Alfred Rosenberg

Thoughts, theories, red pills and shill cucks, it's for us to talk about the stories never told. Alfred Rosenberg.

Other urls found in this thread:

youtu.be/fXo3R0_Pj7Q?t=1h5m9s
amazon.com/Myth-20th-Century-Alfred-Rosenberg/dp/1467987581/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1489537633&sr=8-1&keywords=the myth of the twentieth century
youtube.com/watch?v=X77dkiDpBoM&list=PL8N4Xw3MtJJzF1YzQJ-fq0r8qYqyLPQkv
aryanism.net/downloads/books/ramon-bau/wagnerian-conception-of-the-world.pdf
aryanism.net/downloads/books/houston-chamberlain/political-ideology-of-richard-wagner.pdf
twitter.com/SFWRedditVideos

Why didn't they just get Heidegger or Schmitt to write a better theory, philosophy of National Socialism. Rosenberg wasn't smart.

...

Nonetheless, Rosenberg was still a very important member in the party with a high position.

You're telling me Hitler said all this in a table talk? The details so well articulated, he remembered and knew everything that happened in relation to the book?

I'm reading "The Myth" as we speak. As a German I have never been more fascinated by a work of literature. The amount of lost/supressed knowledge about our history, our customs, our ways of thinking that reading this book will reveal to you is staggering. A lot of things he references I don't understand. Every page seems to contain a whole library worth of studies. It makes me feel like a total idiot that just woke up to the fact that Idiocracy is already here.

I recommend reading it, especially if you are Deutsch.

Bumo

Hitler had a very keen mind you know.

Mention some examples.

Hitler would never judge a book after merely glancing "cursorily" at it… Furthermore, why does he mention that the Church published some refutations? As if he cared what the Church was thinking about various topics.

After reading that page, I am absolutely certain that the Table Talks are not genuine, at least it's mixing lies with some truths to hide the most important things.

The Myth is a great work, my favorite part is probably when he talks about Germanic law. - youtu.be/fXo3R0_Pj7Q?t=1h5m9s

Why isn't anyone ever pointing out, that Rosenberg was a hook-nosed Jew?

I'd argue Rosenberg was fairly smart, but I don't think he was a terribly good writer. He struggled to express his ideas succinctly and instead would just barrage the reader with information that he never elaborates on.

Because he wasn't? Jewish names are usually also German names, Rosenberg is no different.

checked

I'm about halfway through reading it. It's incredibly tame even if I were a normie. So far it boils down to 'Other civilization have accomplished great things, but their ways are not our ways and attempted to live as they do has weakened us and we need to find our own path as a race'.

There is a huge difference between German and Jewish names.
If a name ends in -man instead of -mann it's a jew. Examples: Fischermann is German, Walzman is a kike.

If a name is a germanised biblical name it's a Jew. Examples: Abelman, Chafetz.

If a name has anything with flowers, money(precious metals) and peace it's a Jew. Examples: Blumental, Goldberg, Friedman, Rosenbaum, Rosenblatt, Rosenberg.


Also look at his nose, lips and ears. There is nothing Germanic in them. He's looks jewier than Bibi himself.

GTFO

Rosenberg was a baltic german, they tend to have names ending in berg, stein, etc.

-berg is not the point. "rosen" is the main point. German names originated based on occupation or town of residence. Since the Jews didn't belong anywhere in particular and never did any honest work, they based their names on flowers, metals and gems.

Rosenberg is a common surname among Baltic Germans and Swedes. In this case it means "red mountain".

also this, swedes tend to have names ending in berg as well such as lindberg or osterberg

Don't let the shills deceive you. They don't want you to read his book, it's too dangerous; he was hanged for it. They want you to read kosher alt-light books instead.

You read my mind OP. I just started reading The Myth last night. My question is what I should read before I read that because as said he isn't really great at elaborating. What I got from the first 20 pages was


But what these Gods stand for or represent eludes me in his long winded examples that he doesn't actually explain and relies on you to have previous knowledge.

"The foundations of the 19th century" would be the obvious start. But I warn you, it's not that easier. It really showed me, how far the educational standard in Europe has dropped in the last decades. It was an extremely popular book back then (hundred thousands), but with todays highschool history background, it's tough.

I have barely started The Myth it so I have no opinion, but as for alt-right/lite, there has been good shit in the book pack, but the last one had vk clark, grids johnson, and an amren kike. Make of that what you will.

If you read both The Myth and Table Talks this doesnt really come as a surprise. Hitler didn't like the fact that Rosenberg openly criticized christianity. And I do concur that it's way too complex for a official release of the party.
The myth is not connected with the party but it is very much connected to National Socialism. It's a brilliant work created by a man, and not a party, to reflect on a worldview and not on politics.

his book would have been a lot better had they discovered DNA during his time.

BOW DOWN TO THE REAL HISTORY OF THE ARYAN RACE YOU MUDBLOOD "white" CATHOLICS

Something doesn't add up with you and your claims

100% Advanced Redpill, if you're new you are not ready for this.


Every time.


I wonder how much was lost in translation. I'm having the same experience as I slog through it. I typically have to reread a lot and usually pause to google things from every page.


Because he wasn't.

His book is not a science report. Even if he would have know about DNA, the book would probably have remained the same.

Thanks for the recommendation.
nb4 kike mods lock the thread for "muh books"

Yeah we'll just ignore everything he said about the past was correct and DNA matches. Let's talk more about Moses and Jesus and the 6 day creation

What doesnt add up? That Hitler very much disliked Christianity (like everyone should), but didn't want to divide the people on something he thought would wither away by itself.

REMINDER


THERE IS A BEAUTIFUL VERSION WITH PICTURES OF HIS BOOK ON YOUTUBE

What are you even on about?

No, that the only person Hitler's close friend and the only one he trusted to put in command of the party in the earliest days while he was in prison, the guy who wrote the literal fucking draft of Aryan destiny and the future intentions of the new Reich, the draft for out entire race is somehow belittled by some rumor spreading kike like you.

DOTR

No absolutely read it, just be prepared for a more difficult read.

Srsly, what the fuck are you talking about? I dont understand what you are trying to say.

Hitler had a problem with party members OPENLY criticizing Christianity. It was fine within the party but the church still held a lot of power.

Nice one.

The Church and Jews killed the natural faith of National Socialism.

CHRISTIANITY HOW THE JEWS RULE THE WEST

That's also one reason Hitler disliked Christianity.
Just to make things clear, Hitler was not an atheist or wanted atheism for Germany in any way, but organized "metaphysical bolshevism" and an institute with political power other that the state in the state he was very much against.
What people must understand is that you can praise thing for their achievement and have respect for them but still dislike them. For example Hitler had great respect for Stalin and praised him for his achievements but he sure as hell hated him.

Chamberlain is a really good recommendation. I would also suggest reading Gobineau's "The Inequality of Human Races". Chamberlain and Gobineau were both connected to Wagner and this is not a coincidence. If you want to get the full picture of National Socialism as a Weltanschauung, and not simply as a political party, then Wagner is a central piece in this. Richard Wagner is a tough nut to crack because his Gesamtkunstwerk is highly artistic and art is too complicated for most anons.

Hitler was a Wagnerian by the way and can only be understood through Wagner's works. If you go down that route, you'll also learn that the NSDAP was in no way connected to anything Nietzschean. Nietzsche's writings are more often than not completely contrary to NS, most blatantly revealed in his book "Ecce Homo". And if it's not sometimes, then contradictions of thought appear afterwords somewhere in his writings (or in his previous writings).

Hitler was also strongly influenced by Schopenhauer, who was his favorite philosopher.

Another must read for understanding Hitler is Dietrich Eckhart's "Bolschewismus von Moses bis Lenin" (bolshevism from moses to lenin).This one is pretty short and easily digestible.

I know that Hitler had Nietzsche in his personal library and if i remember correctly, Hitler gave Mussolini Nietzsche's collected work on his birthday.

I was just about to say that.

I thought Hitler was influenced by Nietzsche though? Then again you could say it's an influence since Schopenhauer was a big influence on Nietzsche.

The Myth of the 20th Century is one of the greatest books ever written. It's a good idea to read The Foundations of the 19th Century by HS Chamberlain before starting The Myth

I have heard of this before but I have actually never seen any "proof" of it. But I do know that Hitler read Nietzsche.

Some of my favorite quotes from the book:

"Aryan India gave the world a metaphysic which has never since been equalled; Aryan Persia constructed for us the religious Myth from which we still draw sustenance; Doric Hellas had a dream of earthly beauty which we see in static perfection never again attained; Italic Rome taught us that formal state discipline with which a threatened community must fashion and defend itself. And Germanic Europe gave to mankind its most radiant ideal. It taught the necessity of character as the foundation for all culture, and the highest values of the Nordic nature—the concepts of honour and freedom of conscience. This was fought for on battlefields everywhere as well as in the studies of scholars. If it does not triumph in the great struggle which is coming, the west and its blood will perish, just as India and Hellas are dissolved forever in chaos"

On the Germanic greatness of heart:
"This greatness of heart, which is shaped allegorically forever in Siegfried, which presupposes with an opponent the same valuing of honour and open form of battle, indeed whose childlike honesty cannot believe the contrary, has contributed to many a hard defeat for the Germans in the course of their history; once when it began to admire Rome, in recent times when it carried out the emancipation of the Jews and thereby granted poison equal rights with healthy blood. The first took a terrible revenge in the wars of the heretics, in the Thirty Years War which brought Germany close to the abyss; the second has its revenge today when the poisoned German national body is seized by the gravest convulsions. And both these powers, hostile to us, still call upon the greatness of heart found with the gravely sick, call for the latter’s justice, preach love of all humanity, and make efforts to finally gnaw away all remaining resistance of character"

On Roman Catholicism:
"It is characteristic of Roman Christianity that where possible it eliminates the personality of its founder, in order to put in its place the church structure of a rulership by priests. Jesus is admittedly set up as the highest and holiest, as the source of all faith and bliss, but only for the purpose of investing the church representing him with the halo of an eternal and untouchable glory. For between Jesus and man, the church and its representatives intrude with the assertion that the way to Jesus can only lie through the church. Since Jesus does not live upon earth, man is in fact only concerned with this church which is fully authorised to bind or release forever"

On real Germanic religion (as represented by Meister Eckehart):
"Such freedom and serenity of soul toward everything, even in the face of god, reveals the profoundest depths into which we can follow the Nordic concepts of honour and freedom. It is that mighty fortress of the soul, that spark of which Meister Eckehart speaks again and again with awed admiration; it represents the most inward, the most sensitive and yet the strongest essence of our race and culture. Eckehart does not give this innermost essence a name, since the pure subject of perceiving and willing must be nameless, without essence, and separated from all forms of time and space. However, today we may venture to describe this spark as representing the metaphysical allegory of the ideas of honour and freedom. In the last analysis, honour and freedom are not external qualities but spiritual essences independent of time and space forming the fortress from which the real will and reason undertake their sorties into the world"

"With his anti-Roman religion, his moral teachings and his critique of cognition, Eckehart consciously separated himself, indeed abruptly, from all basic tenets of both the Roman and the later Lutheran churches. In place of the static Jewish Roman outlook, he asserts the dynamic of the Nordic western soul; in place of monistic violence he demands the recognition of the duality of all life; in place of the doctrine of subjection and blissful slavery, he preaches belief in freedom of soul and will; in place of ecclesiastical arrogance by the representatives of god, he places the honour and nobility of the spiritual personality; instead of enraptured, self subjecting love, he offers the aristocratic ideal of personal spiritual detachment and loneliness; in place of the violation of nature appears its perfection. And all this means that in place of the Jewish Roman view of the world, the Nordic spiritual creed appears as the inward side of German Teutonic man—of the Nordic race"

"The religious concept of Christianity is false. True religion is the personal relationship to god"

On women:
"Translated into present day language, the Germanic Myth says: In the hand and in the nature of woman lies the preservation of our race. A people can still pull itself up out of political servitude, but never again from racial pollution. If the women of a nation give birth to black or Jewish bastards, if the muddy tide of black art passes unhindered over Europe as today, if the Jewish brothel literature comes into homes, if the Syrian of the Kurfürstendamm is also regarded as a folkish comrade and a marriageable man—then such conditions will ensure that Germany—and the whole of Europe—will be populated in its intellectual centres by bastards. With the teaching of erotic rebirth, the Jew of today reaches out—aided by the teachings of the emancipation of women—at the roots of our entire being. Just when an awakening Germany will reach the stage of carrying out a merciless cleansing with an iron broom and with ruthless discipline is uncertain. But, if anywhere, then in the preaching of remaining pure in race, lies the holiest and greatest task of woman today. This means the guarding and preserving of that unconscious, of that still unconcentrated, but particularly original, life. We speak here of the life upon which the substance of art, architectonics and of our racial culture are dependent. Those values which alone make us creative"

On law:
"The idols of the 19th century were trade and profit. All laws were related to this principle, all property became wares, and all art goods for trading. Religion in the colonies and in the missions to heathens were tools for opium dealers, diamond racketeers and plantation owners. In vain the national idea struggled against the dissipation of our racially intrinsic life. It was too weak, because it was not an all embracing Myth, but was only held to be one value among others. For a long time there were no supreme values, only convenient aids to exploitation. Thus law also became the whore of economy, that is, the profit seeking of money which determined politics. The German democracy of November, 1918 signified the victory of the dirtiest racketeering idea which the world had ever seen. Therefore, if today we represent a law as it was sketched at the beginning, then this signifies a deliberate attack upon the essence of all present day democracies and their Marxist forerunners. It signifies the destruction of the idea of honour in favour of the dishonourable concept of capitalism. We demand the complete rule of what is folkish over every form of internationalism. This idea must be uniformly served by everything which strives for predominance today: religion, politics, law, art, schools and social doctrine. From the demand for protection of the honour of the folk there follows, as a most important measure, the protection of folk and race"

On the Jews:
"If the actively willed organic lie is the death of the Nordic man, then this also signifies the vital element of Jewry. Expressed paradoxically, the constant lie is the organic truth of the Jewish antirace. The fact that the real content of the concept of honour is remote, draws with it a swindle which is often a commandment of religious law. Such is laid down in the Talmud and in the Schulchan Aruch in a monumentally frank way. That brutal searcher for truth, Schopenhauer, called the Jews the great masters of lies. Further, they are a nation of shopkeepers and swindlers, according to Kant. Because this is so, the Jew cannot attain mastery in a state which is supported by enhanced concepts of honour. For exactly the same reason, however, the German cannot really live within the democratic system and be fruitful. Capitalist democracy is built up upon mass swindling and exploitation in great and small things. Either one overcomes it after being poisoned ideally and materially, or else he perishes without salvation from sins against his organic truth"

The hierarchy:
"We set up the following biological classification priority:
1-Race soul
2-Folkhood
3-Personality
4-Culture Cycle
The race soul is not touchable. Nevertheless, it is represented and crowned by the blood linked folkhood. Symbolically it is concentrated in the great personalities who worked creatively to produce a culture cycle which in its turn is borne by race and race soul. This totality is not only spirit. It is both spirit and will. Thus it is a life totality. The constituent of the folkhood is organically guided back to its primal blood soul basis, not to some inessential culture cycle or bloodless combinations of mankind. We cannot see how the rich folkish culture could unfold in a Faceless, soulless state or culture."

Anyone read blood and honour by Rosenberg? I have wanted to buy it for a very long time now but i dont have the money.
And btw has anyone read Alfred Rosenberg: Political Essays selected by Alexander Jacobs? That book is super rare. No one has it in stock and the only one I can find to buy is $62.41. So if someone has actually read it and know if it's good let me know.

- Nietzsche, Ecce Homo

Does this look like something that Hitler would gift to Mussolini? There is a lot more, but in summary… whereas I see an Aryan spirit in Hitler's, Rosenberg's, Chamberlain's and Gobineau's writings, I only see a Jewish spirit in Nietzsche's work. It took me some time to realize this, but once I got this, I began to see it everywhere. Pay attention to when he's boasting in his writings (like he's the greatest philosopher of all time), it's a sign that he just copied and plagiarized material of another author. Sometimes he transforms it by negating the concept and similar journalistic tricks. It's the definition of chutzpah.

This is why he became very popular only long after the war. From wiki:

Keywords are "lower academia circles"

...

Show me a quote of hitler saying anything about Nietzsche in public or private speech.

He never did. The only connection they have is Nietzsches sister.

His friend Elisabeth Förster-Nietzsche was the writers sister, and hitler and her were friends.
She was at his inauguration, he was told who she was and gave her a bundle of flowers.
She then in return gave him Nietzsches walking cone and he in turn helped her with Subventionen for building Nietzsche centers etc.

Like I said in i dont have any. I only know that he had Nietzsche in his library and that he gave Nietzsche to Mussolini. So surely he read Nietzsche but i dont have anything suggesting that he took inspiration from Nietzsche.

This is the only thing I know of that is from Hitler personally.

Where can a man get such a nice copy of that book?

Isn't table talk a fabrication by some butthurt jew?

The table talks from 1945 is fake, but according to Irving the 1941-44 is legit. It's really good nonetheless, legit or fake.

Maybe partially. But I'm also having trouble with the original German version because he mentions a lot of things that even google has little information on (names of old tribes, obscure people, places etc.)

amazon.com/Myth-20th-Century-Alfred-Rosenberg/dp/1467987581/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1489537633&sr=8-1&keywords=the myth of the twentieth century

...

This is why I despise all parties involved that allowed this to happen to Germany.

Nietzsche surpassed Schopenhauer in pessimism.


2nd quote is pure gold

Before the promotion of Nietzsche the prevailing view among German intellectuals was that Nietzsche was a semi-Jew/Jew, and a literary fraudster. And probably a fag too, because he displayed symptoms of Syphilis and lost his Prussian citizenship. Nietzsche’s best friends were Jewish, namely Lou Andreas-Salome and Paul Ree. Before Wagner cut all ties with him, Nietzsche reproached him for anti-Semitism.

It's tough to reveal Nietzsche for what he is, and I'm not judging anyone for not seeing it because it's hidden and mixed with good stuff stolen from other authors. Pay attention to his contradictions, anti-Germanism, subtle praise of Judaism, anti-Spirituality, deliberate mistakes, etc.

- Houston Stewart Chamberlain, letter to Vult von Steyern (1898)

- Richard Wagner

==test==

...

Here is an abridged audio version if anyone else is like me and listens to stuff while at work:

youtube.com/watch?v=X77dkiDpBoM&list=PL8N4Xw3MtJJzF1YzQJ-fq0r8qYqyLPQkv

You seem like a man that knows what he is talking about. What is your opinion on Spengler? I personally cant really get a hold of him. I quite liked Yockey but im quite indecisive about Spengler.

Nope, Shlomo, he doesnt. Thin equal lips, typical Kelto Nordid nose, hig positioned Cro-magnon type ears. Also, high, not sloped forehead, deep set eyes. Mesocephalic. Alpinised Kelto Nordid aka Subnordid.
t. Taxonomist
now fuck off, shill

We were sad to see you go m8. Zyklon Benny sends his regards.

I really do like this place sometimes.

During WW1 his fellow soldiers thought he was kind of strange because he spent most of his free time reading Schopenhauer. The description of him from his fellow fighters makes him out to be an eccentric but fanatically brave antisocial autist. Somehow Schopenhauer seems like such a fitting philosopher to read while dodging machine gun fire as you pass messages between trenches.

(1/2)

I read myth as well as his memoirs he wrote at Nuremberg (recently released in English).

It was interesting to read Memoirs moreso. Whereas Myth was painting his world as he wanted it to be, Memoirs was him more or less trying to make all of these excuses for failures, and….

… well, in the end, I was somewhat disappointed that nowhere in his memoirs (or maybe I missed it), he didn't see that maybe there was less wrong with NS, maybe it was less about Hitler's "errors" or this or that, and more about the fact that too much of the Western world was already in the hands of the Jews, and they had enough power to mobilize their mobs in other countries – countries which were full of mobs much more so than Germany which was a critical-thinking country.

I was disappointed that Rosenberg didn't see that it was always a "last hurrah of the Spartans," that nothing they could've done probably could've saved them, as liberalism, Jewish control, all of this power in this tidal wave that was amassing since the French Revolution at least (maybe since Christianity?) was too powerful.

Spengler was right. Spengler was more of a true philosopher and clear-thinker, whereas Rosenberg was just an idealistic ideologue who thought that if they lost, they did something wrong.

Nothing NS or the Italian Fascists could've done would've stopped the desire of, as Churchill said "that Germany wouldn't let herself be profited off of in a world economy was her sin," and quotes like that. That the Jews who ran the rest of the West had their grips on the fourth estate as well as government, as well as major money control, and they just had to say "okay Germany and Italy, you want to do this? You want to kick us out, "persecute us," not let us enslave you? Then we'll use our slave mobs in other countries and beat you with sheer force!"

You can't say people like Mosley didn't try in England, but the English were always only one step above the Americans in critical thinking capacities and ideals, and much more like the Americans than the Germans in their soulless Jewish materialistic worldview.

I don't know. I just came away from it all feeling men like Rosenberg, while he had some flashes of brilliance at times, wasn't the sage that a Spengler was, or a Ludwig Klages, or an Evola.

A second-rate philosopher at best, and as far as I understand, much of the party considered him something of a crank. He was very visible in the rise to power, but afterwards, he was more or less marginalized for more effective shapers of public opinion like Goebbels (and he bitched about this a lot in Memoirs).

2/2

The irony is how this guy bitterly fought against the likes of Spengler and Klages. On the one hand I get it, you don't want defeatism to poison the ranks among the public, who are easily demoralized. On the other hand, he was probably sitting in his cage at Nuremberg thinking "they were right…"

There is no getting around the fact that, as Hitler put it quite well when he said something like "it is a crime to share our technical knowledge with foreigners who will only use it against us to compete on the world stage," which was really just an echo of what Spengler said in Man and Technics, these realities are at the core of why whites today are so powerless, in a world where we have no real weapons to subjugate the majority, in a world where we are most certainly a minority, we are run by a ragged mob of mongrels of all races, and at the top is a cabal of Jews who got their hands on every lever of power, in a world where money is God, and every woman of ours will be a whore for it who will sing their tune, as will most of their men, to maximize their fashion collection, their vacations, their job prestige, etc.

And then there is the fear of survival. People won't speak out because they aren't rich and know they'll be fired and soon enough homeless and suicidal. At least in the 1920's those brownshirts all had some form of welfare while on unemployment and didn't have to worry about living under a bridge sucking cock for a piece of bread like an American would today if they got outed and fired or kicked out of school. They'd quickly be made persona non-grata to any employer, low or high.

And thus, free speech truly is a myth, with these established organizationslike the ADL, the SPLC, and the hordes on social media of leftists who will inform your place of employment with veritable mob harrassment.

THAT is what is feared, that is why those who think like us are all quiet in the real world.

This country wouldn't even exist if such conditions existed in revolutionary America. Those men were in houses and taverns and whatnot saying things that we today wouldn't even dream of saying on the internet even in fear of the surveillance state that always sees us! Does someone here not think that those revolutionary Americans were talking about how they'll do away with the redcoats? How those revolutionary Frenchmen weren't talking about the most murderous notions?

That isn't possible in today's world. They've truly locked it all down.

In reality, they were already hopeless, but Hitler and those among him that knew what was going on, just wanted to make history, and go out like the Spartans did. They would've rather died gloriously and tragically like heroes than live like the losers that the bourgeoisie of Weimar did, who still lived like losers after the war, getting raped by Red Army scum, having all of their men between teenage years and 40-something in pits of shit waiting to die, while the children were being indoctrinated to be the future slave generation of Germany.

All is lost. Enjoy the decline. If you wish to fight, don't be a bitch, speak your mind, for your life isn't worth shit in this world, if you have any standards, because this world isn't worth shit if you have any conception of how men of the West were truly free in history.

And THAT is what the NS truly thought.

The Nuremberg show trials will presently be over and our fates decided, Let my confession stand behind them: National Socialism was the European answer to a century-old question.It was the noblest of ideas which a German could give all his strenght. It made the German nation a gift of unity. It gave the German Reich a new content. It was a social philosophy
and an ideal of blood-conditioned cultural cleanliness. National Socialism was misussed, and in the end demoralised, by men whom its creator had most fatefully given his confidenceThe collapse of the Reich is historicaly linked with this. But the idea itself was action and life, and that cannot and will not be forgotten. As other great ideas knew heights and depths,
National Socialism too will be reborn someday in a new generation steeled by sorrow and will create in a new form a new Reich for the Germans,Historically ripened,it will then have fused
the power of belief with political caution,in its peasant soil it will grow from healthy roots into a strong tree that will bear sound fruit. National Socialism was the content of my active life. I served it faithfully, albeit with some blundering and human insufficenty, i shall remain true to it as long as i still live. Alfred Rosenberg

Spengler was wrong and you are a cuck that has lost faith in humanity kys faggot

Spengler was without a doubt an intelligent man and I don't think that working through his Magnum Opus would do any harm. As long as one doesn't take his ideas as gospel, though. It's a good starting point on one's jouney for it gives you at least something to compare other ideas against. Then again, it's huge, so you need to think about whether it's worth spending so much time digesting it. Reading Yockey afterwards surely increases your return on investment in this regard.

Personally, I think that Count de Gobineau's "The Inequality of Human Races" is far superior because it explains the causes of the decline of civilizations which Spengler left in the mists of some organic entropic cycles. The Third Reich believed in the possibility of reversing entropy, which was coincidentally also the origin of the conflict of Rosenberg/the S.S. with Spengler (probably also with Evola's defacto "spiritual Spenglerism"). Rosenberg even wrote a little essay dealing with Spengler's view, but it's short and not all-encompassing.

In my opinion, Hitler refuted the Spenglerian predictions of an irreversible decadence of civilizations as a mechanist-organic law. Spengler's views seem to be congruent with the interests of macro-capitalism/globalism, whereas Hitler revealed its fundamental role in causing said decadence. Of course, you could argue that, well, what did he prove exactly, he lost the war, hasn't he?… Yes, you're right, but I don't think it's that easy. But maybe it's just me…

Somehow the struggle was and is just on a complete different level for me instictively, spiritually, what have you. I can't quite comprehend what really happened and I think that the ripple effects are yet to be experienced. I leave it at that.

I bet this is that spic chechar tbh.
ecce homo was mostly just banter to piss people off while nietzsche lost his mind. thus spake zarathustra, the gay science, beyond good and evil, the geneology of morals and the antichrist are in no way shape or form "judaic".

I fucking hate this puritanical LARPer crap on Holla Forums, this faggot is using ((wiki)) to try to prove that Nietzsche was a jew or something. this board is full of fucking morons tbh

fucking autistic tier comprehension if you can't enjoy the triple layered shitposting in the anti-christ

Bravo, well said.

Well said.

That is the question. Perhaps mentioning Savitri Devi's concept of there being men against (Hitler), with (Trump?) and above (?) time could be helpful. I think there are more or less objective Spenglerian bio-civilizational laws and processes, but in true Aryan tradition a hero can stem the tide and let shine a light into eternity.

He's delusional to think that the Aristocratic race of the Romans/Greeks were blue eyes and blonde hair.

I think the Flavius family were Blonde, I'd suspect, since the name means yellow or golden in Latin, however most Roman rulers probably had dark or light brown but fair hair. Similar to modern Mediterraneans. I would still agree that rulers of the Roman Republic were less Mongrolized than the modern Southern Italian. This of course depends on the class of the person; my family derives from Sicilia yet my brother looks like a modern Cataline. Grandmother has blonde hair and blue eyes. However this difference between Plebeian and patrician doesn't account for the success of Rome. The Roman soldiers would have had to been at the least equal to his master Aryan opponents, whom he had conquered from the Rubicon to Hadrian's wall, to the Danube, to Syria. His greatest mistake is his pure Aryanism, that mystic knowledge of a superior race and being. Unfortunately, nor data nor history support his claims of a Blonde Aristocracy in Europe. Hell, half the German and French Kings from 500-1500 ad looked Italian.

Idiots.

Everybody in this thread, listen to this man.

Why is this thread bumplocked?

As history has repeatedly taught us,
Mods = Gods

Why does a good thread like this get bumplocked?

Why the fuck did this get bumplocked? What happened to this place

Mods are Jews, trannies and faggots, Owner of Holla Forums is a Mason, what do you expect? See >>>/polk/745

as an aside, are you talking about "The unforgivable sin of Hitler's Germany was to develop a new economic system by which the international bankers were deprived of their profits."?
I can't find a source on that, curious if it's disinfo. I only ask because someone was using the other "unforgiveable crime" fake quote the other day.

k


funny way to say comfortable and lazy

either you've never been to america or you live in a fully pozzed city.

It always has been, actions have consequences and speaking is an action, but when people talk about free speech they are talking about legal consequences, which…
Faggot, the difference is that they could have been hanged for what they said, and the exact same shit has always been said in america. And what is this demoralisation shit about us the all-seeing feds? Where do you think you are?

>rape and shit and slave visualisation

It's one thing to be a realist, but this is someone trying to poison us.

I wish I would have read this first.

Could you elucidate upon exactly what Hitler being a Wagnerian entails, how did Wagner's art form the basis for Hitler's political philosophy?.

I have actually not read these but they might help.
aryanism.net/downloads/books/ramon-bau/wagnerian-conception-of-the-world.pdf
aryanism.net/downloads/books/houston-chamberlain/political-ideology-of-richard-wagner.pdf

I heartily encourage you to go to any American college and talk like you talk on pol and see how quickly you're kicked out.

I heartily encourage you to go to any place of business and start talking among co-workers about seditious kikes, the Jewish problem, racial problems with all of these niggers in America, how whites are going extinct, and see how quickly your fucking ass is fired.

Then what sir? Do you think your unemployment will last forever? Do you think you'll be able to get another job in the same industry – if you actually have a real respectable job and not just entry-level wagecucking – when your CV now has no references to call?

Ah, but you probably don't work any real considerable career, where you'd actually be hired on previous work experience and references, but rather just shit jobs. In that case, you can spout niggers at your walmart stock-shelving gig, and get fired, and go to Target, do the same, then go to McDonalds and Burger King and do the same.

Anyone who actually has a livelihood knows that they risk everything if they "reveal their power level."

I ask you quite frankly then, how else do you explain that there is so much "anonymous hate" online, be it youtube comments, the legions on Holla Forums here and halfchan, but in the real world, these opinions are nowhere to be seen?

So then, as you say, you're calling all of the whites lazy complacent cowards?

Then you deserve your slavery. Shut your fucking mouth.

I wasn't quiet when I was in college though I wasn't fully redpilled, it bothered people and I had a few liberal professors fuck with my grades, but plenty of people would agree with me. I don't work for a big corporation, so I can talk politics or religion or any other taboo topic if I feel like it, and anyone not already turned off is eager for the chance.

I have never taken unemployment and will not.

If your industry is male dominated, yes.

false dichotomy, good jobs and complete silence, or bad jobs and shitposting

Why are you working for the enemy? People who aren't complete shit will respect you if you are coherent but scorn political correctness.

It's easier, and selection bias in your case.

Obviously not

WHAT IS IRONY?

I read the second pdf by Chamberlain fully, and I didn't expect this at all… this guy is a genius. I am so delighted that you linked to it in this thread. I've never read such a good treatise about Richard Wagner. This is absolutely a required reading. Thank you! Funnily enough, it goes exactly into the discussion that developed here in this thread.

The first pdf by Ramón Bau on the other hand, which I only skimmed, I can't recommend. You can read it of course, maybe to note some general interesting things to look up later. But the author isn't in the slighest of the calibre of an intellectual giant like Chamberlain. And I don't really think that he has something to add to Chamberlain's text, he'll rather detract from it.

I don't get why Ramon mentions Nietzsche so often. He had no influence on Wagner, it was the other way around. Coincidentally Chamberlain doesn't mention him at all. My personal guess is that the shattering of Nietzsche's intellect is partly connected with his break with Wagner. But who knows, I don't really care. Please no bully, I am outnumbered in regards to my opinion on Nietzsche… I can only recommend the above pdf.

I have only read one text by Chamberlain and it was democracy and freedom. It was a bit hard to follow when he talk mostly about other peoples works but his own word where brilliant. I will try to read his text on Wagner.