Know Your Enemy: Angmar

Know Your Enemy: Angmar
November 16, 2017 Admin

Greetings men-


It is I, Julian, Steward of ECW.


I have been hard at work forging that which the God’s in Valhalla have ordained for me to prepare for.


I come to you today bearing another epistle from that most energetic of young Crusaders, Mr. Michael Gladius.


More pieces from mine own pen shall follow soon after, as shall my new BOOK, as shall my OTHER BIG PLANS (which you would know about if you were on our email list…)  🙂


As the West moves into winter, it sits- in the words of Tolkien- upon the edge of a knife.


Here is Mr. Gladius’s article in that vein:


Know your Enemy: Angmar

I love the ‘Battle for Middle-Earth’ series. Released by EA games from 2004-2006, these real-time strategy games have aged well, and are still fun to play. The first game depicted what was seen in the movies, the sequel covered concurrent events in the north, but the expansion pack introduced us to something that predates the timeline in the movies: the rise of Angmar, under the Iron Crown of the Witch-King.

When designing Angmar, EA’s developers came up with a unique design that inadvertently captures perfectly what we in the civilized world (including and beyond Europe) face today.



Angmar War: The Parallels

Angmar draws its strength from 3 different groups: orcs, men, and trolls. The men are further subdivided between the Black Numenorians and the hill men of Rhudaur, both groups being directly related to the Dunedain of Arnor, the north kingdom of men.


Thrall Masters

The Thrall Master is the basic unit of Angmar. Thrall Masters are Black Numenorians who summon hordes of orcs or rebel Rhudaur hill men to fight for them, their horns forming their insignia.

If the Thrall Master is slain, his horde flees.

We can easily see this today in how the left has paid organizers, paid recruiters, chartered buses, covers all expenses for a protest, and occasionally even pays the protestors themselves.

Leftist thrall masters can summon a riot within hours, summoning hordes of Antifa or other unsavory groups to their banner.

Ideological purity matters little; their role is to be cannon fodder for swarm tactics. Like the hill men, many of these are our own brethren, and not all are useful idiots. Individually, they are not threatening, but they never travel alone. They always travel in packs, and don’t give a fig about honor. As the leader of the hill men says in-game, ‘honor is for the weak.’ This sentiment is why our enemies will tell any lie, cheat, and backstab in order to win. Their only morality is expediency, and the spread of their rule.


The Black Numenorians

The Black Numenorians are, by far, the most evil race of men. Their numbers are small, but they are formidable nonetheless.

They are not only powerful swordsmen, but also train as rangers and sorcerers. They operate in secrecy, keeping their opponents in the dark. They strike as assassins, and their sorcerers offer human sacrifices.

In many ways, they epitomize the deep state and secret societies (heresies never truly die, they go underground).

These secretive elements watch to see which way the mob is moving, and then leap in front in order to lead it. If the mob changes direction, so do they.

A good example of this in action is the former Yugoslavian Communists abandoning globalist communism to join (and then lead) the ethno-nationalist purists in the 1990s, and subsequently starting the program of ethnic cleansing despite opposing segregation totally the year prior.Orc sword Angmar

Another, more recent, example is the Ba’ath Party (the former nationalist-socialist party led by Saddam Hussein) providing structure and organization to ISIS in occupied territory. Our socialists will likely try to repeat this tactic of switching sides and playing them off each other in our next war.


The Trolls

Angmar’s final units are trolls. These are tough and intelligent, more intelligent than their cousins serving Mordor, able to both inflict significant damage and absorb enormous damage in return.

They also power Angmar’s siege equipment, enabling the Iron Crown to take and hold cities and towns.

These serve in the same way that the power of the nation-state has been harnessed by the merchant class (who, coincidentally, bankroll the thrall masters and have connections to the deep state-

The modern nation-state has formidable resources at its disposal, and is capable of taking severe punishment and still emerging victorious.

Its greatest strengths are set-piece battles and siege warfare, where firepower dominates. Some nations are skilled at wars of maneuver, but even those that are not generally have the resources to do so (lack of skill being a failure of command, not doctrine or equipment).

Mechanized infantry dominate the roads and built-up areas, light infantry dominate the rougher terrain. Should civil war break out, the left will work hard to ensure that they, not us, are in command of the nation-state’s armies.


So how do we defeat them?

In order to defeat Angmar, we must first be organized.

This need not be centralized, lest we offer our enemies a nerve center that can be knocked out with a single blow. But piecemeal resistance will be insufficient to thoroughly beat an organized opponent, particularly one with the power of the nation-state at its disposal, and no morality other than victory at all costs, even if it means sacrificing human decency.

There are several highly successful activist groups resisting the left.

I personally prefer Generation Identitaire over any group that claims to be socialist.

‘National Socialism’ and globalist socialism are cut from the same cloth, and view us the same way as they view the Africans and Muslims: they see us all as expendable muscle, meat for their armies and machines.

Socialists will play both sides against each other with equal contempt, and abandon a side when they are no longer useful.

There are no exceptions. Black nationalists and Arab nationalists have all repeatedly betrayed their core constituencies, and white nationalists will do the same when it is our turn. The moment preservationists allow socialism into their faction, they will lose control. Everybody wants to pilot the helicopter, but in the end the preservationists will be clinging desperately to the skids while the well-connected socialists pilot it to where they wish to go. Socialism will destroy Europe as thoroughly as Islam will; socialists are not to be trusted under any circumstances.

I would also suggest European patriots consider joining or allying with regional separatist parties, so long as they do not lean towards socialism. Europe is not an Occidental monoculture; it is a patchwork of localities with diverse identities and traditions. Think ‘a Europe of 100 flags.’ If patriots worked to revive local traditions en masse, then this would be a cultural victory against globalism and Islamo-socialist-bourgeois standardization/homogenization.

Angmar Lord of the Rings

Monarchist parties are another excellent antidote to socialism, as they offer a legitimate, organic alternative. Socialism is merely post-bourgeois, monarchism is anti-bourgeois (

Most European monarchies are popular, and beloved by their subjects. This has always been the case, and supporting the monarchies will give preservationists great legitimacy, publicly and privately.

Socialism and mass democracy result in arbitrary rule by the men least fit to rule, and supporting monarchies will allow preservationists to challenge their claims to legitimacy, particularly the notion that they represent ‘the people’ (and who exactly are these ‘people?’).

Monarchies are a part of Europe’s heritage, and the globalists despise them as much as they despise us ( We have a common enemy, and a common love of our heritage.

Monarchist parties will also point out that local democracy, where the rubber meets the road, would have more power under a monarchy than under a democratic republic. Decentralization is made easier under a monarchy than a republic.

And lastly, bankers don’t send their sons into battle; kings bring their sons with them. Whom would you prefer to die for?

The second requirement for defeating Angmar is physical preparation. I have argued that joining the reserves/national guard is an excellent route for the average European, and I will reiterate it here.

By joining the reserves, preservationists can receive military training at the state’s expense. These skills will be necessary for the coming fight, both physically and mentally. The time has come for Westerners to take responsibility for their own security, rather than begging for it (

Having our friends and allies in the nation-state’s armies will also make it more difficult for the left to use them against us. Remember: trolls are more powerful than Black Numenorians.



We do not know when the war will start, or how. We do not know what the geopolitical situation will be, or how things will turn out. We do not know when Western Civilization will finally start to crumble.

These are the ‘good old days,’ and every second is precious. Prepare. Organize. Watch. Angmar can be defeated.




Angmar angband. Lotr and European politics.

Post-Reconquest Europe.





Editor’s Note: Thanks to Michael for the excellent article.

If you would like to get on the ECW email list you can also sign up below. Thanks!


Comments (27)

  1. Ernst 2 months ago

    If globalists and nationalsocialists were of the same cloth then they would have been on the same side during WW2, to believe that the free market is on our side is equally ridiculous. We must get rid of these libertarian sentiments in our movement If we wish to create sovereign nations once again. The capitalist love open borders, multiculturalism, hbtq, feminism because its profitable. Non material values like the nuclear-family, traditionalism, religion, race etc are not as valuable in the free-market because it inhibits the global corporations from launching the same products all over the world.

    • Author
      Admin 2 months ago

      Yeah it is interesting. This is Julian speaking now. My thought is that the top good for any nation or people is the safety/wellbeing/posterity of their people.

      In modern corporatist West we have put ‘profits’ and ‘gdp’ as idols far ahead of the well-being of our people (indeed we have begun destroying our own people in the furtherence of greater gdp). I think the socialists or perhaps communists of the twentieth century did the same thing.

      I think that the Islamists have it right when they say that capitalism and socialism are effectively just two different logistical processes.

      Therefore, in my mind, the top goal is the wellbeing/posterity of the people (that’s a high-asabiya people sharing culture/heritage/etc) and that economics is below that and should merely serve the top goal.

      The problem of the twentieth century was of repeating logistical processes or ideologies attaining religious-status AHEAD of the people, and the European/Occidental world destroying itself in their name (be it Communism, National Socialism, Liberalism, Humanitarian-Superpowerism (Swedism), or American profits uber alles.

      Anyway I do agree with your last two sentences on the confluence of ‘profits uber alles’ modern corporatism and progressivism. How else do we end up with the ridiculous notion that a woman not having kids so she can work 60 hours a week as a middle manager at Globocorp is a good thing?

    • Michael Gladius 2 months ago

      Nazi Germany and Communist Russia were on the same side at the beginning of WWII, courtesy of the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact. From 1938-1941, Germany and Russia were friends and trade partners. It was hubris after easy victories in the Balkans, North Africa, and France, combined with the USSR’s humiliation in the Winter War, that convinced Hitler to break the pact and seize the resources for himself, as well as to ethnically cleanse the Slavs from Eastern Europe.

      And yes, Libertarian ideals are not a solution to our problem. He who lives for wealth perverts the true order of life. The bankers who financed the National Socialists and Bolsheviks lived for money, and viewed people as agents of production. The socialists share this same sentiment, and merely desire a separate path to the same end goal.

      I will cover the last bit more in my new series ‘In Search of Middle-Earth.’ 😉

  2. Kadphises 2 months ago

    >>‘National Socialism’ and globalist socialism are cut from the same cloth, and view us the same way as they view the Africans and Muslims: they see us all as expendable muscle, meat for their armies and machines.
    Socialists will play both sides against each other with equal contempt, and abandon a side when they are no longer useful.
    There are no exceptions. Black nationalists and Arab nationalists have all repeatedly betrayed their core constituencies, and white nationalists will do the same when it is our turn. The moment preservationists allow socialism into their faction, they will lose control. Everybody wants to pilot the helicopter, but in the end the preservationists will be clinging desperately to the skids while the well-connected socialists pilot it to where they wish to go. Socialism will destroy Europe as thoroughly as Islam will; socialists are not to be trusted under any circumstances.<<
    Maybe my understanding of the word "socialism" is fundamentally different from M. Gladius' and that's why this sounds like utter nonsense to me. Only because Marxists have appropriated the term socialism for their ideology, it doesn't make socialism as an economic concept any more harmful to our cause than capitalism (just listen to George Soros, Macron and Merkel and you will know that they are all not socialists) or even monarchy and aristocracy (just think of the English crown and the Rothschilds). As for me, I don't trust anyone who puts "muh free market" or a religiously justified monarchy above his people, and I welcome every sincere National Socialist as an ally. National Socialists stand for justice and equal opportunity (not for equal outcome as a goal and the assumption of equal birth as a quasi-religious dogma, like the Marxists). They also know that monarchic and aristocratic bloodlines can be corrupted and degenerate. And they know that the interests of individual entrepreneurs and businessmen don't necessarily add up for the benefit of the nation as a whole. As such, a modern National Socialism is the most realistic ideological framework, and should be at the core of any resistance against the network of the Saudi monarchy, the capitalist globalists and the Marxist scum collaborating with these forces.

    • Author
      Admin 2 months ago

      Hey Kadphises,

      To follow on from my comment on Ernst’s, I am guessing (don’t know for sure) that Mr. Gladius is thinking of socialism as the socialism of those that elevate it as a religious ideology above the good of the people.

      I agree though that that can be done just as easily with capitalism or any other form. The form of government should serve the wellbeing/glory/posterity of the people, not the people serving form of government/economic philosophy/etc.

      So step one would be leadership that puts the people’s wellbeing/glory/posterity/safety first, and then selects economic and other policies in furtherence of that goal.

      In that scenario I would be opposed both to Swedish or Venezuelan style socialism (not that they are exactly the same) and ALSO be opposed to modern American ‘corporatist’ capitalism. In my opinion 2-10 giant megacorporations controlling 90% of commerce and employing the majority of the nation’s citizens in low-paying jobs and then controlling government agenda through lobbying is effectively the exact same as socialism, only with the ‘veneer’ of free markets where they don’t really exist.

      I also object to the global free flow of capitol as it is now and DEFINITELY the global free flow of people (especially as it is now).

      My vision of the ideal system would be one of what might be called ‘small town capitalism’. I think the more men who own their own businesses and are their own economic masters the better. This used to be the case where every small town had a half dozen butchers/bakers/grocers/plumbers/builders/etc.

      I think working a j.o.b., whether for the government cooperative, globocorp, or anything else is inherently soul crushing.

      In that vein I am actually quite optimistic that the internet (though it has in many ways furthered the corporatist system) will end up having the opposite effect, and bring economic self-sufficiency to a far greater number of people than what existed before it.

      • Kadphises 2 months ago

        >>I agree though that that can be done just as easily with capitalism or any other form. The form of government should serve the wellbeing/glory/posterity of the people, not the people serving form of government/economic philosophy/etc. <<
        I agree completely. The political and economic system has to serve the cultural and biological thriving of the people, not the other way around.
        And, to all the Christian reactionaries, this is true also for religion. Religion has to be a natural expression of a people's spirituality and has to serve their long-term survival. If the Christian god demands his followers to turn the other cheek to the Muslim invaders and kiss their feet in the hope to convert them in this way, I can only say, no thanks, then this god has deserved his death. If there are still Christians who believe that their God wants them to fight and defeat the enemy, that's great, and I will see them as allies just like the National Socialists, Odinists, Nietzschean Atheists etc. who fight for the same goal. But don't tell me to distrust anyone just because they have a different opinion on economy or belong to a different denomination. That's counterproductive sectarianism.

        • Michael Gladius 2 months ago

          Capitalism and communism were both denounced in ‘Rerum Novarum,’ a papal encyclical in 1891, and sprang up in Protestant, not orthodox, regions of Europe (I include the orthodox Greek churches as well). Socialism is not a natural product of Europe, and is a break from her organic traditions. European culture is rural, not urban. European culture is based on the nuclear family, not the tribe or individuals. European culture is distinctly Christian, not pagan or socialist.

          Religion is a quest for truth. If a society doesn’t like the laws of gravity, then they do not demand the scientists re-write the truth to suit them. Religion is the same: either it is true, or it is not. Society must conform to the truth, not the other way around. Freethinkers rejected truth, and their spiritual children gave us the horrors of the 20th century.
          The Christian God is not the flaccid weakling you seem to believe he is. I should remind you that only the Christians were able to mount a coherent defense against Islam in the Crusades. The pagans were absorbed into the Islamic fold. Had the Crusaders taken Damascus in 1099, then they would have cut the Islamic world in 2, and permanently crippled the heresy. Even so, it took 100 years before Islam could unite and retake the Crusader states.

          As for mistrust of contradictory ideals, there is much to be said about the incompatibility of socialism and heresy with orthodoxy and tradition. Europe can choose the path of rebellion and perish, or she can embrace the faith and culture that made her powerful and rise again. One must triumph over the other,or Europe will never be united again. The old age is passing, the new age is dawning.

    • Michael Gladius 2 months ago

      Socialism is, by definition, the idea that private property ought to be abolished, and all ownership transferred to the state. National socialism is socialism with nationalism mixed in, globalism and communism are socialists who want to erase borders. As such, the conflict between the two is a twin brothers’ war.

      Both systems violate the most basic human right: the right to own property. Socialism is the antithesis of antitrust legislation, family businesses, the peasant, the artisan, and the clergyman. Far from being a balanced and just system, it is dehumanizing, and promises men something that the state cannot provide.

      Socialism is post-bourgeois, not anti-bourgeois. They share the same mindset as capitalist bankers, but draw opposite conclusions. Both are urban cultures, view men as agents of production first and foremost, and seek a respectable average standard of living. Both are the enemy of the peasant, as their ways make rural living impossible. Both are the enemy of the artisan, because the artisan is a man of extremes, not averages. Both are the enemy of the clergyman because they replace God with the state, and contradict the ecstatic spirit of Christendom with a spirit of commerce. Their ways transform the farmer into a minder of machines and the artisan into a shopkeeper. They both replace organic communal life with central planning. I embedded a link that explains this more thoroughly, in the paragraphs on monarchism.

      Inevitably, all forms of capitalism and socialism lead to the same end result: a rootless, broken society with no property that is reliant upon those with money for their survival.

      The opposite is not small-town capitalism, but Distributism. Distributism gave us the first antitrust legislation, and is focused on maximizing ownership of private property among the greatest number of people. Also important is communal life. For 1000 years, Europe had monasteries to aid in this, and the system was stable. Their destruction during the reformation and French revolutions (the forerunner to Marx’s revolutionary ideals) led to a significant decline in the masses’ well-being, and enriched the upper crust disproportionately. Those same ones who destroyed the monasteries were the same ones who forced unnatural systems onto the masses, and their ultra-wealthy descendants forced socialism onto anti-socialist societies.

      Socialism never was a popular movement at any point in its history. It has always been imposed by a minority upon an unwilling majority. This has not changed.

  3. Ernst 2 months ago

    The libertarians will never unite nations since their focus is extreme individualism and profit. Most western nations today are mixed economies, socialism doesnt have to exclude creating enterprises ore individuals to collect a lot of wealth, but when corporations become so big that they litterally can buy up the whole country, they need to be regulated. To believe that a totally free market will regulate itself for the best of the people is ridiculous, if that were the case companies like Pepsi would create commercials in favor of ethnic nationalism instead of cultural marxism, and things like internet porn wouldnt exist. We need social regulations to get rid of business that are harmful to health of the people. Its not a coincidence that libertarians are in the same camp as drugproponents, open borders, pro-prostitution etc and worship a liberal individualist jewish woman like Ayn Rand.

  4. Ernst 2 months ago

    And to say that socialism have never been a popular movement? Its always been imposed by a minority? So you mean that a socialist party has never been voted in to office by a majority of the people?

    • Michael Gladius 2 months ago

      If you’re referring to Venezuela, then you ought to know that outside forces from Columbia and Cuba were involved in the socialist party’s rise to power. Venezuelans by and large do not view the communist government as something that sprang from their country, but rather as outsiders meddling in their government and taking away their power.

      Russia did not want communism. Eastern Europe did not want communism. China did not want communism. Korea, Cuba, Vietnam, Cambodia… the list goes on. None of them wanted communism, and communist parties achieved power through their international connections, particularly Wall St. One of the video links in my article discusses this in further detail, should you be interested in exploring the matter more deeply. 🙂

      • Ernst 2 months ago

        Most countries in Europe are elected socialdemocracies, no i wasnt refering to communist countries we were discussing socialism. I live in Sweden, here the majority of the people have voted for socialism for almost a hundred years, and no one forced them to do that.

        • Michael Gladius 2 months ago

          Europe does have many socialist governments that were ‘elected,’ but if you look deeper there’s more than meets the eye. Namely, socialist movements have extensive connections to outside, multinational donors. Wall Street in the United States financed all manner of socialist movements, from Germany to Russia. The merchant class knows no borders, and their wealth gives them disproportionate influence.
          Nor is this a recent phenomenon. Virtually all successful revolutions throughout history have been led by rich donors. Follow the money in Sweden, and I’m sure you’ll find the same phenomenon.

          This is why I pointed out that preservationists who rub shoulders with socialism, thinking they’ll be piloting the helicopter, will in reality end up clinging to the skids. Socialists worldwide have far greater and deeper connections than we do, and they will leverage it against us as much as possible. They aren’t going to take orders from us, not without a loaded gun against their skulls. Finland and Spain both had White Terrors to ensure that the reds’ power would be broken permanently.

  5. Unknown 2 months ago

    A bit off topic i found an example of self-suicidalism in a most popular politician:
    Gandhi: “Hitler killed five million Jews. It is the greatest crime of our time. The Jews should have offered themselves to the butcher’s knife. They should have thrown themselves into the sea from cliffs. It would have aroused the world and the people of Germany”.
    Also, Gandhi viewed muslims as friends and partners in peace even after obvious cases of rape and murder. It looks like, total peacefulness leads to crazy behavior when confronted with evil.

  6. Kadphises 2 months ago

    “Socialism is, by definition, the idea that private property ought to be abolished, and all ownership transferred to the state.”
    That’s wrong. That’s communism.
    “National socialism is socialism with nationalism mixed in, globalism and communism are socialists who want to erase borders. As such, the conflict between the two is a twin brothers’ war.”
    National Socialists never wanted to abolish all private property.
    As such, your argument doesn’t apply to German National Socialism, and it even doesn’t apply to most other forms of Nationalist Socialism.
    In fact, globalist capitalism and universalist communism are twin brothers, both sons of the same bloodless Judeo-Christian spirit of universal morality and equality, filled with suspicion or outright hatred against everything natural and beautiful and against all natural bonds of family, tribe and race.

    • Michael Gladius 2 months ago

      Socialism is exactly that definition. Webster’s dictionary, as well as Karl Marx himself (the father of socialism) say so explicitly.

      Fascism and communism split during WWI. Mussolini (a socialist) was pro-war, while the majority of socialists were anti-war. Mussolini split away from the mainstream over this issue, but continued to use socialist language, terms, and methods to consolidate power. Hitler did the same, and there was much rubbing of shoulders between socialists of all stripes until 1941, 3 years into WWII (6 if you count Japan’s invasions of China).

      National socialism in Germany and Italy did not imitate Russia perfectly, it is true. But both systems were planned economies. Private property was permitted in name only in Germany, with the state deciding what should be produced, how it should be produced, how it was distributed, and what the prices were. The nominal ‘owners’ had no power or autonomy. A good example of this is the ruinous economic policies brought about by Hitler’s obsession with automobiles. Germany lacked oil and rubber (two critical components), and as a result, Germany imported vast amounts, at a loss. Private industry had no say in the matter. All the decisions were made by the state.
      Price controls, micromanagement, and massive inflation were common to both.The notion that national socialism is nothing like communism was made up after WWII by the Soviet Union, as they tried to distance themselves from the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact, as well as plenty of other pre-WWII fraternizing between leftists of all stripes.

      Socialism (both national and global) and capitalism do indeed lead to the same end goal- totalitarianism, and a dis-empowered underclass with no property or autonomy. Their lives are run by the few at the top, whether those rulers’ starting point was politics or private industry.

      Capitalism/communism is not a product of orthodox Christianity. Capitalism took root in Protestant lands, after the heretics seized Church lands and wealth for themselves (I will cover this further in my new series ‘In Search of Middle-Earth’). Communism was denounced by the Catholic Church from its inception, and given special attention in the papal encyclical ‘Rerum Novarum,’ which called for restoration of private property to the masses. Your claims about Judeo-Christian ideals being the root of communism, or opposed to nature in general, are patently absurd. I will be addressing these in future columns.

      • Ernst 2 months ago

        That judeo-christian ideals are not connected to ideas of the french revolution and universalism is absurd. If you dont see a connection between christian universalist ideas that propone global brotherhood and preaches against being rich, either you need to read the bible and study the ideas of the french revolution, or you should just stick to video games.

        • Michael Gladius 2 months ago

          The French Revolution? The French Revolution was vehemently anti-clerical and anti-Christian. The rich bankers who funded and instigated the revolts were protestants and atheists who hated the king, hated the universal Church, and hated the peasantry who loved them both. They desecrated Notre Dame and renamed it ‘the temple of reason.’ The nun-turned prostitute who portrayed the ‘goddess of reason’ for the desecration was later executed by the exact same howling mob that celebrated her on that day.

          So no, the French Revolution and subsequent revolutions were not inspired by Christianity. They were anti-Christianity to the core.

          Christianity is a universal faith, but does not call for abolition of all differences. The Holy Roman Empire had hundreds of nations and peoples, but provided unity without homogenizing cultures, as the EU is attempting to do today. The excessive nationalism of the French Revolution directly contradicted the Catholic faith of the majority, and the revolutionaries had long coveted the wealth of the Churches and monasteries. The widespread looting and theft of these properties weakened the Church and enabled the secular state to throw off its natural counterbalance. Your claims are ahistorical, but rooted in 19th-century cliches. See my article ‘Victoriana’ for more information. 😉

      • Kadphises 2 months ago

        Economic policies in National Socialist Germany were pragmatic, directed at stregthening the nation as a whole and the German people. In the beginning, Hitler even privatized state-owned companies. He proclaimed “Marxism is anti-property; true Socialism is not.”
        The core of a National Socialist economy is the following simple principle taken from the 25-Point-Programme: “The first obligation of every citizen must be to productively work mentally or physically. The activity of individuals is not to counteract the interests of the universality, but must have its result within the framework of the whole for the benefit of all.” Yes, private property only is beneficial if competition between individual interests is for the benefit of the whole nation. In cases where it is based on personal greed only and to the detriment of the nation as a whole, it is to be considered the destructive tool of our enemies. The wealth and status someone acquires has to reflect how hard and diligently he has worked for the benefit of the group and future generations, not how cunningly he was able to deceive and manipulate to get the largest profit with the least effort. So, naturally, the state has to set a framework for private ownership and what a person can and cannot do with her property.

        Regarding Judeo-Christianity (as opposed to Positive Christianity, which unfortunately seems to have little backing from biblical scripture), I am honestly curious to know how you interpret these passages concerning property, equality and violent struggle (I’m not including Old Testament passages here which call for the Chosenites to slaughter the gentiles and enslave them, as I guess you’re not a “Christian Identity” advocate who could see them as an inspiration for our struggle to liberate our European homelands rather than for Jewish ethnocentrism).

        “I tell you the truth, it is hard for a rich man to enter the kingdom of heaven. Again I tell you, it is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to enter the kingdom of God”

        “Blessed are the poor in spirit, for theirs is the kingdom of heaven.
        Blessed are those who mourn, for they will be comforted.
        Blessed are the meek, for they will inherit the earth. ”

        “For all of you who were baptized into Christ have clothed yourselves with Christ. There is neither Jew nor Greek, slave nor free, male nor female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus.”

        “You have heard that it was said, ‘Eye for eye and tooth for tooth.’ But I tell you not to resist an evil person. If someone slaps you on your right cheek, turn to him the other also; if someone wants to sue you and take your tunic, let him have your cloak as well; and if someone forces you to go one mile, go with him two. Give to the one who asks you, and do not turn away from the one who wants to borrow from you.
        You have heard that it was said, ‘Love your neighbor and hate your enemy.’ But I tell you, love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you, that you may be sons of your Father in heaven. He causes His sun to rise on the evil and the good, and sends rain on the righteous and the unrighteous. If you love those who love you, what reward will you get? Do not even tax collectors do the same? And if you greet only your brothers, what are you doing more than others? Do not even Gentiles do the same?
        Be perfect, therefore, as your Heavenly Father is perfect.”

        • Kadphises 2 months ago

          P.S. Karl Marx is not the “father of socialism”. Just like Freud is not the “father of psychology” or Einstein the “father of physics”.
          There was already a large variety of socialist thought in existence before Karl Marx was even born.

        • Michael Gladius 2 months ago

          All Germans, except for the ones being sent to concentration camps for being the wrong race (after Jews, Slavs were at the top of the list).

          If you own property, but the state directs you how to use it and what you can and can’t do with it, then you are not truly the owner. As I mentioned before, the privatization you speak of was a facade, not authentic. Germany was a planned economy, and ruinously so. Their apparent rebound from the Depression would have imploded had war not been declared in 1938, since so much of it was based on inflation and rearmament. The foundation was built on silt.

          Your description shows exactly why national socialism is a problem. The mindset that man is a laborer first is false, and proves that socialism is post-bourgeois, not anti-bourgeois. Man is not a cog in the industrial machine, he is a physical and spiritual being with rights, responsibilities, and free will. Therefore, he must have autonomy over his life. Measuring him first and foremost as a unit of production violates his nature, dehumanizing him.

          The idea that the state will decide what is or isn’t ‘counteracting the interests of universality’ is fancy words for a planned economy. The state can alter its definitions at any time it wants, which inevitably leads to totalitarianism.
          Man has a right to own property, and this cannot be dictated to him by the state. National socialism looks nothing like antitrust legislation, which breaks up the large, mass monopolies into many smaller elements, nor does it guarantee private ownership over the tools of production to those who actually use them. The state owns them, and decides how they are used. Hence, property is no longer privately owned, except perhaps for luxury goods. The important property, the natural resources and tools of production, are owned by the state, behind a veneer of state puppets. The masses are now dependent upon the state for their survival, just as in Bolshevism.

          So no, National socialism is still socialism, the same way that Sunni and Shia Islam are both still Islam, no matter how much they denounce the other as not ‘true Islam.’

          Your passages from the Bible cover multiple topics. The passage on rich men entering the kingdom of Heaven relates to the man who lives for money or production, and perverts the true order of life. Throughout history, the Doctors of the Church have all regarded money and business as a means to an end, not an end in and of itself. Labor and economics were, to them, a minor part of man’s journey to Heaven. The embedded article ‘Catholicism and the bourgeois mind’ brings up several more relevant passages.

          As for equality, all mankind is equally human, and deserves human rights. The idea that any sub-group can be a master race or innately superior is hubris, and scripture abounds with the fools and weak humiliating the wise and strong. God is supreme, and to him alone do our highest loves belong. Love God first and foremost, then love your neighbor as yourself, in that order. He who exalts himself will be humbled, and he who humbles himself will be exalted. Resting on our ancestors’ laurels as if they were our own is a perfect example.

          The Christian spirit is not one of worldly calculation, nor of reckoning his accounts with heaven as though God were his banker. Christian civilization spent its tremendous wealth lavishly on works of art, music, architecture, and beauty that foreigners flock to see every year. Christianity also spent lavishly on hospitals and schools, giving us the first of both, and even today Catholic schools and hospitals are renowned for being above average. The Christian is an ecstatic man, a man of deep desire and longing. He empties himself out, so nothing will inhibit God’s will in his life. He chases after Heaven as a both a violent man and a lover. He will have all or have none.

          Karl Marx was not the first man to have such a philosophy, but he was the first to codify it, in the same way that Arius codified Arianism and John Calvin codified Calvinism. He, and all those who came before and after him, agreed that the essence of their ideas was the abolition of private property.

  7. SteveRogers42 2 months ago

    Looks like some Dunedain Rangers are emulating Generation Identitaire in and around the City of Density:

    I love how the Wormtongues discuss it!

    • Author
      Admin 2 months ago

      Lol SEVERE Wormtongueism in that comment section.

      Ever since I saw that Watson video on soy and estrogen I just see it in every liberal guy I hear talk. The estrogen is just like fuming out of them lol.

  8. SteveRogers42 2 months ago

    Words of Wisdom from a grittier version of Aragorn:

    If you want to win, “you gotta get plum mad-dog mean”.

    • Author
      Admin 2 months ago

      You gotta love Eastwood.

      A glittering rock hard diamond in the sewer of Hollywood!

    • Michael Gladius 2 months ago

      I like this one from Curtis LeMay:

      ‘If you are going to use military force, then you ought to use overwhelming military force. Use too much, and deliberately use too much; you’ll save lives, not only your own, but the enemy’s too.’

      • SteveRogers42 2 months ago

        God bless Curt Lemay!

        I’ve got this poster hanging in my office:

        “If you kill enough of them, they stop fighting.”

Leave a reply to Michael Gladius Click here to cancel the reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *