The content presented at this web site thewhitenetwork-archive.com is the sole property of the program host and/or writer and The White Network. All rights reserved.
Before copying or re-posting anything from this site, please refer to our Copyright and Re-posting Policy.
Before commenting, please refer to our Comment Policy.
The callers were very effective this time. They were coherent and had intelligent things to say. One thought: the caller from E. TN was at times a little hard to understand, but, by just talking a wee bit more slowly, that would have been fixed. Callers should just remember that the bit rate is not as high as a normal phone call.
The E. TN caller was hard to understand when I heard him call into another program, too. Sometimes he sort of breaks up. Maybe he lives in the mountains. 🙂 I like him, though so I listened real hard.
I just said i’d leave you a link to the golden dawn international newsroom…….. great podcasts, great show as usual and god bless from Ireland…
http://golden-dawn-international-newsroom.blogspot.gr/
The difference between National-Socialism and Fascism is partially explained here: Alfred Rosenberg on the Relationship of National-Socialism to Totalitarianism. Basically Fascism takes less account of the intrinsic character of the people, whereas for National-Socialism this is the main focus. Rosenberg cautioned against the idolatry of the state that was characteristic of Fascism:
Although the German National-Socialists regarded the distinction as important, outside of Germany, the term fascism was used, for example by Lawrence Dennis and Leon Trotsky, as a general term that includes national-socialism.
What I heard André saying is that he preferred the term fascism because it has had less of a stigma inflicted on it.
A look inside my copy of Roger Scruton’s “A Dictionary of Political Thought” leads me to conclude that “national socialism” is more precise overall. For example “fascism” contains little that is specific, beyond an appeal to energy, and action: it is, one might say, the form of an ideology, but without specific content (other than can be provided by admiration towards the leader).” For “national socialism” there seems to be a more detailed program spelled out.
Obviously this dictionary is part of the establishment, and contains silly reasoning. For example, “However, it [national socialism] was from the beginning combined with racist doctrines….” Well, it is national socialism. Born of a type, of a race.
The entry for “national socialism” also states that the ideology permits the elimination of degenerate races, but I think the idea was really to unite the German people, encourage eugenics (common to much thinking and something we must return to), and do something about the ever-interfering Jew.
The only hope for the White race is for the establishment and successful rise of a National Socialist/Fascist party in the US. Europe will not be free to sweep away the enemies of the White race if the US and its armaments are still in the hands of the Jews!!! While I very much like Norman Lowell and the European New Right, the ESSENTIAL Europe is defenseless against the US (naturally), the UK and Russia, as all of the aforementioned are fully under Jewish control (I don’t buy that Russia is really free), and are not really integrated not the EU (UK and Russia)
I very much liked the interview. It is nice to see young people not blinded b the skanky pop culture that poisons our youth (and a lot of older folks too). We will not have a movement that ever grows if we all run off to our own corners with our balls and refuse to play TOGETHER.
If we don’t need more than one political party, then why do we “need” more than one church, one newspaper, one broadcasting network, etc. I think the obsession with National Socialism has led to a kind of tunnel vision. Freedom is a source of white strength which is why enemies of whites try to destroy it.
In 1783, Spanish representative Count Aranda, wrote a letter to his King, just after the peace treaty of that year secured the independence of the new, fledging American republic and he made the following prophecy:
“This federal republic is born a pygmy. A day will come when it will be a giant, even a colossus, formidable in those countries. Liberty of conscience, the facility for establishing a new population on immense lands, as well as the advantage of the new government, will draw thither farmers and artisans from all the nations. In a few years we shall watch with grief the tyrannical existence of this same colossus.”
Aranda, the American founders, and others saw freedom as a source of strength, not weakness. Percipient accounts such as Democracy in America by DeToqueville and historical studies such as Inheriting the Revolution by Joyce Appleby and many others confirm the important role of freedom and free institutions in the development of whites in America.
Now the spokesman of “total fascism” says we need no more than one political party, etc. Who gets to select this party? This goes beyond an attack on destructive public heath hazards such as abortion, drugs, pornography and harmful alien organisms, and is a direct head on assault on fundamental free institutions. The problem is not our free institutions, but white blindness to certain public health hazards.
It’s important to read Mein Kampf, but also to read Madison’s Notes, Democracy in America, The Federalist Papers and other sources of political and historical insight that advocate rather than denigrate freedom.
Our enemies fight to limit our rights of free speech and free association because free white voices and free organized white people are too powerful to rule.
Great interview Carolyn, it’s nice to hear you enjoying yourself with a like minded guest 🙂
I enjoyed listening to Andre and all hearing all his ideas, I have been checking out his website as well; looks good.
Thanks!
I had the impression that Andre objects to the formation of ‘factions’, which were a concern of the Founders as well. The Founders didn’t solve it too well, did they!
If you visit Colonial Williamsburg, the actors speaking for various early Presidents expound a lot on factions. I think they do this because it’s a topic that nobody really believes is important, and that nobody understands, hence, it’s good lite fare for the masses, who, of course, are also spared any awareness of the Founders’ justifiable concerns about the Negro, concerns which are always presented as historicist weaknesses.
This was so good I can barely find the right words to express myself.
Andre has the “right stuff”. We need more people like him and Caroline.
Keep up the good work!
And remember: “Am ende steht der Sieg”.
Something not mentioned in this broadcast, while you were discussing National Socialist Germany is that; the society was based on race, which Hitler understood formed the nation. In a white homogeneous society progress developes organically based on our inherent nature as a people. This is what was, Western Civilization, which is no more.
We once again must begin anew as a people and rebuild our own exclusive nation state. America is still a majority white country but if “We the People” are not willing to resist the Marxist anti-white multiculturalism being forced upon us, then, what is occurring in South Africa will happen here in the United States.
I still do believe America can be restored to our founding principles i.e. “Bill of Rights” but only if as a race we come together as one people. But the dilemma is thus; are there enough of our people willing to fight for what is being stolen from us right now today as I write this? We must somehow convey to our fellow brethren the great danger that looms upon the horizon. God Bless
I liked the last 15 hour the best, its almost a mainstream arguement that could strike a cord in much of the white mass, and could open a line of dialogue amongst all conserned.
Factionalism could be regulated by party action, removing dissidents from within the state machine (the corporate memory of the de facto government). This could be done parlimentarily via a Nationalist party member rating system. This would ensure that only party members who have the skill to function as a government official get and keep the job.(Adhearance to party doctrine and the 4-8 year platform is the only way this thing will work).
I think that keeping democrats around would be a good way to have a controlled dissident faction, at arms length at all times, of course.
I think that racial leaders will be responcible for the behavior of their racial kin, and that they will be replaced by a Nationalist partyman if they cant do the job. All races within the Nationalist sway will mind their business or be subject to hard penaltys (that includes riots like the night of the broken glass, or any riot). Anarchy is unlawful and forbidden in a true civilization.
The masses are starved for leadership, both partys are hated, and
and the people are praying for guidence. This could be a center party that controls 51%, and a minority of neocons and international liberals controling the government of america.
So long foreign aid, the federal reserve, and all the military men back on the soil to help build a modern, self sustaining industrial state from the resources in the western hemisphere (Monroe Doctrine).
Disconnecting New York from the rest of the world will only happen under a Nationalist party government, dont forget that.
I am very encouraged, and could see a day where whole army divisions are filled with partymen and other Nationalist party supporters, and perhaps even a partyman as Secretary of Defense.
@ Don February 6, 2013 at 2:33 pm
http://jimbowery.blogspot.co.uk/2009/07/secession-from-slavery-to-free.html
http://jimbowery.blogspot.co.uk/2012/12/sortocracys-compassion.html
Under a framework of racial solidary obligations …
Thanks Carolyn and Andre for a very interesting podcast.
A highlight for me was Carolyn saying the Hitler’s biggest mistake was not Dunkirk but him being a vegetarian! A lot of groups would be ‘offended’ by such a comment, no doubt.
Irregardless of whether that comment was made only half jokingly, I’d like to hear why you think so Carolyn.
It is interesting to speculate how Hitler would have been different if he had eaten meat. Would he have become more or less successful in dealing with the problems at hand?
As a meat eater I think he would have been more successful, since meat is a natural part of our diet. On the other hand you could say that his vegetarianism was part of a ‘package deal’ that what made Hitler unique.
I was not joking, but serious.
Hitler would only have been healthier if he had eaten meat. He was plagued with physical problems because his diet did not provide the necessary nutrients. Your health affects your performance. I know that his vegetarianism is used to argue against the idea that he was “a bloodthirsty monster.” And certainly he preferred it. It’s not so hard to turn away from meat if you visualize in your mind what you’re actually eating (which he was fond of telling those eating it to do!), but in the end, we see that it didn’t pan out as a good diet. Hitler began taking amphetamines to give him the energy and clarity that he once had without them. I’m not blaming everything on the vegetarianism, but I think it played a role.
I think vegetarianism is quite okay if it includes eggs.
I was quite saddened when Hitler’s vegetarianism was derided as a mistake. Vegetarianism was popular in the culture of NS, and it derives from the thought of Richard Wagner, which includes an ethic of compassion towards all life and nature.
Hitler was often emphatic that those who do not understand Wagner do not understand National Socialism.
If there was a shred of evidence that vegetarianism causes Parkinson’s I would be able to give these comments some respect.
What National Socialists were vegetarians besides Hitler and Hess? Wagner gravitated toward it, but never really became a vegetarian … and he wasn’t a National Socialist anyway. One can have compassion for animals without insisting one must not make use of them for food. In the natural cycle, everything is used for food by some other species.
It’s not certain that Hitler had Parkinson’s disease. It is true that lack of good nutrition – superior nutrition – causes all kinds of eventual failures in the body which can lead to problems that have been given diagnosed names, without being able to show a direct cause/effect relationship.
Hitler’s diet was really inadequate. Yes, he had usually at least one egg a day, sometimes several, usually soft-boiled. A staple seemed to be creamed potatoes with some other vegetables. He had soups – potato soup often. He had desserts, with a weakness for apple cake, and would have a few cookies or cake at tea-time. He ate sparingly though. IMO, he was undernourished, but he believed that more would be too hard on his digestive system. This mostly showed up after 1940 though. He was under incredible pressure, so stomach problems are understandable. But he just didn’t treat it right.
You men are all carried away with the theoretical program and myths (understandable), and don’t want to see the real biological men. The caretakers are the ones that see this. And the biology determines so much.
I was glad when Carolyn pointed this problem out. Multidimensional analysis! Bravo!
I couldn’t believe my ears when you ventured into an area you clearly know very little about. Vegetarianism. I have yet to see a vegetarian who is obese. They don’t seem to suffer from cancer particularly colon cancer to the extent meat eaters do, or heart disease. Most of all they vibrate at a higher level spiritually. Put another way they tread lightly on the planet.
To say that Hitler’s greatest mistake was being a vegetarian is to me beyond stupid, especially if you don’t back up your “hypothesis” with reason. If he was on amphetamines, as you state above, maybe he would not have been had he had a different kind of life with less pressure. He probably had a meat eater prepare his food for him. Not a good idea if you are a vegetarian.
Being a vegetarian is not about meat and two veg. minus the meat! Nor is it eating salad all day long! Vegetarian food prepared properly and done thoughtfully is highly nutritious. There is absolutely no need to eat meat.
Carolyn, how many cows or pigs or sheep have you personally gone out and killed, skinned and gutted etc, in order for you to get your roast beef or whatever ?
I have to go into the butchers to buy dog meat, and I find the smell obnoxious. I doesn’t matter how clean the buthery is, I can’t wait to get of there.
And there is a bit of arrogance in me. I look on meat eaters with a certain amount of contempt.
Actually, I know quite a lot about it.
Joshua, The U.N. is pushing for global vegetarianism. If that’s not enough, the Holowood celebrity cult wishes for nothing more than to have their Goyim admirers believe that their amphetamine chic figures are the result of some hip new vegan diet. Now add in the fact that these advocates of non-meat diets fail to produce any centurians and that the United Nations wishes to reduce global population, leads me to look at vegetarians with a bit of contempt myself.
Carolyn, Thanks for addressing Onkel Adolf’s dietary habits. It’s a subject that needed some clarification, at least for me.
JoshuaF
February 11, 2013 at 6:30 pm
>I couldn’t believe my ears when you ventured into an area you clearly know very little about. Vegetarianism. I have yet to see a vegetarian who is obese.
There’s plenty of obese vegetarians. If they overeat their carbs it’s a natural outcome.
>They don’t seem to suffer from cancer particularly colon cancer to the extent meat eaters do, or heart disease. Most of all they vibrate at a higher level spiritually. Put another way they tread lightly on the planet.
So what about Hitler? Did he tread lightly while vibrating highly?
In any case, I also think he made a mistake by adopting vegetarianism.
>To say that Hitler’s greatest mistake was being a vegetarian is to me beyond stupid, especially if you don’t back up your “hypothesis” with reason.
The reason is that his poor diet would cloud his judgement.
>If he was on amphetamines, as you state above, maybe he would not have been had he had a different kind of life with less pressure. He probably had a meat eater prepare his food for him. Not a good idea if you are a vegetarian.
Why? Do you think the meat eating cook would somehow ‘spiritually’ contaminate Hitler’s vegetarian food?
> Being a vegetarian is not about meat and two veg. minus the meat! Nor is it eating salad all day long! Vegetarian food prepared properly and done thoughtfully is highly nutritious. There is absolutely no need to eat meat.
There’s a difference between surviving and thriving. To do the latter you need to eat meat. By accounts we have eaten only meat and some vegetables and some fruit for 99% of human existence. Little to no grain based foods that are a large part of vegetarian diets.
>Carolyn, how many cows or pigs or sheep have you personally gone out and killed, skinned and gutted etc, in order for you to get your roast beef or whatever ?
How many products that you use have you personally constructed; worked in mines, foundries and factories to create? Hitler was against the cruel kosher slaughter methods that jews use. All decent people think animals should be killed in as a humane way as possible.
>I have to go into the butchers to buy dog meat, and I find the smell obnoxious. I doesn’t matter how clean the buthery is, I can’t wait to get of there.
And there is a bit of arrogance in me. I look on meat eaters with a certain amount of contempt.
Your contempt looks like it is born of a religious form of vegetarianism. I suggest you goggle for the stories from ex-vegetarians. Read how they, through ill health, eventually gave it up.
Vegetarianism looks like a just another jew ideology designed to weaken us.
I don’t say that Hitler’s diet clouded his judgement. That’s the wrong phrasing. I say that it affected his health, therefore his energy and sense of well-being. But exactly what can be attributed to diet is hard to say. We don’t really know all the possible sources of his later health problems, but they must also have been exacerbated by the intense stress he was under. He had competent doctors and they basically couldn’t find anything wrong with him beyond symptoms of digestive distress. If he had the idea he couldn’t digest meat or fat (I have recently read that), I think that was all in his head, and manifested in his body. Of course, I believe all meat should be eaten as rare as possible. I only eat high-quality, grass fed beef, (but still slightly marbled so it’s not totally grass-fed although they call it that) and pay a high price for it. I’m not talking about hamburgers. Broiled to be brown on the outside but still red on the inside — it leaves you feeling great!
But I agree that vegetarian dishes are (can be) delicious. I would have no trouble giving up meat. I actually eat it for health reasons. Exactly backwards from what Hitler thought. Vegetarianism does come from a “save the planet (for the non-whites), be kind to animals” world-view so maybe it is another Jew-agenda against us. Jews are big meat-eaters themselves. Vegetarianism is based on Philosophy and “mind over matter,” not on scientific findings of what the physical body demands for optimum health.
There is a moral argument for vegetarianism that I have heard, which has the characteristic notion that we who have so much must sacrifice and do with less for the good of the world. Can’t you imagine some blue-eyed blonds from the USA or Canada in colorful tie-dyes saying this? The ascetic impulse seems to be very common in Nordic people, and it has a function, but with the trendy left it often expresses itself in ways that are irrational and even stupid.
The notion of solving world hunger by having everybody convert to vegetarianism is ridiculous. Blacks in Africa are subject periodic famines not because there is insufficient food in the world, but because they failed to produce their own food and also do not have money to buy it from elsewhere. Think about international food-relief: what is that? It’s not about producing food that otherwise wouldn’t exist. It’s basically just somebody else putting up the money to buy food that already exists. Insufficient food in the world is not a problem.
As a matter of fact, the USA grossly overproduces food and, if we all stopped eating meat, that problem would be much worse.
Now, for Germany under Adolf Hitler, which was trying to become economically self-sufficient (to the extent possible) and did not have the vast farmlands that the USA has, vegetarianism made sense economically. It was a way to rely less on imports and thus eliminate a drain on the country’s prosperity. Discouraging tobacco-use, by the way, was also a way to help Germany’s trade-balance.
There was a compelling economic reason for vegetarianism in Hitler’s Germany that has no validity for us today.