Vanguard News Network

Very cool. One thing I always liked about the Nazis aside from them being bad-ass German killers of Commie Bolshevik scum, was their style. Never had an army or military force had such cool gear, outfits, insignia, symbols, regalia, posters, weapons, vehicles, etc.

Such beauty reigned in Nazi Germany. Such beauty.

The more I compare modern-day Germany with Nazi Germany, I see what motivated the Nazis.

Of course, getting my information on the internet has a disadvantage, but from what I can see, the Nazis had much in common with the Church in their position (their stated position, ditto for the Church) on sex. And modern-day Germany seems to be Gomorrah on the Rhine.

Sex seems to be some kind of dividing line–I have not quite figured it out yet. One’s attitude toward sex, I mean. The liberal permissive view seems to be in line with the Frankfort School and the Marxists. Could it be that if one regards one’s own body as something precious and valuable, and sex as a sacred act, that one is therefore on a trajectory away from Marxism?
Away from the egalitarian devaluing of common eyes and vulgar thoughts? Does this not protect our wives, our daughters, even our young men?

So, yes, if the snake represents the moral decadence of the Weimar Republic, it must be subjugated (by the way, what does “Hochfinooz” mean?) for a return to beauty and morality. If certain of our people cannot control their gonads, or their greed, they are part of the snake.

OK, I’m glad you thought it was very funny, but what does Hochfinanz mean?

My German is rusty, but how about “high finance?”

If so, you are right, sex has nothing to do with it.

BUT . . I think the financial high rollers are really immature brats pretending they are sex studs and macho athletes!

Sex, in Marxist thought, is used as an instrument in the class warfare as a means to equalize everyone.

That strain of Communism was more Engel’s influence. Communists always procreated and always had families, despite The Origin of The Family, Private Property, and The State.

I find it useful, though. White Nationalism is hung up on family, and all these bourgeois values most of its adherents cannot attain. Nor should they. I say throw out the wife and sharpen the knife. Marriage is ownership however you look at it: whether you have a nauseatingly self-conscious “traditional” wife who wants to be “obedient” for “her man”, in which case one is owned simply by her negative will, or an arrogant modern gal who asserts herself at every opportunity, or damaged good that need caring for, etc. What you allow yourself in amenities is taken out of what you dare to do in other areas.

Probably the only Communists who did not procreate, or did not restrict themselves to sedentary life even if they did, were Jewish radicals. The Jewish female was for a while the most dangerous element of Communism. She didn’t want children, men couldn’t stand her, she was more cutthroat than thou when it came to everyday politics: in short a great asset to the Communist cause, if utterly monstrous, speaking in human terms.

People are just to hung up on “nice” things. Woman, home, community. It’s all pining and sighing. Le sigh, the family is dead.

Well then, forget the family, and do something monstrous!

The German National Socialists hounded the Frankfort School out of Germany (and into America). Why?

I don’t know if you’re serious, here. Because they were meddlesome Jews. Why else?

Of course, getting my information on the internet has a disadvantage, but from what I can see, the Nazis had much in common with the Church in their position (their stated position, ditto for the Church) on sex. And modern-day Germany seems to be Gomorrah on the Rhine.

There’s definitely a relation. I’ve written and spoken on this many times. And advise you to read E. Michael Jones’s Libido Dominandi: Sexual Liberation as Political Control. In brief, the less continent you are, the more you take yourself out of the picture as one of leaders of society.

Alex, thanks for the book ref. I will look into it.

ML, you said, in response to my asking why the German NS’s got rid of the Frankfurt School (when I stated that it was because one of their goals was to promote sexual immorality and to destroy the traditional German family with the father as head):

I don’t know if you’re serious here. Because they were meddlesome Jews.
Why else?

I reply:

Because they were cultural Marxist Jews, with emphasis on “cultural Marxist.”

From William S. Lind:

Cultural Marxism began not in the 1960’s but in 1919, immediately after WW1. Marxist theory had predicted that in the event of a big European war, the working class all over Europe would rise up to overthrow captialism and create communism. But when the war came in 1914, that did not happen. When it finally did happen in Russia in 1917, workers in other European countries did not support it. What had gone wrong?

Independently, two Marxist theorists, Antonio Gramsci in Italy and Georg Lukacs in Hungary, came to the same answer: Western culture and the Christian religion had so blinded the working class to its true Marxist classs interests that communism was impossible in the West until both could be destroyed. In 1919, Lukacs asked, “Who will save us from Western civilization?” That same year, when he became Deputy Commisar for Culture in the short-lived Bolshevik Bela Kun Government in Hungary, one
of Lukac’s first acts was to introduce sex education into Hungarian public schools. He knew that if he could destroy the West’s traditional sexual morals, he would have taken a giant step towards destroying Western Culture itself.

In 1923, inspired by part by Lukacs, a group of German Marxists established a think tank at Frankfurt University . . .

Fatefully for America, when Hitler came to power in 1933, the Frankfurt School fled — and reestablished itself in New York City. There, it shifted its focus from destroying tradional Western culture in Germany to destroying it in the United States. To do so, it invented “Critical Theory.” What is the theory? To criticize every traditional institution, starting with the family, brutally and unremittingly, in order to bring them down . . .(http://www.opinionet.com/article.php?id=3381)

Because they were cultural Marxist Jews, with emphasis on “cultural Marxist.”

You’re caught up in “conservative” rhetoric. “Marxist” and “cultural Marxist” and “Zionist” are all just ways to get around saying JEW, JEW, JEW. Anyone who cannot say JEW will latch onto these little evasions. And why the bloody fuck did you ask if you have your own answer?

They were JEWS with emphasis on the J. Evincing Gramsci, the one gentile of the whole bunch, as proof of some “cultural Marxist” movement unique unto itself it about as honest and productive as nervous goyim retorting “Ted Turner!” when you tell them media are Jewish.

It may be mentioned, on the other hand, that this ambiguity with regard to Jews and cultural Marxism bleeds over into Traditionalism: for example, most tradition-fetishists do not know or will gloss over Ernst Jünger’s work with Lukacs in ARPLAN.

This “cultural Marxist” euphemism is one half American, one half European, and all conservacunt.