Excellent post John; I support the Egalitarian cause. The idea of setting a collective intention is critical; and you explain it here, in this post. A revolution will need to take place on multiple levels, but without a clear intention, the end is lost.
"A third type is the person who angrily says, “You’re a Communist!” Such people are typically people who once lived in the Soviet Union or a Communist nation and (understandably!) mistrust anybody who talks about equality. I tell such people—truthfully!—that I am an Anti-Communist and an Anti-Marxist and an Anti-Socialist because I am for real, not fake, democracy. But ALL of these kinds of people are RARE. That’s what you will discover."
How does that square with saying you want no rich and no poor? That's equity, which is impossible.
You recently wrote a piece stating it was not only okay but basically a moral imperative to literally opress people you and fellow ideologues belive to be "Nazis", because apparently "Nazis [ axiomatically] oppress".
This kind of rational and contempt for people and philosophies you don't like and/or understand is exactly we see play out in judeo-bolshevism :
No actually moral issues with asymmetrical power and abuse thereof, nor moral issues with persecution or oppression - so long as subjectively you agree with it;
It's just a declaration that rather than end such injustices you wish to be in a position to abuse them ans therefore others, rather than be on the receiving end
:/
Did misunderstand anything or was my assessment unfair in any way?
The Nazis passed the Nuremburg Laws in 1935 to make Jews be legally totally inferior to non-Jewish Germans. One can read about these laws here, and here and see for oneself that they were designed to make Jews the object of scorn, contempt and hate. One of these sources summarized the laws as follows:
Nürnberg Laws, two race-based measures depriving Jews of rights, designed by Adolf Hitler and approved by the Nazi Party at a convention in Nürnberg on September 15, 1935. One, the Reichsbürgergesetz (German: “Law of the Reich Citizen”), deprived Jews of German citizenship, designating them “subjects of the state.” The other, the Gesetz zum Schutze des Deutschen Blutes und der Deutschen Ehre (“Law for the Protection of German Blood and German Honour”), usually called simply the Blutschutzgesetz (“Blood Protection Law”), forbade marriage or sexual relations between Jews and “citizens of German or kindred blood.” These measures were among the first of the racist Nazi laws that culminated in the Holocaust.
Under these laws, Jews could not fly the German flag and were forbidden “to employ in domestic service female subjects of German or kindred blood who are under the age of 45 years.” The first supplementary decree of November 14, 1935—one of 13 ordinances elaborating these laws—defined Jews as persons with at least one Jewish grandparent and declared explicitly that “a Jew cannot be a citizen of the Reich. He cannot exercise the right to vote; he cannot occupy public office.” The other enactments completed the process of Jewish segregation. Before long Jewish passports were stamped with a red “J” (for Jude; “Jew”), and Jews were compelled to adopt “Jewish” names. Jewish communities were deprived of their legal status by the decree of March 28, 1938, and steps were taken to exclude Jews completely from the practice of medicine.
The Nazis clearly viewed Jews as the enemy of the German state, and when World War II broke out the Nazis, with the full power of the German military and police forces, attacked Jews as the wartime enemy and this clearly resulted in the deaths of a very large number of innocent Jews.
Pseudomympth, what the Nazis did was morally wrong oppression. THAT is why I say Nazis then, and people who admire the Nazis today, should not have been then and should not today be allowed to do what they want to do. It seems you have a fondness for Nazis. If so, you are WRONG. At best, you are confused. At worst you are morally horrible.
It’s worth noting that National Socialism doesn’t need be antisemetic it’s a worldview and a political ideology.
Any ethnic group can use it.
Were the Jews in Israel not squatters and violent thieves much of their policies would national socialist , however without autarky which is what truly defined the Reich and their singular economic success- and the preference in Israel of exploiting foreign aid, states and peoples, and perhaps most of all their hyper aggressive policies and stance minds makes them the polar opposite of the Reich even if ethnic cohesion and survival was a big mutual point of concern for both groups .
You can easily find rabbis defending the Nuremberg laws as both being consistent with the Torah (some go so far as to say that it “basically comes from the Torah”) and for protecting Jews from miscegenation, a priority/concern to the point of tragically causing Tay-Sachs and other genetic defects from inadvertently striving so hard to protect against miscegenation they caused inbreeding epidemics that are still felt to this day- so much so they apparently forgave that it protected the goys from miscegenation.
I’m very familiar with the history.
What I don’t understand is how you have an issue with
1) the result of either overwhelming victories in democratic elections (the last one as per NSDAP campaign pledge and as stated in Mein Kampf - paraphrasing slightly “ that the only reason they would participate in the charade of democracy would be to abolish the corrupt beast from within “)
2) overwhelmingly yes votes on plebiscites with regards to Jewry or otherwise (voting did not end and actually increased , particularly in terms of direct democracy ballots under Adi’s dictatorship- a word they were not shy to use )
I can understand if you’re Jewish or otherwise philosemetic that you don’t like the results.
However the policies, in their proper historical context of post World War 1 are entirely rational and to have been expected, however unfortunate and tragic.
3) If the overwhelming majority of a democratic election or plebiscite is to expel people who wear long coats or Jews or people with freckles or people with blond hair - how is that not just by democratic standards? And you can’t say discrimination because without discrimination there would be no possibility of a vote…
Any natural state free of Coudenhove-Kalergi policies will have, necessarily an ethnic majority- usually supermajority.
But I don’t see how this is a risk you aren’t willing to take, or anyone for that matter, the closer you get to unbridled mob rule democracy the more likely out groups will become disenfranchised.
It’s unfortunate, but it is in fact normal historically and psychologically that minority groups, other than Jews, that I know of, have never expected equal rights on paper or in practice in ethnostates - mans natural kind of state. This well known with regards to both outlandish Jewish expectations, and free of proper historical context what, what seems to be Jewish persecution. However all races and religions have grown suspicious and wary of allowing the Jewish community to exist at all or if it does (usually allows by a corrupt noble willing to engage in immoral economic transactions with Jews - Jews were historically and still are the most protected minority groups for this reason- the king would use them for outrageous tax collection and usery and the Jews were happy to have a monopoly on the market and also be afforded state/crown protection to carry out the aristocratic/jewish conspiracy against the people).
One of the best known and earliest examples of this repeated dynamic is when the Jews beseeched the Romans to allow them to congregate in private in the synagogues (a right which even bona fide Roman citizens weren’t allowed at the time ) and they repaid this kindness by plotting mass murder (very successfully) when the Roman troops were deployed to a sufficient degree for them to feel safe going on massive anti-goyim pogroms and murdering between both areas, if I recall correctly, over 110k people.
If wish none none of what you or I stated had been the case, but alas it was.
And I don’t see how it actually conflicts with most of what I’ve read you propose. It might not been “egalitarian” however post WW1 Germany the vote was certainly /meritocratic/ and democratic.
Ultimately they were asked to leave and when they wouldn’t non-violent steps and measures were put in place to make sure they could not attempt to speak on behalf of the Volksdeutsche.
Similarly to how if you had a campaign you wouldn’t want to have a fascist spokesman for your party .
Excellent post John; I support the Egalitarian cause. The idea of setting a collective intention is critical; and you explain it here, in this post. A revolution will need to take place on multiple levels, but without a clear intention, the end is lost.
Thank you.
"A third type is the person who angrily says, “You’re a Communist!” Such people are typically people who once lived in the Soviet Union or a Communist nation and (understandably!) mistrust anybody who talks about equality. I tell such people—truthfully!—that I am an Anti-Communist and an Anti-Marxist and an Anti-Socialist because I am for real, not fake, democracy. But ALL of these kinds of people are RARE. That’s what you will discover."
How does that square with saying you want no rich and no poor? That's equity, which is impossible.
You recently wrote a piece stating it was not only okay but basically a moral imperative to literally opress people you and fellow ideologues belive to be "Nazis", because apparently "Nazis [ axiomatically] oppress".
This kind of rational and contempt for people and philosophies you don't like and/or understand is exactly we see play out in judeo-bolshevism :
No actually moral issues with asymmetrical power and abuse thereof, nor moral issues with persecution or oppression - so long as subjectively you agree with it;
It's just a declaration that rather than end such injustices you wish to be in a position to abuse them ans therefore others, rather than be on the receiving end
:/
Did misunderstand anything or was my assessment unfair in any way?
Here is an excerpt from my article about the Holocaust (at https://www.pdrboston.org/the-holocaust-its-deniers , where the links are live ):
The Nazis passed the Nuremburg Laws in 1935 to make Jews be legally totally inferior to non-Jewish Germans. One can read about these laws here, and here and see for oneself that they were designed to make Jews the object of scorn, contempt and hate. One of these sources summarized the laws as follows:
Nürnberg Laws, two race-based measures depriving Jews of rights, designed by Adolf Hitler and approved by the Nazi Party at a convention in Nürnberg on September 15, 1935. One, the Reichsbürgergesetz (German: “Law of the Reich Citizen”), deprived Jews of German citizenship, designating them “subjects of the state.” The other, the Gesetz zum Schutze des Deutschen Blutes und der Deutschen Ehre (“Law for the Protection of German Blood and German Honour”), usually called simply the Blutschutzgesetz (“Blood Protection Law”), forbade marriage or sexual relations between Jews and “citizens of German or kindred blood.” These measures were among the first of the racist Nazi laws that culminated in the Holocaust.
Under these laws, Jews could not fly the German flag and were forbidden “to employ in domestic service female subjects of German or kindred blood who are under the age of 45 years.” The first supplementary decree of November 14, 1935—one of 13 ordinances elaborating these laws—defined Jews as persons with at least one Jewish grandparent and declared explicitly that “a Jew cannot be a citizen of the Reich. He cannot exercise the right to vote; he cannot occupy public office.” The other enactments completed the process of Jewish segregation. Before long Jewish passports were stamped with a red “J” (for Jude; “Jew”), and Jews were compelled to adopt “Jewish” names. Jewish communities were deprived of their legal status by the decree of March 28, 1938, and steps were taken to exclude Jews completely from the practice of medicine.
The Nazis clearly viewed Jews as the enemy of the German state, and when World War II broke out the Nazis, with the full power of the German military and police forces, attacked Jews as the wartime enemy and this clearly resulted in the deaths of a very large number of innocent Jews.
Pseudomympth, what the Nazis did was morally wrong oppression. THAT is why I say Nazis then, and people who admire the Nazis today, should not have been then and should not today be allowed to do what they want to do. It seems you have a fondness for Nazis. If so, you are WRONG. At best, you are confused. At worst you are morally horrible.
It’s worth noting that National Socialism doesn’t need be antisemetic it’s a worldview and a political ideology.
Any ethnic group can use it.
Were the Jews in Israel not squatters and violent thieves much of their policies would national socialist , however without autarky which is what truly defined the Reich and their singular economic success- and the preference in Israel of exploiting foreign aid, states and peoples, and perhaps most of all their hyper aggressive policies and stance minds makes them the polar opposite of the Reich even if ethnic cohesion and survival was a big mutual point of concern for both groups .
You can easily find rabbis defending the Nuremberg laws as both being consistent with the Torah (some go so far as to say that it “basically comes from the Torah”) and for protecting Jews from miscegenation, a priority/concern to the point of tragically causing Tay-Sachs and other genetic defects from inadvertently striving so hard to protect against miscegenation they caused inbreeding epidemics that are still felt to this day- so much so they apparently forgave that it protected the goys from miscegenation.
I’m very familiar with the history.
What I don’t understand is how you have an issue with
1) the result of either overwhelming victories in democratic elections (the last one as per NSDAP campaign pledge and as stated in Mein Kampf - paraphrasing slightly “ that the only reason they would participate in the charade of democracy would be to abolish the corrupt beast from within “)
2) overwhelmingly yes votes on plebiscites with regards to Jewry or otherwise (voting did not end and actually increased , particularly in terms of direct democracy ballots under Adi’s dictatorship- a word they were not shy to use )
I can understand if you’re Jewish or otherwise philosemetic that you don’t like the results.
However the policies, in their proper historical context of post World War 1 are entirely rational and to have been expected, however unfortunate and tragic.
3) If the overwhelming majority of a democratic election or plebiscite is to expel people who wear long coats or Jews or people with freckles or people with blond hair - how is that not just by democratic standards? And you can’t say discrimination because without discrimination there would be no possibility of a vote…
Any natural state free of Coudenhove-Kalergi policies will have, necessarily an ethnic majority- usually supermajority.
But I don’t see how this is a risk you aren’t willing to take, or anyone for that matter, the closer you get to unbridled mob rule democracy the more likely out groups will become disenfranchised.
It’s unfortunate, but it is in fact normal historically and psychologically that minority groups, other than Jews, that I know of, have never expected equal rights on paper or in practice in ethnostates - mans natural kind of state. This well known with regards to both outlandish Jewish expectations, and free of proper historical context what, what seems to be Jewish persecution. However all races and religions have grown suspicious and wary of allowing the Jewish community to exist at all or if it does (usually allows by a corrupt noble willing to engage in immoral economic transactions with Jews - Jews were historically and still are the most protected minority groups for this reason- the king would use them for outrageous tax collection and usery and the Jews were happy to have a monopoly on the market and also be afforded state/crown protection to carry out the aristocratic/jewish conspiracy against the people).
One of the best known and earliest examples of this repeated dynamic is when the Jews beseeched the Romans to allow them to congregate in private in the synagogues (a right which even bona fide Roman citizens weren’t allowed at the time ) and they repaid this kindness by plotting mass murder (very successfully) when the Roman troops were deployed to a sufficient degree for them to feel safe going on massive anti-goyim pogroms and murdering between both areas, if I recall correctly, over 110k people.
If wish none none of what you or I stated had been the case, but alas it was.
And I don’t see how it actually conflicts with most of what I’ve read you propose. It might not been “egalitarian” however post WW1 Germany the vote was certainly /meritocratic/ and democratic.
Ultimately they were asked to leave and when they wouldn’t non-violent steps and measures were put in place to make sure they could not attempt to speak on behalf of the Volksdeutsche.
Similarly to how if you had a campaign you wouldn’t want to have a fascist spokesman for your party .
If you disagree with the genuine egalitarian democracy that I advocate and describe at https://www.pdrboston.org/genuine-democracy-what-is-it then just say so, OK?