A humble native of Austria, Bruckner pursued music religiously and ambitiously throughout his life. He was an assidious student; unlike Mozart or Bach, he was not an acclaimed prodigy. Instead his compositions were written over long periods, and afterwards he would always habitually revise them, never feeling the sense of perfection for which he yearned, the piousness for which he prayed.
Bruckner lived during a time of division within the musical arena, one that ended up not only hurting his reputation, but more importantly his confidence and consequently his output. Brahms was the day’s classicist; although the period at hand marked the beginning of the Romantic era, he brought along the traditional style of those such as Beethoven, who he was determined to succeed. Wagner was the opposite of Brahms, inovating music, mostly in the operatic form. Bruckner was one who stood behind Wagner, knowing the man personally and admiring him for his music.
It was not Brahms who put Bruckner down, however. Eduard Hanslick, a critic of music, revered Brahms as the Bach of their time; he was an ideologue of the classical form and style, and he took every chance he could to bash Bruckner’s work. This certainly convinced much of the public that Bruckner, as a composer, was not able. Complaints were largely focused on the long length, instances of silence, and overall laggardness of his symphonies. His mental stability was of course affected by Hanslick’s attitude, and this perhaps led to his persistant revision phases. Near the end of his life Bruckner’s mental state frequently jumped outside the borders of sanity.
During his lifetime, the only respect he received was for his Symphonies No. 4 and No. 7 and for his religious choral work Te Deum. Unlike most other composers, he began writing middle-aged, near forty. He died before he was able to complete the final of the four movements of his Symphony No. 9, a work which surely would have been glorious.
It has been said that Bruckner considered the third movement of his Symphony No. 8 to be his best. Surely, if you listen to it several times, you will recognize the climax to be one of amazing length, one that keeps building and breaking, a burst of emotion only heard in such a form of music.
Bruckner and Adolf Hitler
According to Hitler and Goebbels, the three master composers that represented good German music were Ludwig van Beethoven, Richard Wagner, and Anton Bruckner. All three composers lived prior to the 20th century.
Anton Bruckner’s Symphony No. 7 in E major (WAB 107) is one of his best-known symphonies. It was written between 1881 and 1883 and was revised in 1885. It is dedicated to Ludwig II of Bavaria.
“In the modern world, we tend to think of philosophy as a purely intellectual activity, which we can practice from the comfort of our armchair. For the ancients, by contrast, philosophy was a full-body workout, which was taught and practiced in the gymnasium as much as the classroom. They were celebrated as much for their physical toughness as their mental acumen: Plato was a famous wrestler (his name means ‘broad-shouldered’), Cleanthes the Stoic was a boxer, Socrates was considered the toughest soldier in the Athenian army, while Diogenes the Cynic was so hardy he was content to live in a barrel. Their physical hardiness was proof that they lived their philosophy rather than just talking it.”
Jules Evans, Philosophy for Life and Other Dangerous Situations.
1. A dictatorship requires three things: a man, an idea, and a following ready to live for the man and the idea, and if necessary to die for them. If the man is lacking it is hopeless; if the idea is lacking, it is impossible; if the following is missing, the dictatorship is only a bad joke.
2. A dictatorship can rule against a parliament when necessary, but never against the people.
3. Sitting on bayonets is uncomfortable.
4. A dictator’s first task is to make what he wants popular, bringing the will of the nation in tune with his own will. Only then will the broad masses support him in the long run and join his ranks.
5. A dictator’s highest duty is social justice. If people sense that the dictator only represents a thin upper class that has nothing to do with them, they will see the dictator as a hateful enemy and quickly overthrown him.
6. Dictatorships will rescue a nation when they know better ways than the previous governmental forms that they are fighting, and when their power is so anchored in the people that they do not depend on weapons, but rather on their followers.
7. A dictator does not need to follow the will of the majority. He must however have the ability to use the will of the people.
8. Leading parties and masses is the same as governing a nation. He who ruins a party will lead a nation into the abyss. Political ability is not demonstrated by using treacherous methods to rise to a ministerial chair on the labor of others.
9. Dictatorships must be able to survive on their own spiritual reserves. It will not work if what is good in their ideas comes from their opponents, and what does not come from their opponents is bad.
10. The ability to speak is no shame. It is shameful only when actions do not follow words. To speak well is good. To act bravely is even better. The typical reactionary can neither speak nor act. He has somehow gained power, but has no idea what to do with it.
11. Nothing is more foreign to dictatorial thinking than the bourgeois concept of objectivity. A dictatorship is by its very nature subjective. It takes sides by its nature. Since it is for one thing, it must be against another. If it does not do the latter, it runs the risk of having people doubt its honesty about the first.
12. A dictatorship speaks openly about what it is and what it wants. Nothing is farther from it than to hide behind a facade. It has the courage to act, but also the courage to affirm.
13. Dictatorships that hide behind the law to give themselves an appearance of legality even if their actions disagree, are short-lived. They will collapse of their own incompetence, leaving behind chaos and confusion.
14. Only those who lack the courage to join a party value being above party. When worlds collapse, when foundations shake, when revolutionary fevers spread through peoples and nations, one must join a party, one must be for or against. He who stands between will be torn apart by the contradictions, a victim of his own indecisiveness.
15. It may sound grotesque, but it is true: The nature of a dictator must be clear from his name. One cannot rule with a name like Müller or Meier. And the claim to a title must be fought for. It can not be gained by swindle.
16. A true dictator depends on himself. His false counterpart hides behind the rules and depends on legal paragraphs to justify his actions.
17. Everything great is simple and everything simple is great. The little man likes to conceal his insignificance through complexity.
18. The army exists to defend the country against external threats, not to suppress the people in the interests of a thin layer of usurpers. A dictatorship that cannot defend itself with its own supporters deserves to be displaced.
19. Primo de Rivera fell because his power rested on guns, but he earned only hatred and scorn from the people.
20. Mussolini’s work is unshakable, for he is his people’s idol. He gave back to Italy what has always been the surest and best foundation of a state: confidence.
“Goldene Worte für einen Diktator und für solche, die es werden wollen,” 1932 article from Der Angriff
“These flames, dancing skyward on all sides, gave witness to the fury with which their comrades had struck. In their mind’s eye they saw the brave figures of their brothers in arms, forever faithful, moving through the swirling fire, each one smiting the foe with flashing blade. This was the hour for which they had so long checked their fierce rage and whetted their sword blades in secret. Otaguro’s bosom heaved with an ineffable surge of joy. ‘Every man is fighting,’ he murmured. ‘Every man”
Yukio Mishima – Runaway Horses (奔馬)
Daniel Wretström was a young Swedish boy who was brutally murdered in Salem, a suburb to Stockholm by a multicultural gang consisting of up to as many as 15 immigrants and at least 1 Swedish.
Daniel was waiting for the bus at the bus stop on Säbytorgsvägen, he is on his way home from a party, suddenly a multicultural gang shows up and screams and is shouting “Racist” as they approach Daniel, a Swedish girl with a foreign accent screams “****ing racist! Do you dare to stay?! Are you scared!?” “Beat him to death”. The gang, encouraged by the knowledge that it is okey to assault Swedes who they suspect are racist. Only a few days earlier, the Swedish Prime minister Göran Persson stated in an article of one of Swedens largest newspapers that racism has to be crushed, the multicultural gang was determined to make these words reality.
As the gang approaches Daniel, he realizes his vulnerable position, alone against an entire mob of bloodthirsty immigrants armed with wooden sticks and anything they could find on the ground to be used as a weapon.
After being hit with sticks and other objects, and kicked a dozen of times, a car comes passing by on the road, Daniel tries to escape the gang by throwing himself up on the cars hood. “Please, help me” he says, hoping that the driver will keep on driving and take him to safety, instead one of the gang members shouts to the driver that he is a racist, and the car driver starts driving back and forward to try to shake off Daniel. Finally, the gang comes and drags him off the cars hood, and whilst the car just drives away the battering continues.
The gang keeps on kicking and hitting him repeatedly with planks and sticks against Daniels head and body. The boy is now almost lifeless, lying in the ditch. One of the attackers grabs a 1.5 meter long plank and hits the boy in the head with it over and over again, he does not stop until a teenage girl who passed by screams hysterically at him and begs him to stop. One of the girls who are participating in the battering of the boy then shouts back to the protesting girl that “The racist deserves it” and the gang member who is holding the plank is raising it towards the witness in a threatening gesture. At this stage one gang member who had left to get his bigger brother returns. He starts to jump on the head and neck of the almost lifeless boy. The older brother had come to help to take care of one of these detestable racists who murder “small children” and are a threat against “democracy” and he now feels his hatred boiling over. – Out of my way, I have got a knife! he shouts in excitement as he rushes forward towards the almost lifeless boy holding a carving knife.
The other gang members leave place for Khaled Odeh who sits astride on the boys back. He raises and lowers the large carving knife again and again. After stabbing the boy at least four times in the back, the blade brakes in half. Khaled then takes the boys head with his left hand to pull it backwards.
He feels a raging hatred for the mutilated young boy; a boy that he knows threatens democracy; a boy who murders small children, he knows that the boy must be crushed. So he decides what to do. “I will kill him”. The words go through his mind as he forces what is left of the knife into the throat of the boy.
Satisfied that he has liberated society from a racist he elatedly gets up on his feet. The blood which is covering his hands is still warm. He looks around and shouts to the people standing around him that no one has seen him. Then he runs away with his brother after him. The rest of the gang members walk their separate ways and disappear. “Crush racism”, someone shouts among the shadows.
But Khaled Odeh has been seen. The Swedish girl who witnessed the brutal assault approaches the boy with tears in her eyes. The boy is trying to raise his head but fails. His clothes are drowned with blood which is pumping out of his slashed neck artery. He is trying to gasp for breath, out of his mouth is heard a wheezing sound, when his head again falls to the ground in the cold ditch. The life runs out of Daniel Wretström as the girl desperately tries to save him.
When Daniel was still alive he gave his surrounding laughter and joy. Family and friends described him as considerate, kind and very much liked. The flame in his eyes was put out when he was only seventeen years old and had a whole life ahead of him. My son Daniel was a soft and delightful boy with a twinkle in his eye, his mother tells us. He really brightened life with his humour and his pranks. It wasn’t always sunshine but everything we went through together made us closer to each other. He found relaxation and calm when fishing, and he could sit in the boat for hours, just pondering and enjoying the peace. I soon learned to avoid letting Daniel into a fishing shop since it would take a long time before he came out of there. He loved to fish, to meet girls, to play drums and his family. In my eyes he was a wonderful guy that I was very proud of. If we would ever fall out, the words “I’m sorry” were very important. He often said “mummy, I love you.” and his friends listening was not embarrassing to him at all. Daniel was a boy who made very large impression on people that he met, and he won a lot of people’s hearts. Every time I look out my kitchen window and on Daniels little house I see a dark window, the lights are put out, and I wonder, why did they take your life?
There are still far too many people who think of themselves as being Nationalists who are ignorant of the untold damage that Western support for Israel has caused not only in the Middle East in recent times, but also in Europe historically going back to WW1 and the Balfour Declaration. These same people seem incapable of understanding what is not only well documented, but what is glaringly obvious all around them. They fail to understand the vast network of pro-Israel lobbying groups that dictate through financial means the foreign policy of Western politicians. They fail to understand what group has been the driving force behind the leftist Cultural Marxist agenda and who have been the biggest supporters and campaigners for open borders and multiculturalism.
What Trump has done is to sweep under the carpet half a century of ethnic cleansing that has been the cause of so much trouble across the decades. If what Israel has done since 1948 was committed by any other state, then America and the rest of the hypocritical puppets masquerading as political leaders would likely have militarily intervened.
True European Nationalism understands this issue and does not endorse or support Israel. Not because of support for Muslims in the Middle East, but because of what Israel and their lobbying groups in the diaspora have done in using our nations and our troops to achieve its aims.