philosophic pessimism, his renunciation of life, his antinatalism, and his misogyny?� None of which I associate with Hitler, any more than anyone should associate Nietzsche’s very irritating remarks about his fellow Germans with me.)

And now here is what I really want to say to you: You are not the right person to be a spokesman or champion for Adolf Hitler and the German National Socialists. You have no connection and no knowledge. You misunderstand it and I think that’s a basic flaw in your being that can’t be corrected.

Your opinion is taken under advisement.

This is twisted:

You didn’t make it as a Jew and you’re not going to make it as a Hitlerian.

I never claimed to be a Jew, or tried to be one.� Never in my whole life.� This is your smear-attack.

Why didn’t you say, “You didn’t make it as a Jew and you’re not going to make it as a German?�� That would show the wrongful nature of what you said about me.� (Incidentally, it is possible that I may have more claim to being German than to being a Jew; not saying so, but just saying you make many assumptions about someone who understandably wants to exercise free speech from behind the shield of an unidentifiable pseudonym.)

—Or, “You didn’t make it as a Zionist and you’re not going to make it as a Hitlerian.�� That would, at least, be consistent.

As to whether your predictions are correct:� We shall see.� In the end, the reason why I “didn’t make it� as a Zionist was that I discovered that my Zionism was based on lies.� I do not think that will be a problem with Hitler.� Do you?

You said your goal was:

not to preach German National Socialism (as would be inappropriate for me), but to make it socially appropriate and intellectually respectable for others to admire Hitler and his Germans.

Many, many others have already done that, even yours truly. So even that is NOT a new idea from you. It’s just one more thing you’re copying.

Many, many others have had such stellar success that when I praise Hitler and his Germans here, I am attacked from one side by people who treat it as fundamentally disrespectable, beyond the pale, and from the other side by—you.� “Already done that�?� It is obviously not done, whatever attempts may have been made—some of them by well-intended and highly intelligent people.

In the entire English-speaking world (really, anywhere outside the German-speaking world), the one who thus far did more than any other to make overt, positive admiration of Hitler and his Germans intellectually respectable for non-Germans was Professor Oliver.� When I list and weigh my intellectual influences, I account him as much an influence on me as Nietzsche and the National-Socialists combined—although I am not Oliverian, either.� It does not escape my notice that the primary publisher of his later works, who dragged him out of retirement and persauded him to write, was George Dietz, the publisher of Liberty Bell—a German immigrant to America who grew up in the Hitlerjugend, whose father was in the SA.

(Given the ambiguous context in which this line of discussion was raised, perhaps I should also remark—see this, and n.�1 here.)

I am just getting started here.� You do not yet know my approach, even though it is already subtly implicit.� I do have something new—all my own, and thus not to be blamed on mein Großprofessor, although I accredit him partly for inspiring it.� Those who wait and see will watch it develop (if I can get out from these ridiculous back-and-forth arguments); if you don’t, it is not my loss.

And I do not need your permission.� Nor did I ask it.�®

@John Johnson

Just which planet are you commenting from.?

On his planet, also, the peaceable British would happily have given India or most of Africa to the Germans, if only Hitler had not be so terribly mean to Poland.� No, really.

In another thread, he tucked tail and ran when I challenged him about this:

The British never wanted war with Hitler.� All Hitler had to do was build his empire somewhere else and not attack Poland.� They would have happily given him India or let him take most of Africa.� Or he could have attacked the Soviets first.

The last time I bothered answering Mr.�Johnson in this thread, he just insulted me and changed his argument.� And now, he is trying to bait me (and dissociating that reply with the relevant comments) because I correctly marked him as a troll.

As I remarked much earlier in this thread, I need to cultivate readership who can deal with this stuff.� Otherwise, given some of the subject matter that I cover, it is predictable that soon, my blog would entirely consist of me chasing pseudohistorical nonsense in the comments.� I would not even be able to keep up with it all—and if I were to try, then that would generally tend to discourage others who may want to take it up.

Whereas it is important for such things not to go generally unanswered.� These comments do get read by people who never comment themselves.� How many really know what happened with the Lusitania, or dozens of other topics?� It is good for these things to be discussed.�®

(Other, longer reply will follow.)

Maybe you dislike my opinions of America, because you are American—I will not accuse you of being a partisan for America here; but if so, just in case, I should remind you that America destroyed and is still actively occupying and destroying Germany. ®

Yes, I am American and partisan for America, in spite of all its done (but all in the name of the Jews – your former friends). Adolf Hitler knew that, so he could still like America, which had attracted many, many Germans, he noted with chagrin. He knew America was not Frankie Roosenfelt and Henry Morganthau. But No, America is NOT still actively (or inactively) occupying Germany, or destroying it. All Germans have to do is stand up on their own two feet and take charge. They will find that America will fade out of the picture easily. The problem is the Germans now.

I would mark that as “Troll�, if I could give a reaction to this part of your comment alone.�®

——————————
Apropos America attracting Germans:� A pretty good book about Germans in America (im deutschen Original).� I find this part (Original) especially interesting.� (I hope that website did not disappear; I may update archive links as warranted.)