Liberalism, 3

by Francis Parker Yockey

Imperium Eagle

The type of mind which believes in the essential “goodness” of human nature attained to Liberalism. But there is another political anthropology, one which recognizes that man is disharmonious, problematical, dual, dangerous. This is the general wisdom of mankind, and is reflected by the number of guards, fences, safes, locks, jails and policemen. Every catastrophe, fire, earthquake, volcanic eruption, flood, evokes looting. Even a police strike in an American city was the signal for looting of the shops by the respectable and good human beings.

Thus this type of thought starts from facts. This is political thinking in general, as opposed to mere thinking about politics, rationalizing. Even the wave of Rationalism did not submerge this kind of thinking. Political thinkers differ greatly in creativeness and depth, but they agree that facts are normative. The very word theory has been brought into disrepute by intellectuals and Liberals who use it to describe their pet view of how they would like things to be. Originally theory was explanation of facts. To an intellectual who is adrift in politics, a theory is an aim; to a true politician his theory is a boundary.

A political theory seeks to find from history the limits of the politically possible. These limits cannot be found in the domain of Reason. The Age of Reason was born in bloodshed, and will pass out of vogue in more bloodshed. With its doctrine against war, politics, and violence, it presided over the greatest wars and revolutions in 5,000 years, and it ushered in the Age of Absolute Politics. With its gospel of the Brotherhood of Man, it carried on the largest-scale starvation, humiliation, torture and extermination in history against populations within the Western Civilization after the first two World Wars. By outlawing political thinking, and turning war into a moral-struggle instead of a power-struggle it flung the chivalry and honor of a millennium into the dust. The conclusion is compelling that Reason also became political when it entered politics, even though it used its own vocabulary. When Reason stripped territory from a conquered foe after a war, it called it “disannexation.” The document consolidating the new position was called a “Treaty,” even though it was dictated in the middle of a starvation-blockade. The defeated political enemy had to admit in the “Treaty” that he was “guilty” of the war, that he is morally unfit to have colonies, that his soldiers alone committed “war-crimes.” But no matter how heavy the moral disguise, how consistent the ideological vocabulary, it is only politics, and the Age of Absolute Politics reverts once again to the type of political thinking which starts from facts, recognizes power and the will-to-power of men and higher organisms as facts, and finds any attempt to describe politics in terms of morals as grotesque as it would be to describe chemistry in terms of theology.

There is a whole tradition of political thinking in the Western Culture, of which some of the leading representatives are Macchiavelli, Hobbes, Leibnitz, Bossuet, Fichte, de Maistre, Donoso Cortes, Hippolyte Taine, Hegel, Carlyle. While Herbert Spencer was describing history as the “progress” from military-feudal to commercial-industrial organization, Carlyle was showing to England the Prussian spirit of Ethical Socialism, whose inner superiority would exert on the whole Western Civilization in the coming Political Age an equally fundamental transformation as had Capitalism in the Economic Age. This was creative political thinking, but was unfortunately not understood, and the resulting ignorance allowed distorting influences to fling England into two senseless World Wars from which it emerged with almost everything lost.

Hegel posited a three-stage development of mankind from the natural community through the bourgeois community to the State. His State-theory is thoroughly organic, and his definition of the bourgeois is quite appropriate for the 20th century. To him the bourgeois is the man who does not wish to leave the sphere of internal political security, who sets himself up, with his sanctified private property, as an individual against the whole, who finds a substitute for his political nullity in the fruits of peace and possessions and perfect security in his enjoyment of them, who therefore wishes to dispense with courage and remain secure from the possibility of violent death. He described the true Liberal with these words.

The political thinkers mentioned do not enjoy popularity with the great masses of human beings. As long as things are going well, most people do not wish to hear talk of power-struggles, violence, wars, or theories relating to them. Thus in the 18th and 19th centuries was developed the attitude that political thinkers—and Macchiavelli was the prime victim—were wicked men, atavistic, bloodthirsty. The simple statement that wars would always continue was sufficient to put the speaker down as a person who wanted wars to continue. To draw attention to the vast, impersonal rhythm of war and peace showed a sick mind with moral deficiency and emotional taint. To describe facts was held to be wishing them and creating them. As late as the 20th century, anyone pointing out the political nullity of the “leagues of nations” was a prophet of despair. Rationalism is anti-historical; political thinking is applied history. In peace it is unpopular to mention war, in war it is unpopular to mention peace. The theory which becomes most quickly popular is one which praises existing things and the tendency they supposedly illustrate as obviously the best order and as preordained by all foregoing history. Thus Hegel was anathema to the intellectuals because of his State-orientation, which made him a “reactionary,” and also because he refused to join the revolutionary crowd.

Since most people wish to hear only soporific talk about politics, and not demanding calls to action, and since in democratic conditions it matters to political technics what most people wish to hear, democratic politicians evolved in the 19th century a whole dialectic of party-politics. The idea was to examine the field of action from a “disinterested” standpoint, moral, or economic, and to find that the opponent was immoral, unscientific, uneconomic—in fact—he was political. This was devilishness that must be combated. One’s own standpoint was entirely “non-political.” Politics was a word of reproach in the Economic Age. Curiously however, in certain situations, usually those involving foreign relations, “unpolitical” could also be a term of abuse, meaning the man so described lacked skill in negotiating. The party politician also had to feign unwillingness to accept office. Finally a demonstration of carefully arranged “popular will” broke down his reluctance, and he consented to “serve.” This was described as Macchiavellism, but obviously Macchiavelli was a political thinker, and not a camouflageur. A book by a party-politician does not read like The Prince, but praises the entire human race, except certain perverse people, the author’s opponents.

Actually Machiavelli’s book is defensive in tone, justifying politically the conduct of certain statesmen by giving examples drawn from foreign invasions of Italy. During Macchiavelli’s century, Italy was invaded at different times by Frenchmen, Germans, Spaniards and Turks. When the French Revolutionary Armies occupied Prussia, and coupled humanitarian sentiments of the Rights of Man with brutality and large-scale looting, Hegel and Fichte restored Machiavelli once again to respect as a thinker. He represented a means of defense against a foe armed with a humanitarian ideology. Machiavelli showed the actual role played by verbal sentiments in politics.

One can say that there are three possible attitudes toward human conduct, from the point of evaluating its motives: the sentimental, the realistic, and the cynical. The sentimental imputes a good motive to everybody, the cynical a bad motive, and the realistic simply seeks the facts. When a sentimentalist, e.g., a Liberal, enters politics, he becomes perforce a hypocrite. The ultimate exposure of this hypocrisy creates cynicism. Part of the spiritual sickness following the First World War was a wave of cynicism which arose from the transparent, revolting, and incredible hypocrisy of the little men who were presiding over affairs at that time. Macchiavelli had however an incorruptible intellect and did not write in a cynical spirit. He sought to portray the anatomy of politics with its peculiar problems and tensions, inner and outer. To the fantastic mental illness of Rationalism, hard facts are regrettable things, and to talk about them is to create them. A tiny politician of the Liberal type even sought to prevent talk about the Third World War, after the Second. Liberalism is, in one word, weakness. It wants every day to be a birthday, Life to be a long party. The inexorable movement of Time, Destiny, History, the cruelty of accomplishment, sternness, heroism, sacrifice, superpersonal ideas—these are the enemy.

Liberalism is an escape from hardness into softness, from masculinity into femininity, from History into herd-grazing, from reality into herbivorous dreams, from Destiny into Happiness. Nietzsche, in his last and greatest work, designated the 18th century as the century of feminism, and immediately mentioned Rousseau, the leader of the mass-escape from Reality. Feminism itself—what is it but a means of feminizing man? If it makes women man-like, it does so only by transforming man first into a creature whose only concern is with his personal economics and his relation to “society,” ie. a woman. “Society” is the element of woman, it is static and formal, its contests are purely personal, and are free from the possibility of heroism and violence. Conversation, not action; formality, not deeds. How different is the idea of rank used in connection with a social affair, from when it is applied on a battlefield! In the field, it is fate-laden; in the salon it is vain and pompous. A war is fought for control; social contests are inspired by feminine vanity and jealousy to show that one is “better” than someone else.

And yet what does Liberalism do ultimately to woman: it puts a uniform on her and calls her a “soldier.”’ This ridiculous performance but illustrates the eternal fact that History is masculine, that its stern demands cannot be evaded, that the fundamental realities cannot be renounced, even, by the most elaborate make-believe. Liberalistic tampering with sexual polarity only wreaks havoc on the souls of individuals, confusing and distorting them, but the man-woman and the woman-man it creates are both subject to the higher Destiny of History.

_____________

Yockey’s views on liberalism appear in Imperium (1962), 208-223.

Uncle Adolf’s table talk – 7

“I have dipped into Mein Kampf but never read it: it was written only partly by Hitler, and that is the problem. More important are… Hitler’s table talks: daily memoranda which first Heim (Bormann’s adjutant, whom I interviewed) and then Picker wrote down at his table side”. —David Irving


the-real-hitler
 
24-25 July 1941

[The qualities of the German soldier - SS losses pay dividends - Weaknesses of the German High Command in 1914-18.]
 

I can say that I’ve never doubted the qualities of the German soldier—which is more than I can say even of some of the chiefs of the Wehrmacht.

The German army is technically the most perfect in the world; and the German soldier, in a moment of crisis, is safer and sounder than any other soldier. I’m truly happy that it has been granted to me to see, in my lifetime, the German soldier rewarded by Providence. For an elite force, like our SS, it’s great luck to have suffered comparatively heavy losses. In this way, it’s assured of the necessary prestige to intervene, if need be, on the home front—which, of course, won’t be necessary. But it’s good to know that one disposes of a force that could show itself capable of doing so, on occasion.

It’s marvellous to see how our Gauleiters are everywhere in the breach.

I cannot tell you how greatly I suffered, during the Great War, from the weaknesses of our command. In a military sense we were not at all clever, and in a political sense we were so clumsy that I had a constant longing to intervene. If I’d been Reich Chancellor at the period, in three months’ time I’d have cut the throat of all obstruction, and I’d have reasserted our power.

If I were twenty to twenty-five years younger, I’d be in the front line. I passionately loved soldiering.

Uncle Adolf’s table talk – 6

“I have dipped into Mein Kampf but never read it: it was written only partly by Hitler, and that is the problem. More important are… Hitler’s table talks: daily memoranda which first Heim (Bormann’s adjutant, whom I interviewed) and then Picker wrote down at his table side”. —David Irving


the-real-hitler

Night of 22-23 July 1941

[British arrogance - The birth of German industry - Trade competition with Britain - Steps towards a durable understanding between Germany and Britain - Dearth of philosophic and artistic sense of the British.]
 

The Englishman is superior to the German in one respect—that of pride. Only the man who knows how to give orders has pride.

Everywhere in the world, Germans are working without getting the wages they deserve. Their abilities are recognised, but the fact that they live solely by their work makes them an object of contempt to the people whom they enrich. That’s the reason why, in the period just before the First World War, the German got so little sympathy in the Anglo-Saxon world.

Around 1870 we had a huge excess population, with the result that every year between two and three hundred thousand of our people had to make up their minds to emigrate. The remedy for this state of affairs would have been to incorporate them in the labour cycle. The only form of production that could be considered was that of the German primary materials—coal and steel. In this field, the needs of the market had until then been covered by England. The English demanded the best, and paid high prices to get it. In these conditions, anyone who wants nevertheless to do business has only one solution—to ask lower prices.

Our desperation for work enabled us to produce cheap, mass-produced articles that could nevertheless compete with English goods on the quality level. We were beginners, and did not know all the secrets of manufacture. Thus it was that during the 1880s, at a World Exhibition in Philadelphia, German production was called “shoddy”. Nevertheless, with time, we were able to outclass English work in three sectors of production: the chemical industry (especially as regards pharmaceutical products, the manufacture of dyes and, just before the First World War, the extraction of nitrogen from the air); the production of electrical apparatus; and the production of optical instruments.

England felt this competition so keenly that she reacted with all her strength. But neither her attempts at tariff protection, nor certain international agreements, nor the compulsory use of the phrase “Made in Germany” as a label for our goods, made any difference at all.

For the English, the ideal existence was represented in the society of the Victorian age. At that time England had at her service the countless millions of her colonial Empire, together with her own thirty-five million inhabitants. On top of that, a million bourgeois—and, to crown the lot, thousands of gentlefolk who, without trouble to themselves, reaped the fruit of other people’s toil. For this ruling caste, Germany’s appearance on the scene was a disaster. As soon as we started our economic ascent, England’s doom was sealed. It is quite certain that in future England’s Empire won’t be able to exist without the support of Germany.

I believe that the end of this war will mark the beginning of a durable friendship with England. But first we must give her the K.O.—for only so can we live at peace with her, and the Englishman can only respect someone who has first knocked him out. The memory of 1918 must be obliterated.

G. D. asked the Fuehrer whether Germany was fortified against the dangers of over-easy living, which were threatening to be the ruin of England.

Yes, and that’s why I pay attention to the arts. Amongst the English, culture, like sport, is a privilege of good society. Just imagine, in no country is Shakespeare so badly acted as in England. They love music, but their love is not returned! Besides, they have no thinker of genius. What does the National Gallery mean there, to the mass of the people? It’s like their social reform. It wasn’t called for, like German reform, by the needs of conscience, but solely by reasons of State.

At Bayreuth one meets more Frenchmen than Englishmen. Quote me the example of a single theatre in England where work is done that compares with the work we do in hundreds of theatres.

But I’ve met a lot of Englishmen and Englishwomen whom I respect. Let’s not think too much about those whom we know, with whom we’ve had those deceptive official dealings—they’re not men. Despite everything, it’s only with the people that we can associate.

Published in: on November 4, 2013 at 11:57 am  Leave a Comment  

March of the Titans

The following paragraphs of March of the Titans: The Complete History of the White Race by Arthur Kemp caught my attention:

 

The Third Reich

Hitler and the Third Reich remain one of the most difficult historical areas with which to come to grips. The reason for this is that Hitler still has a massive influence on everyday politics and life at the end of the 20th Century, and it is difficult to find any source which has an objective view of the state created by the Nazis from 1933 to 1945 in Germany. In fact, a large amount of what has been written about Hitler and Nazi Germany has been particularly subject to the pressure of political correctness.

The very first law passed by the Nazi controlled parliament of the territory of East Prussia in 1933, under the premiership of Herman Goering, was the abolition of vivisection, or experimentation on animals.

Nazi-cartoon

This cartoon appeared in Kladderadatsch,
a German magazine, on September 3, 1933,
showing lab animals giving the Nazi salute
to Hermann Göring, after restrictions
on animal testing were announced.

 
Imitating ancient Greek and Roman attempts to encourage population growth, the German government rewarded those families with large numbers of children: a special Mother’s Cross was struck, given in bronze to German women who had four children, silver for six children and gold for eight. Hundreds of thousands of these medals were given out before the war ended. Financial payments and tax concessions were also offered for large numbers of children.

A combination of these incentives, the abolition of abortions (except in cases of the mentally ill) and the expansion of the borders of Germany eventually caused an increase in the number of children born in Germany during the Third Reich era of just over three million.
 

SS-leader Heinrich Himmler speaks

A valuable insight into exactly how the Nazis viewed other European populations is afforded through the memoirs of Artur Silgailis, chief of staff of the Latvian Waffen-SS, in his book Latvian Legion (James Bender Publishing, 1986, pages 348-349). In that book, Silgailis describes a conversation he had with Heinrich Himmler, head of the SS and the second most powerful man in Nazi Germany: “He (Himmler) then singled out those nations which he regarded as belonging to the German family of nations and they were: the Germans, the Dutch, the Flemish, the Anglo-Saxons, the Scandinavians and the Baltic people.” [Himmler said:]

To combine all of these nations into one big family is the most important task at the present time.

This unification has to take place on the principle of equality and at that same time has to secure the identity of each nation and its economical independence, of course, adjusting the latter to the interests of the whole German living space. After the unification of all the German nations into one family, this family has to take over the mission to include, in the family, all the Roman nations whose living space is favored by nature with a milder climate.

I am convinced that after the unification, the Roman nations will be able to persevere as the Germans. This enlarged family of the White race will then have the mission to include the Slavic nations into the family also because they too are of the White race. It is only with such a unification of the White race that the Western culture could be saved from the Yellow race.

heinrich-himmler-ss-speech

At the present time, the Waffen-SS is leading in this respect because its organization is based on the principle of equality. The Waffen-SS comprises not only German, Roman and Slavic, but even Islamic units and at the same time has proven that every unit has maintained its national identity while fighting in close togetherness, I know quite well my Germans. The German always likes to think himself better but I would like to avert this. It is important that every Waffen-SS officer obeys the order of another officer of another nationality, as the officer of the other nationality obeys the order of the German officer.

This private discussion is illuminating, as it shatter a few myths which have arisen around Nazi Germany’s racial policies: namely that the Nazis viewed Germans as the only superior race, and that they regarded Latin or Slavic nations as inferior. Both these allegations are utterly false, as revealed here in Himmler’s own words.

The Waffen SS recruited heavily amongst Russians, Ukrainians, Cossacks, Latvians, Lithuanians and Estonians. Thousands more Russians volunteered for service with the German army: in 1944, they were organized into a separate unit under a former Soviet Army general, Vlassov, who had been taken prisoner by the Germans very early in the war.

Vlassov and his Russian army fought bitterly until the end, and when all was lost he and thousands of his soldiers fled into the West to surrender to the Americans and British rather than face capture by the Soviets. His hope was misplaced: in an operation codenamed Keelhaul, Vlassov and around 20,000 of his soldiers were then handed over to the Soviets by the Western allies: unsurprisingly, they were never heard of again.

Uncle Adolf’s table talk – 2

“I have dipped into Mein Kampf but never read it: it was written only partly by Hitler, and that is the problem. More important are… Hitler’s table talks: daily memoranda which first Heim (Bormann’s adjutant, whom I interviewed) and then Picker wrote down at his table side”. —David Irving


the-real-hitler

Night of 5-6 July 1941
11.30 p.m.-1:50 a.m.

[The shortening of space by roads - The frontier of the Urals - Moscow must disappear - The treasures of the Hermitage.]
 

The beauties of the Crimea, which we shall make accessible by means of an autobahn—for us Germans, that will be our Riviera. Crete is scorching and dry. Cyprus would be lovely, but we can reach the Crimea by road. Along that road lies Kiev! And Croatia, too, a tourists’ paradise for us. I expect that after the war there will be a great upsurge of rejoicing.

Better than the railway, which has something impersonal about it, it’s the road that will bring peoples together. What progress in the direction of the New Europe! Just as the autobahn has caused the inner frontiers of Germany to disappear, so it will abolish the frontiers of the countries of Europe.

To those who ask me whether it will be enough to reach the Urals as a frontier, I reply that for the present it is enough for the frontier to be drawn back as far as that. What matters is that Bolshevism must be exterminated. In case of necessity, we shall renew our advance wherever a new centre of resistance is formed. Moscow, as the centre of the doctrine, must disappear from the earth’s surface, as soon as its riches have been brought to shelter. There’s no question of our collaborating with the Muscovite proletariat. Anyhow, St. Petersburg, as a city, is incomparably more beautiful than Moscow.

Probably the treasures of the Hermitage have not been stored at the Kremlin, as they were during the first World War, but in the country-houses—unless they’ve been shifted to the cities east of Moscow, or still further by river.

March of the Titans

The following sentences of March of the Titans: The Complete History of the White Race by Arthur Kemp caught my attention:

The Rise of Germany

The history of Germany since the fall of Roman Empire is a story of internal intrigue, international bickering, religious wars, steady technological and artistic development—and a cycle of division and unity.

Otto_Albert_Koch_Varusschlacht_1909

(Painting of the Battle of the Teutoburg Forest, the great Germanic victory in 9 AD)

The level of infighting which occurred amongst the Germans during their history is noticeably much higher than in all of their neighbors. This is a reflection of the highly individualistic nature of the Germans themselves, and in reviewing the progress of that nation it can be rightly said that the fact that they achieved unity at all, is a miracle in itself.

The only common thread amongst the centuries of internecine war was a refusal by all of the Germans to allow foreigners into their lands. This tradition ensured that Germany remained one of the most racially homogeneous societies on continental Europe until the last quarter of the 20th Century, when a dramatic change in policy occurred.

This high degree of homogeneity played a significant role in ensuring that the Germans survived their period of bitter civil wars and the otherwise devastating religious wars.

[Kemp describes the Charlemagne era and the Widikund's rebellion; the emergence of the German states; the First Reich and Medieval German society. Then he writes:]

From the time of Frederick Barbarossa to the beginning of the 19th Century, German history was dominated by four major issues:

• Holding the Holy Roman Empire together in the face of continual rebellions by German and Lombardic princes;

Banner_of_the_Holy_Roman_Emperor

(Flag of the Holy Roman Empire, 15th to 19th centuries)

• Fighting successive race wars against invading non-White Turks in central Europe, Sicily, and going on the Crusades;

• Fighting a seemingly endless succession of European wars in a never ending combination of alliances and enemies; and

• A devastating series of Christian Wars, which saw Catholics and Protestants killing each other in the name of Jesus Christ.

In the midst of the religious upheavals, the non-White Turkish invasion of Europe, which had been gathering pace since the city of Constantinople had been overrun in 1453, came to dominate German foreign affairs. When the Turks invaded Hungary in 1663, German troops were sent south to defeat the non-White invaders.

The Turks waited another twenty years before trying again. In 1683, the Turks invaded Austria itself, besieging Vienna in 1683. German and Polish troops relieved the city before it fell, driving the Turks beyond the Danube, with the result that Hungary was obliged to recognize the Habsburg right to inherit the Hungarian crown.

The war against the non-White Turkish invasion continued until the victory of Prince Eugene of Savoy at Senta in 1697.

Thirty Years War: One third of population
killed in the name of Christianity

Christianity caused the Germans to once again turn on themselves with a vengeance. Eventually a conflict between Catholics and Protestants in Germany led to a devastating, four-phase European war known as the Thirty Years’ War. The losses incurred by this war were staggering—one third of all Germans were killed, either directly through war, or indirectly through related famine and plague. In Bohemia alone, one half of the population died.

[After describing the events in the centuries following the religious wars, Kemp writes:]

The Second World War was possibly the single largest conflict of all time. The losses suffered by Germany were staggering—some seven million Germans were killed, either as combatants or civilians who died in the resultant carpet bombing of Germany.

Europe_under_Nazi_domination

European territory occupied by Nazi Germany
and its allies at its greatest extent in 1942


As a result of the brutal expulsion of Germans from the eastern territories at the end of the war, some two million civilians perished. Additionally the Western Allies managed to starve to death nearly 800,000 German POWs. In total, seven million Germans died unnaturally in the period from 1945 to 1950.

It was only in the last quarter of the 20th Century that Germany, like its European neighbors, began to allow non-White foreigners into its borders in any significant numbers, mainly from Turkey but also of late from Africa and Asia. At the end of the 20th Century, fully 10 percent of the German population was non-White. These developments and their significance are discussed under a separate chapter.

March of the Titans

In his chapter on the Baltic States, after writing about how the Teutonic Knights imposed Christianity, the revival of southern Germany, ancient Poland and the Mongol invasion, the unity of Lithuania and Poland and how a Polish army saved Vienna from a non-white invasion; Napoleon Bonaparte, and finally World War I, Arthur Kemp approaches the subject of the Danzig corridor in March of the Titans: The Complete History of the White Race:

lithuanian-people-kulgrinda

Germany then turned its demands to the German city of Danzig and the corridor separating East Prussia and Germany. The German leader, Adolf Hitler, requested that the city be returned to Germany and that the Germans be allowed to build an autobahn and railway line across the corridor to link East Prussia with Germany. Poland rejected these demands and Germany then invaded, causing the British and the French to declare war on Germany.

The Polish Army although larger but consisting mainly of infantry and cavalry, was unprepared for modern warfare and as a result was no match for the armored German divisions. Poland was overrun in matter of weeks.

The Soviet Union simultaneously invaded Poland from the east, duplicating the German invasion from the west—this act did not bring any reaction from the French or British, in marked contrast to their declaration of war against Germany—one of the most hypocritical and meaningfully deliberate betrayals of the entire war.

The Polish population suffered greatly in the war. Hundreds of thousands were killed, directly or indirectly, with huge numbers of Polish Jews being rounded up and deported to concentration camps. The Polish also suffered under Soviet rule. Nearly 15,000 Polish soldiers who had been captured by the Soviets during their invasion of Poland were executed en masse in the Katyn forest outside the Russian town of Smolensk, where their remains were discovered by occupying Germans in 1943.

The end of the Second World War saw the utter defeat of Germany. Poland gained massive slices of German territory and set about expelling millions of ethnic Germans from these lands. More than seven million Germans were rounded up and driven across the German border, clearing vast areas of land for Polish occupation.

Of this number, approximately 2-3 million died en route. East Prussia totally disappeared. The city of Danzig was cleared of Germans and became the Polish city of Gdansk. In the east, the Soviet Union reoccupied its lost territories once again, forcing about four million Poles to move westward, many of them taking up residence in the lands seized from the Germans.


Lithuania

The outbreak of the Second World War saw Lithuania being invaded by the Soviet Union in June 1940— another Soviet act of aggression which, like the Soviet invasion of Poland in 1939, was ignored by the British government in a gross display of hypocrisy. Lithuania was formally annexed into the Soviet Union that same year.

The German invasion of the Soviet Union in June 1941, brought about an uprising in Lithuania against the Soviets. Facing what seemed like imminent total defeat at the hands of the Germans, the Soviets withdrew their occupation forces.

The invading German armies were welcomed as liberators and many Lithuanians joined the German armed forces in their anti-Communist war. Lithuanians served in almost all arms of the German war effort, in the Waffen SS in particular, fighting with honor and distinction on the Eastern Front against their long time foes, the Communists in the Soviet Union.

By mid 1944, the Soviet Union had re-occupied Lithuania and was pushing the Germans back towards the west. A new Soviet government was established in Lithuania—which exacted a terrible revenge upon the Lithuanians for having supported the Germans—at least 350,000 Lithuanians were deported to labor camps in Siberia as punishment.

When it is considered that the total Lithuanian population of the time was just over three million, the Soviet arrests and deportations to Siberia represented fully ten per cent of the entire population.

This outrage was one more blatant Communist atrocity perpetrated upon the Eastern European people which was sanctimoniously ignored by the West. Very few Lithuanians came back alive from Siberia.

In addition to the imprisonment of ten per cent of the native population, the Soviets also arranged for the mass settlement of ethnic Russians and Poles in Lithuania, creating a massive ethnic Russian presence in Lithuania.

“Law and Justice”

hitleryouth01


From Faith and Action (1938) by Helmut Stellrecht for the Hitler Youth:



It is better that the individual suffers under the law than that there be no law.

§ Law defeats arbitrariness, for all are the same to it. Humanity is not permitted to exercise supreme justice. But the law gives the individual judge the measure of justice and punishment. Justice no longer rests on what the individual thinks, but rather the law must be anchored in the sentiments of the whole people. That is the case when a people has its own law, not that of another people.

§ The state is founded on justice. Injustice destroys it. A state without justice is the playground of freebooters and highwaymen. The farmer, the worker and the citizen need law to protect their labors. Law protects honor, life, marriage, possessions, all those things that we want and must have as the foundations of our state. The judge, fully independent, projects justice. The policeman is not the representative of some arbitrary order, but rather of that which a people find good and right.

§ No sacrifice is too great in the cause of justice. “It is better that my son die than justice perish in the world,” a great Prussian king once said.

§ We want justice once more to rule in Germany, that great, unwritten justice that came to us with our blood. It should be the law in Germany that all obey this justice.

§ Justice is not that which serves the individual, but rather that which serves the people. That is the supreme law of National Socialism, to which all must bow.

Published in: on September 30, 2013 at 2:49 pm  Leave a Comment  

David Friedrich Strauss, 3

The following is excerpted from Albert Schweitzer’s The Quest of the Historical Jesus, published in 1906: a scholarly yet readable introduction to the field of New Testament studies from a modern viewpoint. Schweitzer’s ninth chapter is titled “Strauss’s Opponents and Supporters”:


DF Strauss


Scarcely ever has a book let loose such a storm of controversy; and scarcely ever has a controversy been so barren of immediate result. The fertilising rain brought up a crop of toad-stools. Of the forty or fifty essays on the subject which appeared in the next five years, there are only four or five which are of any value, and even of these the value is very small.

If his opponents made no effort to understand him rightly—and many of them certainly wrote without having carefully studied the fourteen hundred pages of his two volumes—Strauss on his part seemed to be stricken with a kind of uncertainty, lost himself in a maze of detail, and failed to keep continually re-formulating the main problems which he had set up for discussion, and so compelling his adversaries to face them fairly.

Of these problems there were three. The first was composed of the related questions regarding miracle and myth; the second concerned the connexion of the Christ of faith with the Jesus of history; the third referred to the relation of the Gospel of John to the Synoptists.

It was the first that attracted most attention; more than half the critics devoted themselves to it alone. Even so they failed to get a thorough grasp of it. The only thing that they clearly see is that Strauss altogether denies the miracles.

The fear of Strauss had, indeed, a tendency to inspire Protestant theologians with catholicising ideas. One of the most competent reviewers of his book, Dr. Ullmann in the Studien und Kritiken, had expressed the wish that it had been written in Latin to prevent its doing harm among the people. An anonymous dialogue of the period shows us the schoolmaster coming in distress to the clergyman. He has allowed himself to be persuaded into reading the book by his acquaintance the Major, and he is now anxious to get rid of the doubts which it has aroused in him. When his cure has been safely accomplished, the reverend gentleman dismisses him with the following exhortation:

“Now I hope that after the experience which you have had you will for the future refrain from reading books of this kind, which are not written for you, and of which there is no necessity for you to take any notice; and for the refutation of which, should that be needful, you have no equipment. You may be quite sure that anything useful or profitable for you which such books may contain will reach you in due course through the proper channel and in the right way, and, that being so, you are under no necessity to jeopardise any part of your peace of mind.”

Immediately after the appearance of Strauss’s book, which, it was at once seen, would cause much offence, the Prussian Government asked Wilhelm Neander to report upon it, with a view to prohibiting the circulation, should there appear to be grounds for doing so. He presented his report on the 15th of November 1835, and, an inaccurate account of it having appeared in the Allgemeine Zeitung, subsequently published it. In it he censures the work as being written from a too purely rationalistic point of view [Schweitzer refers to the naïve “rationalistic” attempts to explain miracles away], but strongly urges the Government not to suppress it by an edict. He describes it as “a book which, it must be admitted, constitutes a danger to the sacred interests of the Church, but which follows the method of endeavouring to produce a reasoned conviction by means of argument. Hence any other method of dealing with it than by meeting argument with argument will appear in the unfavourable light of an arbitrary interference with the freedom of science.”

The pure rationalists found it much more difficult than did the mediating theologians, whether of the older or younger school, to adjust their attitude to the new solution of the miracle question. Strauss himself had made it difficult for them by remorselessly exposing the absurd and ridiculous aspects of their method, and by refusing to recognise them as allies in the battle for truth, as they really were.

Paulus [the major exponent of “rationalism” of the time] would have been justified in bearing him a grudge. But the inner greatness of that man of hard exterior comes out in the fact that he put his personal feelings in the background, and when Strauss became the central figure in the battle for the purity and freedom of historical science he ignored his attacks on rationalism and came to his defence. In a very remarkable letter to the Free Canton of Zurich, on “Freedom in Theological Teaching and in the Choice of Teachers for Colleges,” he urges the council and the people to appoint Strauss because of the principle at stake, and in order to avoid giving any encouragement to the retrograde movement in historical science. It is as though he felt that the end of rationalism had come, but that, in the person of the enemy who had defeated it, the pure love of truth, which was the only thing that really mattered, would triumph over all the forces of reaction.

Accordingly Hengstenberg’s Evangelische Kirchenzeitung hailed Strauss’s book as “one of the most gratifying phenomena in the domain of recent theological literature,” and praises the author for having carried out with logical consistency the application of the mythical theory which had formerly been restricted to the Old Testament and certain parts only of the Gospel tradition. “All that Strauss has done is to bring the spirit of the age to a clear consciousness of itself and of the necessary consequences which flow from its essential character. He has taught it how to get rid of foreign elements which were still present in it, and which marked an imperfect stage of its development.”

Hengstenberg’s only complaint against Strauss is that he does not go far enough. He would have liked to force upon him the role of the Wolfenbiittel Fragmentist [Reimarus], and considers that if Strauss did not, like the latter, go so far as to suppose the apostles guilty of deliberate deceit, that is not so much from any regard for the historical kernel of Christianity as in order to mask his attack.

Even in Catholic theology Strauss’s work caused a great sensation. Catholic theology in general did not at that time take up an attitude of absolute isolation from Protestant scholarship; it had adopted from the latter numerous rationalistic ideas, and had been especially influenced by Schleiermacher. Thus, Catholic scholars were almost prepared to regard Strauss as a common enemy, against whom it was possible to make common cause with Protestants. In 1837 Joseph Mack, one of the Professors of the Catholic faculty at Tübingen, published his “Report on Herr Dr. Strauss’s Historical Study of the Life of Jesus.” In 1839 appeared “Dr. Strauss’s Life of Jesus, considered from the Catholic point of view,” by Dr. Maurus Hagel, Professor of Theology at the Lyceum at Dillingen; in 1840 that lover of hypotheses and doughty fighter, Johann Leonhard Hug, presented his report upon the work.

Even French Catholicism gave some attention to Strauss’s work. This marks an epoch—the introduction of the knowledge of German critical theology into the intellectual world of the Latin nations. In the Revue des deux mondes for December 1838, Edgar Quinet gave a clear and accurate account of the influence of the Hegelian philosophy upon the religious ideas of cultured Germany. In an eloquent peroration he lays bare the danger which was menacing the Church from the nation of Strauss and Hegel. His countrymen need not think that it could be charmed away by some ingenious formula; a mighty effort of the Catholic spirit was necessary, if it was to be successfully opposed. “A new barbarian invasion was rolling up against sacred Rome. The barbarians were streaming from every quarter of the horizon, bringing their strange gods with them and preparing to beleaguer the holy city.

With Strauss begins the period of the non-miraculous view of the life of Jesus; all other views exhausted themselves in the struggle against him, and subsequently abandoned position after position without waiting to be attacked. The separation which Hengstenberg had hailed with such rejoicing was really accomplished; but in the form that supernaturalism practically separated itself from the serious study of history. It is not possible to date the stages of this process. After the first outburst of excitement everything seems to go on as quietly as before; the only difference is that the question of miracle constantly falls more and more into the background. In the modern period of the study of the Life of Jesus, which begins about the middle of the 1860s, it has lost all importance.

Few understood what Strauss’s real meaning was; the general impression was that he entirely dissolved the life of Jesus into myth. The only writer who really faced the problem in the form in which it had been raised by Strauss was Ch. G. Wilke in his work Tradition and Myth. He recognises that Strauss had given an exceedingly valuable impulse towards the overcoming of rationalism and supernaturalism and to the rejection of the abortive mediating theology.

“In making the assertion,” concludes Strauss, “that the truth of the Gospel narrative cannot be proved, whether in whole or in part, from philosophical considerations, but that the task of inquiring into its truth must be left to historical criticism, I should like to associate myself with the ‘left wing’ of the Hegelian school, were it not that the Hegelians prefer to exclude me altogether from their borders, and to throw me into the arms of other systems of thought—only, it must be admitted, to have me tossed back to them like a ball.”

In regard to the third problem which Strauss had offered for discussion, the relation of the Synoptists to John, there was practically no response. The only one of his critics who understood what was at stake was Hengstenberg.

But there is no position so desperate that theology cannot find a way out of it. The mediating theologians simply ignored the problem which Strauss had raised. As they had been accustomed to do before, so they continued to do after.

In this respect Strauss shared the fate of Reimarus; the positive solutions of which the outlines were visible behind their negative criticism escaped observation in consequence of the offence caused by the negative side of their work; and even the authors themselves failed to realise their full significance.

“Honesty”

waffen



From Faith and Action (1938) by Helmut Stellrecht for the Hitler Youth:




There should be nothing false in you! The Jew is dishonest. He is born that way and is ever full of deceit. You are born to be honest and to remain honest. Your face does not lie, your words are true, your actions are clear and can stand before all.

§ You will say no word about a comrade that you cannot say to his face. If you do so, you destroy the community and injure your honor and that of the other. You become dishonest.

§ You would not think of stealing ten pfennig from a comrade. How trivial that is when compared to stealing honor from someone who does not realize it, who is unable to defend himself. Compared to that, the thief one puts in prison has committed but a small offense. Possessions are of less value than honor. A thief has more honor than a slanderer. The first demand of honor is that one holds the honor of others as their highest possession. The next demand of honor is that one respects the property of others, which they have earned by hard word and industry.

§ It must again become such in Germany that one can leave one’s doors unlocked at night. It must again be such that every lost piece of property is returned and that one can trust unknown citizens with one’s money and possessions.

§ We want once again to have the honor of a farmer. It should be as it still is in the north, where one can leave one’s house and land without locking the door, because there is no dishonesty.

§ An end must be made of all dishonest behavior. It should be wrung out of us. There should be a new generation in Germany, honest in word and deed, because honor is to it more necessary than life itself. And woe to him who sins against it.

Published in: on September 15, 2013 at 8:31 pm  Leave a Comment  
Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 197 other followers