I realized something about Adolf Hitler's foreign policy...

[Petr]

This thought came upon me when I was dealing with this thread, after I had commented:

"All the Jews in the world would not have been able to make France and England to declare war on Germany if Hitler had stopped after Munich and the annexation of Sudetenland."

http://www.originaldissent.com/forums/showthread.php?t=16549


I realized how easily Adolf Hitler could have demonstrated in 1939 that he had a sincere wish for peace, and that he wanted to avoid inter-European bloodshed for the benefit of international Jews.

As we know, this is the "party line" that neo-Nazi apologists enthusiastically give us, that Hitler was forced to war against his will.


Those of us with a more skeptical viewpoint (and us who actually take Hitler for his own words in Mein Kampf and elsewhere) tend to think that Hitler's goal was create a huge Germanic Empire in the Eastern Europe at the expense of Slavs, to make some serious lebensraum, and if "peaceful" methods (occupation without resistance, as in Czechoslovakia) were not enough, he was ready to resort to violence (as in Poland).

His ultimate goal, as stated in Mein Kampf, was to "put an end to Russia as a state" and extend the borders of Greater Germany to Ural mountains.


So, if Hitler did not harbor these kind of imperialistic dreams, what should he had done after France and England had declared war on him after he had invaded Poland, and after the military power of Poles had been completely destroyed and Western allies showed no sign of attacking him?

Simple: to re-annex those parts of Poland to Germany that had been taken from her in Versailles (the Danzig Corridor), and nothing else.

Then he should have slammed some war reparations on Poles (like Germans did with France in 1871) and slowly retreat from the rest of German-occupied Poland.

The gracious Fuhrer should had then given Poles back their independent state, except for those parts where the Germans were in a majority!

Can you imagine what kind of impression that would have made on the Western public?

This period of "phony war" (October 1939 - May 1940) would have been the golden opportunity for Hitler to show his peaceful intentions.

"What was happening was futile attempts by both sides to negotiate an end to the war that would not embarrass either side. Germany reached out to the Allies through Holland. Since the British held that Germany should recall her forces from Poland, there was not much leeway for either side to get out with a favorable position to both sides."

http://www.worldwar2database.com/html/phonywar.htm


If Hitler had indeed retreated from Poland, after taking back the Danzig Corridor and securing the rights of Poland's German minority, what possible excuse would have British politicians had to reject German peace offers?

Warmongers like Churchill wouldn't have stood a chance in British internal politics! A new Munich deal would have been entirely possible.


Sure, Poles would have been enraged and yearning for vengeance after their crushing defeat (just like Frenchmen did after 1871), but what could they have done, except gratefully accept their independence back and sulk in impotence?

And what if Soviets had taken over Eastern Poland? The PR effect in the West would have been even better: honest German Nazis just wanted what was rightfully theirs, while greedy Communist imperialists grabbed whatever they could!

If Soviets had then one day attacked Germans, they would have had a real chance to get Western allies to support them against this unprovoked Bolshevik onslaught - at the very least they would have not allied with invading Soviets against Germany.

(Plus, the small Polish state between USSR and Germany would have served as a handy buffer zone for Germans...)


So? Germany should have given Poland simply the same treatment it gave to France in 1871 and nothing more, instead of trying to swallow it entirely.

Adolf Hitler could shown a little Christian humility towards Poles (and Czechs, but that's another story), instead of megalomaniacal pagan pride, and the fractricidal mass slaughter could have been avoided.


Petr

[raven]

Alright I looked over some of Poland's history. The Poles had every right to fight to keep their independence and personally I would think Germany shouldn't have annexed the land from a moral standpoint. Especially not in the style that Hitler did it. The Germans claimed "its my land" but so what? Canada was once Britain's too does that mean they should annex us too? The Poles were independent long before their occupations and they got their independence afterwards. So if anything its almost as if the Poles were stuck in the middle of all this and it is they who have been continuously screwed. They have every right to fight for it. However, whether it was Nazi Germany or the Soviet Union, they were gonna get fucked either way.

[Kodos]

I must grudgingly agree with the pro nazi partisans that after marching into Prague( if he didn't and then occupied Danzig only that would have been another story) the British were bent on war, once he moved into Poland and Churchill was elected he wasn't going to make peace. The vaguely defined great collective power of the always monolithic jews however had little to do with this.

[Vindex]

I wonder why they never declared war on Red Russia when they invaded Poland, if Iam correct a week or two before Hitler. I wonder if one reason Hitler took half of Poland was to act as a buffer zone against Red Russia.

[infoterror]

Point was to establish larger perimeter against Russians, to remove unstable and unfriendly republics like Poland.

[Kodos]

I wonder why they never declared war on Red Russia when they invaded Poland

Um British blockade and Germany having no oil insufficient farmland( basically lacking enough of every raw material except coal) meant that the British would crush them quickly without Russian raw materials.

[Felix the Cat]

Hitler made no errors in 1939, those came later

It really made little difference to Germany whether the British entered the war in 1939 or stayed neutral - Britain had no way of harming Germany at that point in time, and Hitler knew it

The British and French were helpless to intervene in Eastern Europe for simple geographic reasons (Sweden refused passage to Anglo-French troops in the winter of 1939/40, while Denmark had signed a de-facto alliance with Germany)

Only an alliance with Russia could have given London and Paris leverage in that region, but Ribbentrop beat them to it

[Kodos]

It really made little difference to Germany whether the British entered the war in 1939 or stayed neutral - Britain had no way of harming Germany at that point in time, and Hitler knew it

Um the blockade hurt them.

[infoterror]

Um British blockade and Germany having no oil insufficient farmland( basically lacking enough of every raw material except coal) meant that the British would crush them quickly without Russian raw materials.

Exterminating the English and Russians is never a terrible idea, to be honest. Both countries are rampagingly destructive. Of course, the JSA had "Rosenvelt" as its head, so maybe it needs euthanizing as well...

[Lord_Lugdreg]

If Soviets had then one day attacked Germans, they would have had a real chance to get Western allies to support them against this unprovoked Bolshevik onslaught - at the very least they would have not allied with invading Soviets against Germany.

The Soviets were in league with the British Elites from the beginning (Communism is the other side of the Coin of Capitalism and judeo-christianity 'spiritual materialism' is the other side of the coin of Atheism... Only Paganism is an Alternative) and no matter what The Great One would have done there still would have been 'Christian Humility' meted out by the Anglo-Kike Atlantic BritZog Fire-bombing of Dresden Style.

[Jimbo Gomez]

The Soviets were in league with the British Elites from the beginning (Communism is the other side of the Coin of Capitalism and judeo-christianity 'spiritual materialism' is the other side of the coin of Atheism... Only Paganism is an Alternative) and no matter what The Great One would have done there still would have been 'Christian Humility' meted out by the Anglo-Kike Atlantic BritZog Fire-bombing of Dresden Style.

Are you for real?

[ironweed]

The Soviets were in league with the British Elites from the beginning

Proof of this statement resides where?

(Communism is the other side of the Coin of Capitalism

How are the two similar?

and judeo-christianity 'spiritual materialism' is the other side of the coin of Atheism...

Yes, which is why Christians did so well under the Soviet regime. :rolleyes:

Only Paganism is an Alternative)

Pity no one can say exactly what any of the pagan faiths of Europe or the Mediterranean basin even believed at this point. And what little we do have has all been passed down to us via devout Christians.

Or perhaps not, since it means neopagans can make up whatever fun and games strike their fancy and claim great antiquity. Sort of a Euro version of Kwanzaa, with about just as much in the way of objective fact to back it up. Going to go prancing around "skyclad" at some point? :rolleyes:

and no matter what The Great One

You really shouldn't speak about Jackie Gleason that way. :nono:

would have done there still would have been 'Christian Humility' meted out by the Anglo-Kike Atlantic BritZog Fire-bombing of Dresden Style.

:rofl: Oh, never mind. But please continue to post. You're great comic relief.

[Kodos]

The Soviets were in league with the British Elites from the beginning (Communism is the other side of the Coin of Capitalism and judeo-christianity 'spiritual materialism' is the other side of the coin of Atheism... Only Paganism is an Alternative) and no matter what The Great One would have done there still would have been 'Christian Humility' meted out by the Anglo-Kike Atlantic BritZog Fire-bombing of Dresden Style.

So they let you out of the asylum did they...?

[Felix the Cat]

Um the blockade hurt them.
As you stated above, the alliance with Russia made Germany impervious to such pressure

The Anglo-French armies in the West were too weak to invade and conquer Germany, and the East, where they could have made a difference, was inaccessible to them

[daisy]

Lord_Lugdreg posted The Soviets were in league with the British Elites from the beginning
i believe you. anglo-kike and britzog that is kinda cute lol

[Kodos]

As you stated above, the alliance with Russia made Germany impervious to such pressure

The Anglo-French armies in the West were too weak to invade and conquer Germany, and the East, where they could have made a difference, was inaccessible to them

But it wasn't permanent, Stalin was caught by surprise but apparently planned to attack Hitler himself in 1942( which was stupid since he wouldn't be ready until 1943). Hitler should have let him, Russian armies do much worse on the offensive then on the counteroffensive( in WWI the Germans won in Russia) and the Red Army would have no morale( as they didn't initially in Barbarossa) beyond the fear of their masters. They'd probably march right into an encirclement.

[Lord_Lugdreg]

Proof of this statement resides where?

Yalta, although the roots can probably be traced all the way back to the Bavarian Illuminati.

How are the two similar?

Both are only interested in what Sam Francis called 'Economic Man' and completely ignore (or in capitialisms case are destructive) to BioCulture.

Yes, which is why Christians did so well under the Soviet regime.

I said it was the other side of the coin, not the same thing. Please note how Liberation Theology is so similar to orthodox marxism.

Remember what Oswald Spengler said: "Christian Theology is the Grandmother of Bolshevism"

Pity no one can say exactly what any of the pagan faiths of Europe or the Mediterranean basin even believed at this point. And what little we do have has all been passed down to us via devout Christians.

Or perhaps not, since it means neopagans can make up whatever fun and games strike their fancy and claim great antiquity. Sort of a Euro version of Kwanzaa, with about just as much in the way of objective fact to back it up. Going to go prancing around "skyclad" at some point? :rolleyes:

Well then how are you going to tell Pagans that they are wrong then?

Heroic Paleo-pagans like Varg Vikernes have been re-assembling the Pagan Culture:

Paganism: Part I - The Ancient Religion (http://www.burzum.org/eng/library/paganism01.shtml)

The next thousand years are ours!

[Petr]

Remember what Oswald Spengler said: "Christian Theology is the Grandmother of Bolshevism"
Have you read anything else from Oswald Spengler besides that quote, or even that quote in its original context?

(Here - http://www.alphalink.com.au/%7Eradnat/spengler/hourfour.html )

Let's re-structure it a little bit: Gnosticism (and neo-Gnostic cults) is the grandfather of Communism in the West.


A 19th-century Polish nationalist Antoni Maurycy SZYMANSKI (1813-1894) commented upon the "Christianity as Communism's granddaddy" theory:

"Christ did not preach communism. Communism was championed by sects hostile to Christianity, namely by the neo-Platonists, the most passionate defenders of sinking paganism. Plato's communist republic was the dream of Porphyry, Plotinus, and Iamblichus, the ideal of perfection employed to refute Christianity. In the early second century, Carpocrates and Epiphanius, founders of one of the sects which would later merge with the Gnostic heresy, proclaimed communal ownership and sanctified dissoluteness. Nourished by Platonic principles, Epiphanius wrote a book about Justice where he held that God's justice on the earth finds its expression in common ownership and equality; that common ownership arises from natural and divine law, and property and marriage from human law. His disciples prayed without any clothes on, they hated fasting, men and women worshiped their own bodies, perfumed and fed them. Property and women were held in common. The host offered his wife to the guest. This custom was clothed in the mantle of charity. After a collective dinner they put the lights out and indulged in debauchery. [...]"

http://www.omp.org.pl/szymanski_ang.htm



Nesta Webster also mentioned these Gnostic cults in her book Secret Societies and Subversive Movements:

"These men were therefore not only the enemies of Christianity but of orthodox Judaism, since it was against the Jehovah of the Jews that their hatred was particularly directed. Another Gnostic sect the Carpocratians, followers of Carpocrates of Alexandria and his son Epiphamus—who died from his debaucheries and was venerated as a god(105)—likewise regarded all written laws, Christian or Mosaic, with contempt and recognised only the gnosis or knowledge given to the great men of every nation—Plato and Pythagoras, Moses and Christ—which "frees one from all that the vulgar call religion" and " makes man equal to God."(106)

So in the Carpocratians of the second century we find already the tendency towards that deification of humanity which forms the supreme doctrine of the secret societies and of the visionary Socialists of our day. The war now begins between the two contending principles: the Christian conception of man reaching up to God and the secret society conception of man as God, needing no revelation from on high and no guidance but the law of his own nature. And since that nature is in itself divine, all that springs from it is praiseworthy, and those acts usually regarded as sins are not to be condemned. By this line of reasoning the Carpocratians arrived at much the same conclusions as modern Communists with regard to the ideal social system. Thus Epiphanus held that since Nature herself reveals the principle of the community and the unity of all things, human laws which are contrary to this law of Nature are so many culpable infractions of the legitimate order of things. Before these laws were imposed on humanity everything was in common—land, goods, and women. According to certain contemporaries, the Carpocratians returned to this primitive system by instituting the community of women and indulging in every kind of licence. "

http://ca.geocities.com/nt_351/webster/secret/secret01.htm



Igor Shafarevich also mentions Carpocratians and notes how an important part of their Gnostic anti-OT position was mocking the very concept of private property that the Ten Commandments had made sacred:


"Irenaeus of Lyons and Clement of Alexandria describe the gnostic sect of Carpocratians which appeared in Alexandria in the second century A.D. The founder of this sect, Carpocrates, taught that faith and love bring salvation and place man above good and evil. These ideas were elaborated by his son Epiphanes, who died at the age of seventeen, having written a work "On Justice." According to Clement of Alexandria, he was later worshiped as a god in Samos, where a sanctuary was erected to him.

Some quotations from Epiphanes follow:

"God's justice consists in community and equality."

"The Creator and Father of all gave everyone equally eyes to see and established laws in accordance with his justice without distinguishing female from male, wise from humble and in general one thing from any other."

"The private character of laws cuts and gnaws the community established by God's law. Do you not understand the words of the Apostle: 'Through law I knew sin' (Romans 7: 7)? 'Mine' and 'thine' were spread to the detriment of community by virtue of the law."

"Thus, God made everything common for man; according to the principles of communality, he joins man and woman. In the same way, he links all living beings; in this he has revealed justice demanding communality in conjunction with equality. But those begotten in this way deny the community that has created them, saying: 'He who takes a wife, let him possess her.' But they can possess all in common as the animals do."

"It is therefore laughable to hear the giver of laws saying: 'Do not covet' and more laughable still the addition: 'that which is your neighbor's.' For he himself invested us with desires, which moreover must be safeguarded as they are necessary for procreation. But even more laughable is the phrase 'your neighbor's wife,' for in this way that which is common is forcibly turned into private property." (7: p. 117)

The members of this sect, which extended as far as Rome, followed principles of complete communality, including communality of wives.

http://robertlstephens.com/essays/shafarevich/001SocialistPhenomenon.html#pagestart_7



And so, a 14th-century English allegorical poet William Langland cited precisely the Law of Moses to defend the concept of private property and described how university-educated Communist heretics were citing pagan philosophers to justify their own position:

from The Pursuit Of The Millennium by Norman Cohn (1961), pg. 212-13:


"It would be surprising if amongst the swarm of students of all sorts and classes who congregated at Oxford there had been none who snatched at such ideas and scattered them abroad, simplified into propagandistic slogans. And indeed Langland, writing on the morrow of the great revolt, has told in Piers Plowman how speculations concerning the State of Nature penetrated from the universities to the common people, and with what effect:

"Envy heard this; and bade friars go to school,
And learn logic and Law, and also Contemplation,
And preach to men of Plato, and prove it by Seneca,
That all things under heaven ought to be in common.
He lies, as I live, who to the unlearned so preaches,
For God made to men a law, and Moses taught it,
Thou shalt not covet any thing that is thy neighbour's"


For more on Gnostic impact on modern totalitarian ideologies, see Eric Voegelin's works:

http://www.ucd.ie/philosop/documents/Eric%20Voegelin%20on%20Gnosticism.htm


Petr

[Felix the Cat]

But it wasn't permanent, Stalin was caught by surprise but apparently planned to attack Hitler himself in 1942( which was stupid since he wouldn't be ready until 1943). Hitler should have let him, Russian armies do much worse on the offensive then on the counteroffensive( in WWI the Germans won in Russia) and the Red Army would have no morale( as they didn't initially in Barbarossa) beyond the fear of their masters. They'd probably march right into an encirclement.
You mean the "Icebreaker" (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Icebreaker_(Suvorov)) theory?

Mainstream historians seem pretty skeptical of it

[Kodos]

You mean the "Icebreaker" (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Icebreaker_(Suvorov)) theory?

Mainstream historians seem pretty skeptical of it

I don't think Stalin planned to attack in 1941, and I don't think it was out of marxist theory so much as traditional russian expansionism...

[Lord_Lugdreg]

For more on Gnostic impact on modern totalitarian ideologies, see Eric Voegelin's works:

http://www.ucd.ie/philosop/documents/Eric%20Voegelin%20on%20Gnosticism.htm


Petr

Totalitarian Ideologies are completely of judeo-christian Monotheistic origin:

Monotheism vs. Polytheism by Alain de Benoist (http://www.alphalink.com.au/~radnat/debenoist/alain10.html)

[Himmler II]

"Totalitarianism" as a political concept has no foundation whatsoever.

[Petr]

Totalitarian Ideologies are completely of judeo-christian Monotheistic origin:

Monotheism vs. Polytheism by Alain de Benoist (http://www.alphalink.com.au/~radnat/debenoist/alain10.html)

Alain de Benoist is a propagandist with some scholarly pretensions, and simpletons like you naturally swallow his tripe uncritically. How lemming-like...

For examples of pagan polytheistic totalitarian states, check out pharaonic Egypt, Brahminical system of Kautilya and Manu, China of Chin Shih-huang, the Inca empire, Plato's republic etc...

You may also check out Igor Shafarevich's (1975) online classic book The Socialist Phenomenon:

http://www.robertlstephens.com/essays/essay_frame.php?essayroot=shafarevich/&essayfile=001SocialistPhenomenon.html


Petr

[Felix the Cat]

I don't think Stalin planned to attack in 1941, and I don't think it was out of marxist theory so much as traditional russian expansionism...
I think both Stalin and Mussolini were expecting another long slow war of attrition like 1914-8

They would remain passive bystanders, wait for the belligerents to exhaust themselves, then effortlessly move in to snap up whatever territories they wanted

Hitler's unexpectedly rapid defeat of France put both men in a very difficult position

I doubt Italy and Russia would have allied themselves with Germany if their leaders had foreseen the German victories of 1940

[Felix the Cat]

Stalin's speech to the Politburo of 19 August 1939 (http://home.swipnet.se/nordling/Stalinspeech.html), justifying the alliance with Nazi Germany

"The question of war and peace has entered a critical phase for us. If we conclude a mutual assistance pact with France and Great Britain, Germany will back off from Poland and seek a 'modus vivendi' with the Western Powers. War would thus be prevented, but further events could take a serious turn for the USSR."

"If we accept Germany's proposal to conclude a non-aggression pact with her, she will of course attack Poland, and the intervention of France and England is then unavoidable. Europe will be thrown into serious upheavals and disorder. In this case we will have a great opportunity to stay out of the conflict, while being able to hope for our own timely entrance into war."

"The experience of the last 20 years has shown, that in peacetime it is impossible to maintain a Communist movement throughout Europe that would be strong enough for a Bolshevik Party to seize power. The dictatorship of such a Party will only become possible as the result of a major war."

"Our choice is clear. We must accept the German proposal and politely send the Anglo-French delegations back home. Our immediate advantage will be the destruction of Poland up to the very approaches to Warsaw, including Ukrainian Galicia."

"Germany has given us full leeway in the Baltic States and has no objection to our claim on Bessarabia. Germany is also prepared to accept our interests in Romania, Bulgaria and Hungary. The question of Yugoslavia remains open . . . . At the same time, we must anticipate what will ensue from the destruction of Germany in war as well as from a German victory. If she is destroyed, the sovietization of Germany follows inevitably and a Communist government will be established We should not forget that a sovietized Germany would face great danger, if the sovietization occurred after a short war. England and France would then be strong enough to seize Berlin and to destroy a Soviet Germany. We would not be able to aid our Bolshevik comrades in Germany."

"Therefore, our task consists in helping Germany wage war as long as possible, with the aim in view that England and France should not be able to defeat a sovietized Germany. Maintaining neutrality and waiting for the right time, the USSR will lend aid to today's Germany and supply her with raw materials and foodstuffs. Of course, we will not allow such shipments to jeopardize our economy or weaken our armed might. "

"At the same time we must carry on active Communist propaganda in the Anglo-French block, and especially in France. We must be prepared for the fact that in wartime the French Communist Party must abandon legal activities and go underground. We realize that such work will demand great sacrifice in lives. However, we trust our French comrades. The main task will be to break up and demoralize the army and the police. If this preparatory work is fulfilled properly, the security of a Soviet Germany will be assured. This will likewise ensure the sovietization of France."

"For the realization of these plans it is essential that war continue for as long as possible, and all efforts should be made, both in Western Europe and the Balkans, to see that this happens."

"Now let us consider the second possibility, namely that Germany becomes the victor. Some propose that this would present us with a serious danger. There is some truth to this notion, but it would be erroneous to believe that such a danger is as near and as great as they assume. If Germany achieves victory in the war, it will emerge from it in such a depleted state that to start a war with the USSR will take ten years at very least."

"Germany's main task would then be to keep a watch on the defeated France and England to prevent their restoration. On the other hand, a victorious Germany would have at her disposal a large territory. Over the course of many decades, Germany would be preoccupied with the 'exploitation' of these territories and establishing in them a German order. Obviously, Germany would be too preoccupied to move against us. There is still another factor that enhances our security. In the defeated France, the French Communist Party would be very strong. A Communist revolution would follow inevitably. We would exploit thin order to come to the aid of France and win her over as an ally. Later, the nations who fell under the 'protection' of a victorious Germany would also become our allies. We should have a large arena in which to develop the world revolution."

"Comrades! It is in the interest of the USSR, the Land of the Toilers, that a war breaks out between the Reich and the capitalist Anglo-French bloc. Everything must be done so that the war lasts as long as possible in order that both sides become exhausted. For this reason we must agree to the pact proposed by Germany, and use it so that once this war is declared, it will last for a maximum amount of time. We must step up our propaganda within the combatant-countries, in order to be prepared when the war ends."

[Basil Fawlty]

'Christian Humility' meted out by the Anglo-Kike Atlantic BritZog Fire-bombing of Dresden Style.Great stuff!

[Basil Fawlty]

You mean the "Icebreaker" (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Icebreaker_%28Suvorov%29) theory?

Mainstream historians seem pretty skeptical of itWould these be the same kind of mainstream historians who promote the Holomyth?

[Basil Fawlty]

A 19th-century Polish nationalist Antoni Maurycy SZYMANSKI (1813-1894) commented upon the "Christianity as Communism's granddaddy" theory:

"Christ did not preach communism. Communism was championed by sects hostile to Christianity, namely by the neo-Platonists, the most passionate defenders of sinking paganism. Plato's communist republic was the dream of Porphyry, Plotinus, and Iamblichus, the ideal of perfection employed to refute Christianity. In the early second century, Carpocrates and Epiphanius, founders of one of the sects which would later merge with the Gnostic heresy, proclaimed communal ownership and sanctified dissoluteness. Nourished by Platonic principles, Epiphanius wrote a book about Justice where he held that God's justice on the earth finds its expression in common ownership and equality; that common ownership arises from natural and divine law, and property and marriage from human law. His disciples prayed without any clothes on, they hated fasting, men and women worshiped their own bodies, perfumed and fed them. Property and women were held in common. The host offered his wife to the guest. This custom was clothed in the mantle of charity. After a collective dinner they put the lights out and indulged in debauchery. [...]"

http://www.omp.org.pl/szymanski_ang.htm
The Neoplatonists were against the Gnostics (which is a Jewish Christian phenomenon anyway)

Plotinus wrote

NINTH TRACTATE.

AGAINST THOSE THAT AFFIRM THE CREATOR OF THE KOSMOS AND
THE KOSMOS ITSELF TO BE EVIL: [GENERALLY QUOTED
AS "AGAINST THE GNOSTICS"].
http://ccat.sas.upenn.edu/jod/texts/plotinus

also the most passionate defenders of sinking paganism.is not true. Paganism was flourishing in their time. And it never "sank", it was destroyed by Christians once they got their hands on political power.


Plato's communist republic was the dream of Porphyry, Plotinus, and Iamblichus,Only someone with the most superficial reading of the Republic could pen such outrageous lines. The theme is an inquiry into justice, the "polis built in words" is merely a device for coming to a defintion of justice.

Communism is the secularisation of messianism, which is Jewish and, by extension, Christian.

[Petr]

Paganism was flourishing in their time. And it never "sank", it was destroyed by Christians once they got their hands on political power.
Yeah, it was so "flourishing" that it went out with a whimper once the public funding was cut off.

Walter Burkert, one of today’s foremost experts on ancient polytheism, writes in his book ”Ancient Mystery Cults” (p. 53):

”The basic difference between ancient mysteries, on the one hand, and religious communities, sects, and churches of the Judeo-Christian type, on the other, is borne out by the verdict of history. Jewish, Christian, and Islamic sects have demonstrated astounding capacities of survival, even as minorities in a hostile environment. The Samaritans, split from Jewish orthodoxy, have survived in the world for about 2,400 years; the Mandaeans are about as old as Christianity; the Albigensian movement survived even the European Inquisition; countless sects have been active ever since the Reformation. Christian outposts in Ethiopia, Armenia, and Georgia are no less remarkable with this tenacious vitality.

”It was quite different with the ancient mysteries, whether those of Eleusis, Bacchus, Meter, Isis, or even Mithras, the ”invincible God.” With the imperial decrees of 391/92 A.D. prohibiting all pagan cults and with the forceful destruction of the sanctuaries, the mysteries simply and suddenly disappeared. There is not much to be said for either the Masons’ or modern witches’ claim that they are perpetuating ancient mysteries through continuous tradition. (120) Mysteries could not go underground because they lacked any lasting organization. They were not self-sufficient sects; they were intimately bound to the social system of antiquity that was to pass away. Nothing remained but a curiosity, which has in vain tried to resuscitate them.


Monotheistic religions are simply, Darwinistically speaking, more fit for survival than polytheistic cults. When pagan religions lose the backing of the state, they roll over and die more often than not, for they don’t know how to survive in the opposition.

This is one of the reasons why I find it so imperative for the White race to regain true Christianity; neo-paganism is simply not fit for a long-term survival.

Monotheistic religions are not nearly as dependent from the state’s support, and I have indeed argued that one of the main reasons for Christianity’s decline in Europe has been due to its recent attachment to the modern state:

http://www.originaldissent.com/forums/showthread.php?t=19351&highlight=scandinavia


Only someone with the most superficial reading of the Republic could pen such outrageous lines. The theme is an inquiry into justice, the "polis built in words" is merely a device for coming to a defintion of justice.
Leo Strauss would argue that it is you who is reading Plato superficially and not detecting his Thrasymachean totalitarianism under his exoteric platitudes.


Communism is the secularisation of messianism, which is Jewish and, by extension, Christian.
Cliches, cliches. I don't think you really know the ideological history of Communism all that well. For example, what do you know about the Chinese school of thought known as "legalism"?


Petr

[Basil Fawlty]

Yeah, it was so "flourishing" that it went out with a whimper once the public funding was cut off.Let's have a look at this now bearing in mind that Paganism can not be reduced to one or more particular manifestations of piety as you would like to do.
”It was quite different with the ancient mysteries, whether those of Eleusis, Bacchus, Meter, Isis, or even Mithras, the ”invincible God.” With the imperial decrees of 391/92 A.D. prohibiting all pagan cults and with the forceful destruction of the sanctuaries, the mysteries simply and suddenly disappeared.This supports what I said previously! Once the Christians attained sufficient political power their intolerant and fanatical nature took over and two centuries of blood and destruction were unleashed on the old ways.

But paganism as such is not dependent on state cults (state cults are only one expression of a relationship to the divine. You would have to explain the necessity of John of Ephesus forced conversion mission in the 6th century (continued by his successor) if you think paganism suddenly expired when the Christians destroyed the cults.

Chsitianity - to be more than just one cult amongst others - needs to be bound up with the state, "throne and altar" and all that.

Monotheistic religions are simply, Darwinistically speaking, more fit for survival than polytheistic cults. You can't have it both ways. You may not draw on Darwinism when it suits you and reject it when it doesn't. Anyway, wordly success cannot be a criteria for truth.
When pagan religions lose the backing of the state, they roll over and die more often than not, for they don’t know how to survive in the opposition.Tell that to John of Ephesus.

This is one of the reasons why I find it so imperative for the White race to regain true Christianity; neo-paganism is simply not fit for a long-term survival.Just as Christianity cotributed to the decline of Rome and the ancient world, so does its contemporary secularised vapours contribuite to present decline (communism, PC, etc)
Monotheistic religions are not nearly as dependent from the state’s support, and I have indeed argued that one of the main reasons for Christianity’s decline in Europe has been due to its recent attachment to the modern state:Christianity goes into a nosedive when it loses state patronage.
Leo Strauss would argue that it is you who is reading Plato superficially and not detecting his Thrasymachean totalitarianism under his exoteric platitudes.I know his reading but he would agree with me that Plato is not advancing communism!

[Petr]

Once the Christians attained sufficient political power their intolerant and fanatical nature took over and two centuries of blood and destruction were unleashed on the old ways.
Oy vey, what a holocaust.


You would have to explain the necessity of John of Ephesus forced conversion mission in the 6th century (continued by his successor) if you think paganism suddenly expired when the Christians destroyed the cults.
Mere mopping-up operations.


You can't have it both ways. You may not draw on Darwinism when it suits you and reject it when it doesn't.
You have a wooden approach to issues. Anyways, the concept of "natural selection" was originally discovered by a creationist Edward Blyth, and later appropriated by Darwin.

On this thread you may see some of my thoughts on the "survival of the most righteous":

http://thephora.net/forum/showthread.php?t=3032&highlight=calvin


Anyway, wordly success cannot be a criteria for truth.
I do not subscribe to that Platonic-Gnostic absolute separation between matter and spirit, or between "worldly success" and spiritual success.


"It may be recalled that Hindu and Greek religions were all "dialectical," in that they separated physical, material things from ideas, and the non-material. Inevitably, one realm would be considered inferior to the other. Mr. Chantry, in this Greek tradition, has chosen to despise the material and exalt the non-physical. There is no Biblical justification for doing so; it is the influence of "neo-Platonism."

...

"We are reminded of Hindu rituals involving endless chanting, and contemplation of alleged "mystical vibrations from the realm of the universal Other." Oh, that we might spend 3-6 hours per day in the prayer closet rather than deal with a messy, material Christian school.

http://members.aol.com/KEVIN4VFT/chantry.htm


Just as Christianity cotributed to the decline of Rome and the ancient world, so does its contemporary secularised vapours contribuite to present decline (communism, PC, etc)
Cliches, cliches. Let's see some concrete proof.


I know he would and he would agree with me that Plato is not advancing communism!
Only if one would care to nitpick about the definition of "communism". Strict statist totalitarianism in any case.


Petr

[Basil Fawlty]

I do not subscribe to that Platonic-Gnostic absolute separation between matter and spirit, or between "worldly success" and spiritual success.Its already been established that Platonism is opposed to Gnosticism.

"spirit" is not a Platonic concept.

Platonism - the world is good
Gnosticism - the world is evil

[Petr]

Its already been established that Platonism is opposed to Gnosticism.
Platonism and Gnosticism share the radical dualism between matter and spirit, between the notion of more or less esoteric "knowledge" versus mere vulgar opinion.

All that Gnostics had to do was to "turn Plato on his head" like Marx did to Hegelian system.


"It seems as though Plotinus must have looked on the Gnostics as friends and allies; he too taught, as we remarked, that it is our task to free the soul from the bonds of the body, he too preached flight from the world of phenomena. But when he heard his own words from the mouths of the Gnostics, he fell into indescribable rage; the whole ninth book of the second Ennead is an expression of this rage. Plotinus declares - as though he himself had never said anything of the sort - that to blame the world is the supreme blasphemy; but to scorn the Creator of the world is worse blasphemy still. In contradiction to the Gnostics he speaks here of the visible world in almost the same enthusiastic words with which he speaks in the other books of the intelligible world. Historians have, as was to be expected, found a "simple" explanation for this inconsistency; the Greek was showing itself in Plotinus, and the Greek reverence for physical beauty.

A simple explanation! People are right to say that simplicity is often worse than guile. Where, then, is the "Asiatic influence" of which we heard so much before? And was Plotinus no Greek when he cried, "Let us flee from this world as quickly as possible"? Or when he taught that the only way to the highest end was monos genesthai, to cast off the outer world utterly? And was Plato, who said almost exactly the same, no Greek?

It is clear to him who wishes to see that "simple" explanations are out of place here. Here are reasons of quite another kind. Plotinus, apparently, could not endure logical elaboration of his thoughts. He himself could cast off visible, physical things, he could strive to free himself from the world, he could prefer death to life. But when the Gnostics make all these changing moods into unalterable truth, i.e. into universally valid and necessary judgments, then Plotinus grows furious. He himself never re-read what he had once written down. How did he feel now when he suddenly saw and heard that something which he had only felt and said at certain times, and only for himself, was suddenly proclaimed by the Gnostics (and that with the help of Mercury's wand!) as eternal truth, as something that always is, always has been, and always will be, and that cannot be otherwise?

http://www.angelfire.com/nb/shestov/ijb/jb33_9.html


Petr

[Basil Fawlty]

Platonism and Gnosticism share the radical dualism between matter and spirit, between the notion of more or less esoteric "knowledge" versus mere vulgar opinion.PetrThey most certainly do not. As I said, "spirit" (pneuma)is not a Platonic concept. The main ones of relevance here are Nous (intellect), psuche* (soul; with intellect, phantasia, and sensibility), and the Receptacle (where the world is instantiated). Plato never uses the term "matter" (hule - Aristotle's term ) which any means indeterminacy.

Your characterisation of Platonic epistemology is completely warped:
Opinion (doxa) is based on appearances and belongs to sensibility
Knowledge (episteme) is certain because it is based on the intelligibles, which are unchanging, e.g. geometric objects.

Gnosticsm is a Jewish Christian phenomenon which all Platonists were fundamentally opposed to on account of its blasphemy, i.e. that the world is evil


* Phantasia is the synthetic function, similar to the role imagination plays in Kant where it acts as the synthesising faculty between sensibility and the concepts of the understanding.

[Fade the Butcher]

Plato's communist republic was the dream of Porphyry, Plotinus, and Iamblichus, the ideal of perfection employed to refute Christianity.

The state outlined by Plato in The Republic wasn't a communist one. The principle of collective ownership was limited to the Guardians.

[Petr]

Gnosticsm is a Jewish Christian phenomenon which all Platonists were fundamentally opposed to on account of its blasphemy, i.e. that the world is evil.
That's not the way that a "modern Gnostic" like Arthur Schopenhauer saw it - he condemned Jewish religion for its outrageous "optimism" and world-positivity, recommending Hindu-like pessimism instead.

http://www.fordham.edu/halsall/jewish/lazare-anti.html#Chapter%20Nine


"To his ethnologic antisemitism he even admixed the metaphysical antisemitism which, if I may say so, Schopenhauer had professed, 172 the antisemitism consisting in combating the optimism of the Jewish religion, an optimism which Schopenhauer found low and degrading, and with which he contrasted Greek and Hindu religious conceptions.

...

"172 "A God like that Jehovah," says Schopenhauer, "who, as animi causa, for its own pleasure and from the joy of heart produces this world of misery and lamentations, and who even glories in it -- this is too much. Let us then, at this point, consider the religion of the Jews as the last among the religious doctrines of the civilized nations, and this will be in perfect accord with the fact that it is the only one that has absolutely not a trace of immortality." (Parerga und Paralipomena, v. II, ch. XII, p. 312, Leipzig 1874). "


Petr

[Basil Fawlty]

That's not the way that a "modern Gnostic" like Arthur Schopenhauer saw it - So what? Now we can add this error to his mangled misreadings of Plato and Kant! I really don't see the point of wheeling in Schopenhauer.

[cerberus]

I wonder why they never declared war on Red Russia when they invaded Poland, if Iam correct a week or two before Hitler. I wonder if one reason Hitler took half of Poland was to act as a buffer zone against Red Russia. (Warlock in training)

Germany invaded Poland first , Russia took the easrtern part a week later.
This was all part of the pact signed at the end of August.
Hitler would have done almost anything to get Molotov's signature on the paper. He had no intention of invading Russia , at that moment.

Hitler made no errors in 1939, those came later

It really made little difference to Germany whether the British entered the war in 1939 or stayed neutral - Britain had no way of harming Germany at that point in time, and Hitler knew it ( Cowcube).
Cowcube I would disagree. When he took what remained of the Czech State in early 1939 the writing was on the wall for those who could not see it.
Poland knew she was next and moves to try and block German expansion into Poland began shortly afterwards.
When Hitler signed the pact in August 39 with Russia Stalin gave him a free hand and Hitler hoped that it would block any potential support for Poland.
He toook a gamble and no one was more surprised than him when , " the final note" came.
He made two huge mistakes and misread the intentions of Brtain and France completely ending up with a war he didn't really want.
he got his common border with the Soviet Union , Poland had previously refused to come into the Axis camp.

As far as Jews pushing Germany into war , the man who took Germany to war was Adolf Hitler , none other.

[cerberus]

Exterminating the English and Russians is never a terrible idea, to be honest. Both countries are rampagingly destructive. Of course, the JSA had "Rosenvelt" as its head, so maybe it needs euthanizing as well...

In 1945 this was called waging an aggressive war.

The Soviets were in league with the British Elites from the beginning Lord Lugdreg.

Which was why when the British,French and Poles tried to enlist the USSR into a power block to restrict german aggression the Russians decided to sigan up to Hitler's pact and take the areas of "influence" alloted to them.
This in effect gave Hitler what was a blank cheque to wage war knowing that his back was covered and the Russians would supply him with oil and raw materails which they did in great abundance.
I se Charles Martel find your take ont hings hard to believe as well as does Ironweed and Emperor Palatine.

Originally Posted by Lord_Lugdreg
'Christian Humility' meted out by the Anglo-Kike Atlantic BritZog Fire-bombing of Dresden Style.

Great stuff! Reinhold O'Reilly / Basil F.

Yes it makes perfect sense , :rofl:

This thread has gone so far off track its hard to see what its about any more.

[Basil Fawlty]

Reinhold O'Reilly / Basil F.

Yes it makes perfect sense , :rofl:

This thread has gone so far off track its hard to see what its about any more.I didn't say "it makes perfect sense" I said it was "great stuff", now go back to sleep. :p

[cerberus]

Its a amazing mouthful , beyond that does it make any sense ?
Basil - I didn't quote you , so perhaps you might now take 40 winks ?

[Basil Fawlty]

Its a amazing mouthful , beyond that does it make any sense?As a piece of Joyceanesque word play yes, by evocation. That's what I enjoyed so much about Martin Linstedt's posts.
Basil - I didn't quote you , so perhaps you might now take 40 winks ?No, but you are certainly having a dig on account of my expressed appreciation of it. I am now fully awake and ready for another day, thanks for asking. :)