Schoep's (and the NSM's) Stance Against Mein Kampf
For a good while in my time in the National Socialist Movement I became aware of the political misgivings that I had regarding public stances regarding policy, politics, and the concept of racial identity comparatively speaking when working out the applicability of Mein Kampf and the teachings of Adolf Hitler into an American sort of National Socialism.
I am prepared to take some things on faith; but I became an ardent believer in Adolf Hitler even before I admitted to myself as being a National Socialist, and only in the sense of the literal translation. My father when growing up, even in Oregon lived in an area still populated by German farmers (now pushed out by real-estate developers) and spoke it fluently, hence his distaste for Rammstein, understanding fully what they say. So I have to take the translated versions of Mein Kampf as being at least reasonably accurate. I can't speak German well enough to not embarrass myself, although I work on rectifying that now that my time in University is over.
So why is it that even a simple man like myself with only the cursory understanding of written German can understand that the National Socialist Movement has blatantly disregarded the words of Mein Kampf? Is the uniform, symbols and ceremony mere pomposity where compared against true believers whom I've noticed by and large did not flock to the so-called "party"? It may be because those who don't flock to the personality cult realized far earlier (or had more experience than I as a young man) knew from an early period the public (and indeed private) musings of Schoep took the road of expediency instead of a stance of faith in Hitler?
I'm speaking specifically of his interviewed opinion and forum postings within the member's only section (of which I no longer have access) that each people's have a right to national self-determination. Borders and traditional geography must play a part in understanding the world stage and drawing up of borders as regards to territory alloted to a specific people. So by association, the Negroes have their right to territory in Africa, and Jews deserve a specific homeland (although this is the notable exception to his logic and the issue is never formally addressed) and so on. This is in direct contrast against the written words of Adolf Hitler as will be explained through the remainder of this posting:
So the statement establishes that the goal of any foreign policy should be the matching of living space (in literally size) the population needs of a people. Hitler, unlike the National Socialist movement didn't believe that living space could be limited in artificial means, e.g. through abortions, euthanasia or other methods. The National Socialist Movement however in point 20 subsection A states "By prohibiting abortion and euthanasia, except in cases of rape, incest, race-mixing, or mental retardation
To state that all races have a unique right to their own homeland then is contradictory of Hitler.
But Hitler reputes this as well saying that trade in a de-facto sort of multi-racial empire leaves a nation open to coercion as is the NSM with regards to their weak-kneed approach to racial policy. Such was the case of the Austro-Hungarian empire. Schoep called Jim Ramm a "genocidal man" but this too is a deception of liberalism; that the weak should be allowed to propagate. There is no such thing as a right to life according to Hitler, only to struggle to remain strong.
We are seeing the effects of pure breeding, similar to rabbits or other varmints in the natural world which serve no productive purpose on the whole of things, and are consequently destroyed by natural process. Allowing the Mexicans, or Africans, or Jews their right to a homeland provides them permanent bases from which to wage war on our soil of which we are not in mind to defend. The equation of numbers is simple, they have more. Those numbers must be reduced to ensure the survival of our race.
But why should the NSM care? Schoep will at best live to be the average age of 78, and by that time the money he's extracted from believers will be secure and his deceit will be complete. Sell what you can, and the NSM remains a group of cowards, much akin to a teenager sporting a Mohawk to irritate his parents. Rebellious, but harmless in it's effect on others. Such is the case with their rallies, websites and other inflammatory but politically correct jargon. He has all the hallmarks of a Liberal; welfare, obsession with race, and curious acquisition of wealth although he denounces anyone else who tries to get a piece of the pie. Petty, but with no family backing to prop him up. Were he to come from wealth, it might stand to reason he'd be a dyed in the wool Democrat, the similarities are too eerie to ignore.
I am prepared to take some things on faith; but I became an ardent believer in Adolf Hitler even before I admitted to myself as being a National Socialist, and only in the sense of the literal translation. My father when growing up, even in Oregon lived in an area still populated by German farmers (now pushed out by real-estate developers) and spoke it fluently, hence his distaste for Rammstein, understanding fully what they say. So I have to take the translated versions of Mein Kampf as being at least reasonably accurate. I can't speak German well enough to not embarrass myself, although I work on rectifying that now that my time in University is over.
So why is it that even a simple man like myself with only the cursory understanding of written German can understand that the National Socialist Movement has blatantly disregarded the words of Mein Kampf? Is the uniform, symbols and ceremony mere pomposity where compared against true believers whom I've noticed by and large did not flock to the so-called "party"? It may be because those who don't flock to the personality cult realized far earlier (or had more experience than I as a young man) knew from an early period the public (and indeed private) musings of Schoep took the road of expediency instead of a stance of faith in Hitler?
I'm speaking specifically of his interviewed opinion and forum postings within the member's only section (of which I no longer have access) that each people's have a right to national self-determination. Borders and traditional geography must play a part in understanding the world stage and drawing up of borders as regards to territory alloted to a specific people. So by association, the Negroes have their right to territory in Africa, and Jews deserve a specific homeland (although this is the notable exception to his logic and the issue is never formally addressed) and so on. This is in direct contrast against the written words of Adolf Hitler as will be explained through the remainder of this posting:
"We National Socialists must never under any circumstances join in the foul hurrah-patriotism of our present bourgeois world. In particular it is mortally dangerous to regard the last pre-War developments as binding even in the slightest degree for our own course. From the whole historical development of the nineteenth century, not a single obligation can be derived which was grounded in this period itself. In contrast to the conduct of the representatives of this period, we must again profess the highest aim of all foreign policy, to wit: to bring the soil into harmony with the population. Yes, from the past we can only learn that, in setting an objective for our political activity, we must process in two directions: land and soil as the goal of our foreign policy,and a new philosophically established, uniform foundation as the aim of political activity at home."The resurgence of Aryan bloodlines would have to follow then, that these are not the be all, end-alls of racial policy, as they seem to be with the NSM; the stabilization of National Borders or a set aside in the mode of the White Homeland movement domestically. This is in contradiction to Hitler; the racial purification of our people isn't the end itself; it's a step on the way. Our people would have to seek living space abroad. It should also logically follow that instead of mere deportation, eventually some sort of conflict would have to arise with the nations surrounding, or the racial elements within those areas of the Southwest now currently being overtaken by mixed breed elements.
Mein Kampf, 593
So the statement establishes that the goal of any foreign policy should be the matching of living space (in literally size) the population needs of a people. Hitler, unlike the National Socialist movement didn't believe that living space could be limited in artificial means, e.g. through abortions, euthanasia or other methods. The National Socialist Movement however in point 20 subsection A states "By prohibiting abortion and euthanasia, except in cases of rape, incest, race-mixing, or mental retardation
To state that all races have a unique right to their own homeland then is contradictory of Hitler.
"If a man believes that he can enter into profitable connections with parasites, he like a tree trying to conclude for its own profit an agreement with mistletoe."Hitler's correct understand of racial biology and the nature of race should point to the fact that we all intuitively understand. Races which do not expand, will die. This is the situation the Nordic peoples are currently facing today due to diseases of liberalism, communism, Jewish influence in all regards. Since Hitler states that it can't be limited by artificial means, and races which do not expand will perish (and rightfully so) it follows that a people or race must expand to survive, and to conquer violently land adjacent to their home. This is in direct contradiction to Schoep's assertion that all races have a right to a homeland; a sort of watered down "Zionism for White People" while still maintaining the mistletoe, or international commerce and trade for keeping out people sustained.
But Hitler reputes this as well saying that trade in a de-facto sort of multi-racial empire leaves a nation open to coercion as is the NSM with regards to their weak-kneed approach to racial policy. Such was the case of the Austro-Hungarian empire. Schoep called Jim Ramm a "genocidal man" but this too is a deception of liberalism; that the weak should be allowed to propagate. There is no such thing as a right to life according to Hitler, only to struggle to remain strong.
We are seeing the effects of pure breeding, similar to rabbits or other varmints in the natural world which serve no productive purpose on the whole of things, and are consequently destroyed by natural process. Allowing the Mexicans, or Africans, or Jews their right to a homeland provides them permanent bases from which to wage war on our soil of which we are not in mind to defend. The equation of numbers is simple, they have more. Those numbers must be reduced to ensure the survival of our race.
But why should the NSM care? Schoep will at best live to be the average age of 78, and by that time the money he's extracted from believers will be secure and his deceit will be complete. Sell what you can, and the NSM remains a group of cowards, much akin to a teenager sporting a Mohawk to irritate his parents. Rebellious, but harmless in it's effect on others. Such is the case with their rallies, websites and other inflammatory but politically correct jargon. He has all the hallmarks of a Liberal; welfare, obsession with race, and curious acquisition of wealth although he denounces anyone else who tries to get a piece of the pie. Petty, but with no family backing to prop him up. Were he to come from wealth, it might stand to reason he'd be a dyed in the wool Democrat, the similarities are too eerie to ignore.
No comments:
Post a Comment