[The following was posted publicly in reply to some criticism I had received. Time permitting, I may edit it to add links, or post more explanatory context; but the substance is here already, whereby I speak for myself as a proud fanatic! —HS]
To start with, some personal context: I am younger than you, but old enough to understand why you ask that question. I agree with the Führer that a man cannot firmly set the foundations of his political opinions until age 30 (and that is only the start of a mature opinion). Moreover, had you read any substantial portion of my other writings here or elsewhere, I doubt you would ask this question. Thus you may satisfy yourself that I am not a hot-blooded youth, but rather, indeed, a genuine fanatic. More on that in a moment.
The Internet is at once so ephemeral, and so permanent. Now, you may think this discussion to be dead and buried. It is not really so: Others may find it, just as I found it (and quite without looking for such a thing, I assure you!). I somewhat self-deprecatingly referred in one of my other recent anti-„Reinhard“ comments to „tilting at the ghosts of windmills“; but in large part, by lancing the ghost of „Reinhard“, I am rather making propaganda to those who read this thread in the future.
In so doing, I said what I think needed to be said, and wasn’t.
Although I think your heart may be in the right place, I firmly disagree with your approach to „Reinhard“; and as I noted, I even think Blut und Boden went far too easy on him. Adding here a bit of nuance, I do think that some lenity may be displayed in debating those who do not claim to be of, or sympathetic to, a National Socialist ideology. (Again, more on that in a moment.) However, as I explained multiple times in several different ways, „Reinhard“ was the enemy within the gates. I do not think you will dispute as much (and he was banned, after all).
You state that I do not contribute to the discussion. I counter that in considering those who claim to be of a certain ideology and yet deliberately poison it from within, a bright line must be drawn beyond which there is no discussion. For an analogy, cf. the difference in policy of Himmler toward general law enforcement against homosexuals (where he was surprisingly lax), versus his handling of homosexuals who infiltrated the SS (where he showed no mercy). See also the Führer’s respectful treatment of anti-NSDAP opposition leader Konrad Adenauer (though with post-War hindsight, I do think that was a mistake)—in stark contrast to the Führer’s merciless (and violent) destruction of the treacherous Röhm canaille. And herewith, the line is even brighter; indeed, it cuts straight to the single most fundamental issue for anybody who even dares to breathe the name „Adolf Hitler“.
In a devious and underhanded manner, „Reinhard“ promoted miscegenation under the Swastika banner. In principle, such a sacrilege (L.: „theft of sacred things“) must rouse no less furious a response than the devout of any faith will show to those who defile their most sacred objects. And as a practical matter, such ideological infiltration and corruption is a danger of such magnitude as warrants a commensurate magnitude of response. I have so said in other ways several times in my flurry of anti-„Reinhard“ posts, and do not care to repeat myself again.
In sum, I was never interested in „continuation of the discussion“, as you put it. Nor will I ever be, with the ilk of „Reinhard“.
My principal purpose rather was to make a public example of „Reinhard“ (or his ghost). Of course in Renegade comments, I speak only for myself; but at least as such I did my part for a greater cause. Nobody should ever doubt that there is at least one person out there who at least metaphorically stands ready to smash the archetypal „Reinhard“ to a pulp. Realize that there are too many of his kind, and in large degree I am levelling with a Platonic abstraction you might call „Reinhards of the world“.
I had a few other purposes, one of which was to myself exemplify publicly my reaction to such persons: I am usually quite polite, and it was wise to seize the opportunity to demonstrate that I will not so be, when I apperceive an unmitigated evil. In other words, to provide an object demonstration in some dark, half-forgotten corner of Renegade Tribune that although I may be of sorts a bourgeois intellectual, I despise those who will not fight (and moreso those who are afraid of „fighting words“). Such is not a matter of ego, but rather: I am developing a higher public profile than I had ever wanted, and thus the public should know who I am and how I react to such things.
Now for a few words as to fanaticism. I will work backwards here, and first demonstrate that you totally misjudged me.
There exists on my site an ongoing conversation I am having with somebody who is not only not on „our side“, but has actually been the hostile target of a Renegade Tribune piece by another author (actually a Heathen Women author). I do not wish to link directly to our conversation, because that individual complained to me about what I take to be some Internet troll harassment; and I sympathize with her on that point. Think about it and you will understand. However, I think if you were to take the trouble to locate that conversation, you would assume I am, shall we say, a flowing whitebeard somewhat wiser in years even than you are. Note also the relation to my „Open Letter to a White Person“ here on Renegade Tribune.
The difference may baffle you: Why would I open up with both barrels at „Reinhard“, while exhibiting the patience of a saint in chatting with a BLM supporter? In a word, I am most careful in identifying whom I deem to be an „enemy“. Other than the aforestated about traitors within the gates, I do not wish to discuss too much my criteria for so doing, which are subtle and considered and would take a book to describe, anyway. Rather, consider the practical result.
When I deem somebody to be intelligent, thoughtful, and courteous (if terribly misguided) and that person does not, to my knowledge, engage in any horrific evil, I wish to establish dialogue and take great personal pains to achieve that. Needless to say, that criterion implies being honest in one’s opinions and not trying to peddle race-mixing in the name of the Führer! But when I deem somebody to be the enemy, there is no room for dialogue: There is only one way, uncompromising adherence to the Dr. Goebbels doctrine of Attack!
By the way, I think Dr. Goebbels was under age 65; I hope you will not hold that against him, and also not despise that he was a fanatic who used rhetoric which, by the evidence here, would make you quite uncomfortable. Moreover sometimes, it was no mere rhetoric; cf. the entry in My Part in Germany’s Struggle wherein he praised an SS man who (of his own initiative) had horse-whipped to bloody unconsciousness a newspaper editorialist who had insulted the honour of Frau Magda.
But also, one of my favourite Dr. Goebbels anecdotes is of the incidence at the memorial march for the 15-year-old NS martyr HJ Quex whereby Dr. Goebbels ordered the SA to ignore large rocks being thrown at them (and him!) by the Communists—and the SA men obeyed. I have retold that National Socialist parable several times on my site and in comments here. It shows that he was a subtle thinker who knew when to fight, when to not, and which weapons to deploy at what times.
Now at that, if you step back for a moment, I think you will not take it the wrong way when I courteously but firmly suggest that you would be wise to more carefully judge my character before you offer me lectures on how I am „out of tune“ or waging „a personal jihad“. To so tell you when you have little means of knowing me, would be manifestly unfair to you—a matter I will promptly correct by telling what I think you should know about me.
I consider myself foremost a philosopher. On philosophic grounds, I am a proud and unapologetic radical who considers an intelligent fanaticism to be a virtue—and lack of fanaticism a matter of moral cowardice. The majority of what I know about Adolf Hitler and Third Reich was drawn from their own sources, either pre-1945 or from post-War surviving personages. Besides the Führer and Dr. Goebbels, I would say I learned most about the right spirit from Hans-Ulrich Rudel and Léon Degrelle. Not from neonazis-dot-com, and certainly not from what I infer you to imagine about me. After discovering Adolf Hitler and reading Mein Kampf for the first three or four times, I amassed a virtual personal library which absorbed me for thousands of hours over the course of a few years in a world where, for the first time, I felt at home. And I am still learning!
The music I listen to is principally baroque. That is not a matter of putting on airs; I have been a baroque fanatic since approximately age ten, when I found Bach and Vivaldi to be my instinctual Axis. More recently, I discovered that Aryan musicians generally (and German musicians in particular) are the proper persons to play Aryan (and German) music, in contradistinction to the Jewish fiddlers who warped my musical sense growing up. And my musical taste is directly pertinent hereto, for one of the pieces on my website of which I am most proud is titled Bach & Armin.
That piece is terse and brief, due in large part to the circumstance of the day in my current personal Kessel; and it is devoted more to geopolitics and practical concerns than to abstract philosophy. However, it does lay down by more or less bare assertion several key philosophic principles; I will here elaborate a bit on the titular one.
Bach, as you know, was a composer—the composer who created, in particular, certain music which I have elsewhere called „the single most indestructible monument of the Aryan spirit“. He embodies to me inter alia a vision of what the world would be without evil—a world of peace and growth and productivity, in total freedom—a world with neither war nor the need for it—and most certainly a world without Jews.
Arminius, as you know, was the living war god who physically exterminated three legions of Romans at Teutoberg forest. He did not take prisoners, let alone stand down and allow a retreat. He had no Dunkirk.
And the two are indivisible. Quoting from my linked piece: „You cannot have Bach without also having Arminius; and you do not deserve Bach, if you do not honour Arminius. They are two sides to the same coin. . .“
Adding one other essential element, I spend a good deal of time engaging in peace activism: Writing odes to the spirit of the 1936 Berlin Olympics; holding forth as an international model the interspecies friendship between the Germans and the Japanese (which was a genuine friendship, and not only a convenient military alliance as the Jews would have you believe!); and coining such original slogans as Race mixing leads to race war, and Racial nationalism is the key to world peace.
Of late, I also find befall me the rather thankless task of reminding comrades that German hero Otto Ernst Remer advocated peace between Europe and Islam—a great vision for peace which was deliberately ruined by the sower of discord and enemy of all nations: The Jew! I implore those who, shall we say, share my „Spiritual DNA“ to not hate the decent Arabs and Muslims who just want peace in their own homelands, or have even spoken out against the invasion of Europe; and I exhort all Europeans to stand up in uncompromising defence while remembering always, the raping, pillaging alien armies which must now be faced are nothing more than Shabbos Goyim who disgrace their own ancestors by doing the Jew’s dirty work for him.
Avoiding too many pages of explanatory text, the upshot is that one who loves peace must know the spirit of Armin as a prerequisite to fulfilling the ancient law, „si vis pacem, para bellum“. My goal and desire is to achieve peace. Were there peace to-day, I would pray there to be never again war! But peace does not exist; Europa particularly is in fact in a current state of War which did not begin in 1939, and did not end in 1945—and will not end until either Aryan mankind is destroyed, or to be blunt, Aryan mankind finally wins the War through the only means by which wars can be won.
In a world now ruled by the Weltfeind, so precious a gift as peace can be even dreamt of only by they who will step up, stop dreaming, and fight for it.
Now I understand that in the foregoing, I may have said much which makes you uncomfortable. An it be so, such be your choice. I really don’t know much about you, and I hope I misjudge you. What should be clear is that I am not to be spoken to as if I were some twenty-year-old skinhead. Indeed, despite the fact that I am unarmed and physically crippled, I am incomparably more dangerous than that—simply wielding the only substantial weapons I own, my mind and my pen.
Having herewith sufficient grounds on which to more properly judge my character and motives, say thereof what you will. You seem a decent fellow, and I hope that you find my arguments persuasive; but I will expediently more or less propose that we agree to disagree, if you don’t. At least you should understand that I have absolutely no compunctions about deploying old-fashioned, Dr. Goebbels-style fanatical Attack! rhetoric against race-traitors and infiltrators who promote miscegenation, such as „Reinhard“.
Indeed, I will close by applying to „Reinhard“ perhaps only slightly out of context Dr. Goebbels’ quotation of Il Duce in his famous essay, Der Jude—first published in 1929 in a periodical which you will note was titled, Der Angriff: „‚Terror? Never! It is social hygiene. We take these individuals out of circulation just as a doctor does to a bacterium.‘“ Whereupon I thank Renegade for doing just that on a virtual level, by banning the pestilent little microbe.
HEIL HITLER UND HEIL ARMIN.
/s/ Helmut Stuka