This may be a Pragmatic Direction, however Transiently it may be; I do not Believe it's Ideal. It is Definitely Better than "The Alt-Lite" (Jew Milo, for Example, and Miscegenator Gavin), as one of the more Reactionary of "Alt-Right" Ideologies, however much it may Attempt to Distance itself from its Memetic Origins, though it would Benefit from a History Lesson and is in Need of Clarifying itself on a Major Point.
It is not simply that "Alt Left" (a Term it Applies to "The Alt-Right"; as if Apart from it) is already a Term for those "Socially Conservative but Fiscally Liberal", nor even that "Conservative" was Coined to Refer to those Fighting Both Sides of The French Revolution. Indeed, it was Coined by Serial Adulterer Francois-Rene de Chateaubriand; who (on the one hand) Wrote a Defence of Catholicism yet (on the other) Rejected it in Effect for a Democratic Republic; the Circumstances of his Life not Permitting this to be Catholic, but to Institute The Reign of Terror. It isn't even, though, that those like "Burke" could be Regarded as "Conservatives" only if you're a Protestant; if you're Catholic, these are Usurpers whose Inglorious Revolution has brought nothing but Problems. After all, what Catholic would Conserve a System that Burnt Priests Alive and those who Harboured them? It is this, the Conflicting Notions of "Socialism", and other Conflicting Definitions of "Progress" and "Tradition".
"The Vult Right" sounds rather like "Rexism", apart from its Fear of the word "Socialist" in "National Socialist". It has its Similarities to "Falangism", though I can Foresee it being Divided on this Issue the way "The Alt-Right" is Divided on just whether or not "National Socialism" had been and/or would now be an Improvement.
Of course, as for the Conflicting Concepts of "Socialism", you could always Remember what Connotation "Capitalist" would Bear (to both those Self-Identified as such and those Opposed, in that Era) and Realize that "Socialist" was the Pragmatic Label. Today, many have the same View of "Capitalism". You could Insist that Adam Smith had 18 Principles for when Government should be Required to Intervene in Economic Matters, and "Capitalists" would Complain that you're a "Socialist" while some other "Socialists" (Marxist Socialists) would Complain that you're Christian (or would Feign Christianity, by Claiming that it would be "Unchristian" to Intervene in these Matters or in the Necessary Way). Henry Ford, for Example, was told that he was a "Socialist" for his Christian Beliefs that he was told "do not belong" in Business; these were a Cultural Means of Limitation, and thus Regarded by "Unrestricted" (Alienist) Corporatists as an Agent of Communism. Ironically, what would be Restricted and what Enabled were Dramatically Different between Christianity and Communism; this were not so, when Comparing the Visions of Anti-Christian "Capitalists" and Anti-Christian "Communists".
Having a "National Capitalism" thus Refers to either having something that will Eventually Fail, just Slower than Communism, at Best, if not Faster, as Kowloon Walled City was even more Miserable a Failure than the Disaster of Maoism, as one Example of why "Libertarianism" is not Viable even for Homogeneous Populations, or Redefining "Capitalism" from its Historical Usages. Is it not the Morally-Divorced Form of Smithianism but Smith's Position itself?
They speak of not having Trade Across National Lines, but Our Nations should be Able to Trade with one another after doing everything Reasonable to be Self-Sufficient. We should not Trade with Foreign Races, and may Need to Subjugate or Exterminate these Races for Our Own Ends.
They speak of not having Empires, but Christianity was its Greatest when it had Empires and/or Personal Unions; not Liberalism. It may be Possible for Nation-States to Exist for the Ethno-Cultures of Europe and not be Ruled by so Centralized a Power, but this is not what has been Observed in History and the General Decline of Our Race would Indicate that a Strong Central Figure is Currently Favourable to More Attempts at a Failed Separation of Powers.
The Emergence of Pan-European Cooperation Across Interstate Lines is a Relatively-Recent - Indeed, "National Socialist" - Concept for "Nationalism"; the "Nationalism" that Occurred Prior to this had been Opposed to Empires that had Exactly that Cooperation, as it Favoured Racial Death on Behalf of the Jews it Aligned with (such as Freeing Them from Ghettos or Inviting Them to Return to where They had been Exiled from) to Racial Survival under the "Oppressive Yoke" of another European Nation (or Emperor whose Lineage was the Combination of Numerous European Ethnicities and whose Culture was Reflective thereof).
"National Socialism" was Founded by Pagan (Presumed Jew) Alfred Rosenberg as Controlled Opposition, but it was Steered into The Most Viable Opposition Available by Adolf Hitler. That is why he was so Hated by "his own" Party Officials but so Loved Popularly; that Party was Popularly Opposed to but Institutionally Teeming with Jews, Pagans, Homosexuals, Miscegenators and "Progressives" (more of the F.D.R. Variety than those like Dr. Kirkbride and Pastor Muhlenberg, who may now be Regarded as "Paleo-Conservatives", for another Example of Conflicting Perceptions of Nomenclature) that Feuded but Ultimately Favoured one another to Hitler (who was more Lenient than he should have been). Some of these were Purged, as Hitler came to Power; some were not, until Shortly Before The Reich's Fall. There were some Influential Wehrmacht Jews, up 'til The Fall; these Betrayed, having Supported "Reconstruction" (Brainwashing and Profiteering Off Disaster). Still, under Hitler, it was an Objectively-Measured Improvement Over The Wiemar Republic and what The Allies would Effect for it (as They had Long Planned).
Thus, there were some Leftisms in the Reign under Hitler [which was Partly his own Decision and Partly that of those around him, some of these not of that Party, but Entrenched from The Wiemar Republic, with some of those from The Monarchy having Favoured him and others Opposed (as the old Hanoverians had Ceased to Defend Europe and now thought only of Reclaiming Possessions that had been Stolen by "Wiemarians", even if it meant Allying with the Enemies of "National Socialism" to do so; this, though the Communists and Their Allies had No Intention of any Restoration To The Thrown or even Returning any Possessions - yet the so-called "Royals" of today actually Favour Communism Over Nationalism)]; yet, what were Promised by its Handbooks on Race and Christianity were Considerably More Opposed to "Jacobinism" and "Communism" than this Internationally-Manipulated Effect.
It's True (to be Fair) that the "Handbook on Race" did have Anti-Christian Drivel, always saying "the traditional Christian view" when it's Referring to the "Judeo-Christian" Heresy, as it would Neglect to Explain (or Promote as if Atypically Racialist, in Contrast with History) that Mendel - the Frequently-Cited Scientist whose Laws of Inheritance were at the Heart of its Racial Purism that wasn't actually Practiced by Hitler's Reich (much to the Dismay of The Bureau of Racial Hygiene, it was told to not only make Specific Exceptions but Exceptions for Entire Nations; the Iranians being one Infamous Example, that the Scientists were told to stop Identifying as Non-White) - was a Catholic Bishop. Scientifically, though, it's a Valuable Source. I'd also Suggest you Read the Works of Blumenbach, Broca and Coon, rather than DuBois (Debunked Mulatto), Boaz (Debunked Jew) and Gould (Debunked Jew).
Its "Handbook on Positive Christianity" had Mixed Reviews among Catholic and Lutheran Institutionalists, though were Well-Received by Catholics and Lutherans on The Popular Level. The Vatican Played Both Sides, so the Jews were Aided in Escaping Justice during that War but the "N.S." Forces were Aided in Escaping Them after that War. There were two Lutheran Congregations, rather than a United Entity, and I Recall Reading that one didn't Embrace it but Tolerated having "N.S." Members but the other had Excommunicated these.
Rosenberg was of the Opinion that "Positive Christianity" would Result in Germanic Rejection of Christianity, as he Believed they would Perceive this Movement as an Attempt to "introduce" Racial Principles to a "foreign" Faith. Of course, Scripture itself is Clear on its Racialism and The Early Church Fathers Announced Our Race's Divine Eminence. Irish, for Example, were Taught that their Celtiberian Ancestors had Israelite Ancestry. Royalty would often Claim Descent from Saint King David.
Fortunately, Rosenberg and his Followers were a Numerically-Marginal Presence in Hitler's Reich; these sometimes - Alarmingly - did Occupy High Positions, though it is Undeniable that Hitler's Influence and the Amiability of some others (even Pagan Rudolf Hess) did Result in a Functionally More Christian Society than that of The Wiemar Republic.
But Let's Consider The Essential Issue:
The Powers That Be didn't exactly Permit there to be a Pan-Europeanist Purism, so it had to Settle for "Hitlerianism" or Decide to hand over much of Europe to Multiracial Hordes from The Soviet Union; the Rest of Europe, as elsewhere, in every Realm of European Habitation, to "Jacobinism". Sadly, The World Chose The Wrong Alliance.
"The Vult Right" seems to be lumping "National Socialism" in with "Libertarianism", Despite that "National Socialism" Rejected Homosexuality (Rohm's Supporters were Cleansed) and Pedophilia (some Libertarians have Encouraged it, as "Freedom of Expression" and/or "Profitable") as but Slower "Communism" (for what does it Matter if it's a State-Owned Company, a Corporate-Owned State or - Overtly or Covertly - Collusion of the two as Nominally-Separate Entities that Oppress Our People?), which I'd say is a Half-Truth; the "Libertarians" were Opposed to "National Socialism" but Never Militantly Challenged "Communism", with some "Libertarian" Movements being Openly Founded by Known "Communists", as in South America, whereas "National Socialism" was The Most Effective Opposition Against Communism, but "National Socialism" was Considerably More Varied than "Libertarianism" to the Extent that it Included the Definition in this Article of "The Vult Right".
The Greatest Economy was not that of "Progressive" America, nor its Allies, but that of "National Socialism". A System that Generally Favoured Free Markets but Favoured Public Order Over Material Acquisition or Ego, would be a Favourable System. This was more Effected under "National Socialism" than perhaps any other time in History.
Even if you are to Reject its Claims to having Created a "Non-Marxist Socialism", having Purified the Pursuits of the Pre-Marxist "Socialists", or Rejected these as "Too Jacobin" to Purify, as basically a Rebranding of what could be called "Smith(ian)ism", in an Era where Smith himself would not have (otherwise) been Considered, being too Distorted by Jews that Claimed to Represent "Austrian" Mentalities, in Great Contrast to Literal Austrians' Traditions, you would have to Admit - to be Honest - that it were a Crucial Step in the Popular Pursuit of your Ideology; that it'd have been Better if they had Won, as no Fault of any Sub-Movement is not Exacerbated and Added to by the Faults of the Societies which Destroyed Hitler's Reich or the Successors thereof.
Largely, it is Due to Half-Truths and Whole Lies that "National Socialism" is not The Popular Favourite for at least its own Era. It has been Blamed for Allied Atrocities, and Hated for a Purging of Mongrels it did not actually Conduct. Had it been Conducted, however, it would have been Objectively Beneficial for Our Race and The Christian Faith.
Quintessentially:
Regardless of the other Elements of your Ideology, the Question is this: Would you Prefer a Racially-Pure Society of another Ideology, which may in time Return to your View, at least in Part, or is your View one that can be Maintained in a Racially-Impure Society; one that will, Inevitably, be Reduced to the Triumph of one Race over the Rest or Mutual Annihilation? If the latter, are you Certain that this Struggle is Better for Our Race than the other Struggle? If not, why are you Willing to Risk this Outcome? If it is not God's Will that Our Race Survive, which Inevitably will Require Us to Annihilate The Lesser Races, if for nothing else but Resources, however Conservationist the Efforts of any or all Involved, why did He even Bother to Create Us? It is not for Bastardy, nor to Cease to Exist, since he Abhors Adulteration and Commanded the Annihilation of Threatening Populations on Numerous Occasions.
Thus, I would Argue that not only should We make Efforts to Convert Our People to True Faith but that We are also Obligated to Protect Our People from even the Best of the Non-White Christians.
As per Cultural Matters: That which is not Fundamentally Incompatible may be Accepted, but the Rest must be Destroyed. To Verify this Relationship, that which can Demonstrably Benefit Our Race is Holy to Utilize in this Manner but that which can Demonstrably Harm Our Race is Unholy to Utilize in this Manner. The Church did an Excellent Job of Reconciling Local Cultures With Christianity, by Adopting Festivals and Symbols (et cetera) that could Easily be Reinterpreted in a Christian View but Suppressing the Historical Associations of these; with the Exception of any Racial Value, as - rather - it Taught that Our Pure Race Must Unite For Common Benefit. Much in Contrast with Communism, though some Liars do Conflate it, it Acquired or Destroyed for Our Benefit; not for Our Destruction. It isn't whether or not something is Created or Destroyed, that Matters, but that the Outcome is Beneficial for Our Race (or at least has not Harmed it). We Must Optimize Our Potential.
May this Social-ism (Social Belief and Practice) be Beneficial to Us, in Search both of Spiritual and Material Welfare (Well-Being). In Hoc Signo Vinces. Deus Vult!
No comments:
Post a Comment