Siege, 33

On the way into Poland in 1939


…or more accurately, on the way back into the Polish-occupied German territory at the outset of World War Two, Adolf Hitler told his troops, “Close your hearts to pity”.
A strange thing for a Nazi to be telling other Nazis. After all, that is supposed to be a foregone conclusion if we have been taught right. Didn’t Hitler start the war for the pure fun and brutality of it? We know otherwise but there is still a subtle message in what Hitler told his men in 1939. In spite of Polish occupation of German territories since 1918 and in spite of some of the worst outrages done against the German inhabitants by some over-zealous Poles, Hitler knew he had to spell out plainly to his men what the mission was if it was going to be done right.
It is part of the White Man’s makeup to forget, to know pity… it is found in no other race. And this trait has cost us plenty over the centuries because we have let so many enemies get away.
As we all too painfully know, THAT was the prime reason for the loss of World War Two: Hitler was not the bad guy he is made out to be. Had he been, the British Army at Dunkirk would have been annihilated; every Jew in Europe WOULD have been killed; and idealism would not have been so high as to prevent the immediate use of millions of Russians and Ukrainians in the fight against Marxist-Leninism.
But in a lot of respects, those German soldiers crashing their way back into their lost provinces had it a lot easier than we shall in closing our hearts to pity, for when an enemy is shooting at you, the instinct is to shoot back. And in the case of a war between European States, once the issue was settled on the field of honor, life could go on as before… not so at all for the United States in the civil war that is coming up.
One well-known Right Wing leader has already said that we must not neglect to assemble our own “lists” of enemy operatives and sympathizers in our own locales for quick reference later on. His argument—and he is correct—is that you know damned good and well that they certainly have us on their lists, in triplicate! On the surface this isn’t a bad idea but I know how lazy the Movement is.
It is by no means wishful thinking for me to draw you this picture: not many months ago I had regular occasion to screen people in their homes in the line of work. Conversation invariably drifted to the topic of the neighborhood. More than once I found myself standing in windows or yards being given a visual guided tour of where the race-mixers lived. At those times I could visualize myself in the same circumstances only this time in official capacity as a “Revolutionary Clean-Up Man”. And THAT is part of how the civil war is going to shape up.
The real White Americans who are left (and there are many) HATE the very sight of race-mixing even though they scarcely understand the larger, genetic meaning of it. They HATE those of their own race who are involved in it. Don’t you think they’d LOVE to come to us later on, after this existing race-mixing System has been smashed down by revolution, and “finger” every single race-mixer known to them, knowing fast action on our part will follow instantaneously? This sort of renders the need for “lists” unnecessary. As far as the System’s kingpins are concerned, everybody knows who they are. As far as the System Sucks are concerned, we here know ours by heart very well and you can and should be the same in your area.
The truth is that assembling and keeping these so-called “hit lists” for us at this time is a DANGER. Looks bad as hell in case of a raid and it is UNNECESSARY. Actual System bureaucrats will get it during the full-phase course of the revolution as we go about the real business of smashing the power of the System.
The larger “clean-up” phase during and after the civil war, which even then will be raging, is a different matter. As most of you have long ago noticed, a lot of the most rabid, sneering miscegenators are blond, blue-eyed doll babies. If you can’t close your heart to pity, if you couldn’t blast the head off of one or a thousand of these types, then you had better bow out right now.
War is war and it is something highly impersonal. But White renegades, be they government officials or plain bleeding hearts, are another matter. We must swear an oath to ourselves now—while we’re down, while things are tough, while the Enemy is in full power, while the vile race-mixers daily promenade openly in public protected by this evil System, now while it is easy to HATE—that for the United States there will be no need for concentration camps of any kind, for not a single transgressor will survive long enough to make it to that kind of haven.

Vol. IX, #6 – October, 1980

11 Replies on “Siege, 33

  1. Same goes for where I am, Ireland. The anger I have inside me every time I leave my house & see the ever increasing race traitors may send me to an early grave. But by God I hope I’m around when the time comes to take some of these scumbags with me.

  2. I’m back in Portugal. My hometown has gotten worse since I left six years ago. The place is crawling with nigger migrants from Angola and Mozambique. In my normie days, whenever I saw a nigger dating a white girl, I always felt the primordial sting of betrayal. However, I processed my hatred incorrectly, thinking: “fucking nigger. He’s sullying a perfectly good specimen. I should kill him and take her for myself.”
    Today I hate the traitor white girl much more than the nigger. Especially because telegony happens in humans.
    The coal burning whore ruins herself forever. Through telegony, she taints her bloodline with negro genes, and woe to any potential future white man she has chidren with – he is an unwitting cuck, part-father to his part-nigger offspring.
    It’s not only about righteous anger, it’s also the correct application of justice. What about all the uncaring boomer parents of these race-mixing whores? They are just as responsible (or perhaps even more) of committing the gravest sin. Women are capable of agency up to a point.
    I am reminded of Lane’s KD rebel Trebor, when he slaughters the high-school girl’s parents, after finding out they did not care to protect their daughter’s bloodline. Thousands of years of genetic evolution, about to be ruined by a single ejaculation.

    1. No: Women are not genetically predetermined to have sex with Niggers. The reason why they choose monkeys as partners is because they are portrayed in the Media as being strong, protective, and confident (MTV did that a lot). It is also to do with the fact that in real life they are aggressive, muscular, and pack-based. This gives the Patriarchal White woman the impression that he will be a protective mate and a protective father for her Uruk offspring.
      On the other hand, White men are weak and effeminate. Was it you who told the story of basically being a wimp when you were young?
      Well, my childhood was the same in that regard, and it is true even for grown White men. The average Brit is like Sargon of Akkad: Fat, Leftist, plays videogames all the time, and downright repugnant.
      Why do you think so many young beautiful European girls are advocating to let the refugees in? Because they know that they are dangerous and sexually aggressive and these girls deep-down want to be a part of it.
      It disgusts me that this is happening, but David Lane does essentially say what I am saying here. It is wrong to think that such a girl’s genetic seed is bad, as she is the exact same genetic seed as her ancestors. It is because women are impressionable their whole lives (the youngers more so), and every peer in their lives have let them down, whether it be the TV or their parents (like the girl in KD Rebel).
      Having said that, many women who have Race-mixed will have to be executed as a warning to all others and as a form of punishing all of them. But the thing is, it is more society’s fault than the individual female’s. Though, I will say that I probably could never bring myself to fuck a girl who has fucked a Skraeling beforehand.
      In men, it is different. They know exactly what they are doing. They are more rational than their female counterparts, and they deserve everything they get.

      1. I didn’t say white women were predisposed to fuck negroids. I said they cuck their future white husbands by acquiring negroid genes through a history of coal burning. Telegony. Previous sex partners leave a small genetic “imprint” in the female’s uterus. A female is genetically “primed” after copulating with her first mate. That’s why virgins were (and are) so valued, and sluts are damaged goods. Telegony happens in the animal world and in the human world, but in a lesser degree.
        Yes, I agree that weak men and a nigger-abiding media contribute more to race betrayal than raw female nature. This is a case where Nurture is cheating Nature. I believe white women are, in general, loyal to their kinsmen; that we are overall dying off rather than mixing out.
        I don’t subscribe to the ‘Thotterdammerung’ DS bandwagon. I love white women, but the 14 words come first. Like the Irish fuhrerious guy wrote above, No Mercy for Race Traitors. All that love turns to burning hatred in a split second, that’s pure Darwinian instinct.
        The question is how to judge the men responsible for white nymphs? Their fathers, their brothers? There’s a whole department of Racial Justice we could discuss.

  3. (i). I sometimes see nationalists imply that the use of extra-territorial camps by the Third Reich was a sign of the National Socialists’ innate decency. By the mid-1930s, German society was already substantially co-ordinated and these people could have simply been shot or euthanised. Instead, the ‘humane’ solution was pursued, much like today our society uses prisons instead of summarily executing even the worst offenders. However, I think the use of those camps wasn’t primarily down to some sort of neo-Christian ethic. It was more partly a function of National Socialist philosophy that emphasised territoriality and ‘living space’, but I think it was mainly down to the democratic mode of takeover chosen by the Nazis in 1933. After 1933, there was one further revolution, in 1934, and that was the only sporadic violence organised by the Nazi leadership – and I think we could regard that incident as an anomaly – otherwise an abundant emphasis was placed on legality and pseudo-legality, together with the concept of a ‘permanent revolution’ in implicit norms (i.e. revolution as evolution). It was therefore necessary when dealing with internal enemies to pursue a means of control that was ‘humane’, and (in the context of the time) regarded by the international community as such. Simply going round killing Jews, neo-Marxists, liberals and what not would have inculcated an atmosphere of instability and could well have stoked a counter-revolution.
    If this is correct, then I must reflect on whether it was a mistake on Hitler’s part to pursue strategic legality and whether the Third Reich could have been more permanent had either the original takeover been violent, as it was for the Bolsheviks, or had Hitler at some point during the late 1930s instigated a further violent revolution to bind the German people en masse to National Socialism through a bloody compact. Mason seems to have an intuitive understanding of this problem. In Seige itself, Mason posits a distinction between Hitler’s ‘parliamentary party by compulsion’ and the NSLF as a ‘revolutionary party by compulsion’. Is violence – specifically, terror – a necessary ingredient for revolutionary permanency? If so, what does that tell us about the human condition? What are the metapolitical and political lessons?

    1. (ii). The Seige serialisation began almost forty years ago now. It could easily be written today, but with much greater stridency and urgency. Yet where are the James Masons today? You would think that the trajectory over forty years would be towards an intensification of militancy and perhaps outbursts of violence here and there gradually becoming a regular occurrence until the system’s actors and their moral impetus become demotivated because, frankly, nobody wants to get shot or blown up – that’s more or less what happened between the British government and Irish Republicans. Though I am simplifying a little, basically up until about 1988, the Provisional IRA were incredibly successful and had the British government on the run. Their violence was, at times, shocking in its cruelty and brutality and this must have played a part in the various concessions from the British side to the Republican side. Why hasn’t a similar pattern emerged in relation to white racial and ethnic militancy? Surely the racial/ethnic version would result in more than reform and concessions. Did white men bottle it? Has the ‘moment’ for white-conscious revolution been lost? Could it be that the ‘worse’ is yet to come, that imposed diversity must inevitable unravel into random violence and chaos?

      1. A final observation:
        (iii). What I like about Seige is that it doesn’t just fall into the trap of arguing that white militants should incite a race war or simply seek vengeance. Mason rightly argues that the purpose of violence is to smash the system. But that being the case, I have a different view to Mason about targets, perhaps based on a different ‘moral’ or ‘ethic’ about terrorism and its efficacy. My view is that the first stage is terrorism, and terror is only legitimate when it is targeted at rulers and others in positions of power and influence. Also, it needs to be targeted at the enemy, not ‘para-enemies’. Thus, I would NOT target Jews and other non-whites or race-mixers. My logic is that race-mixers practice what they preach, so there is no ‘ethic’ in targeting them; meanwhile, Jews and other non-whites are simply looking after their own interests, therefore targeting them as a matter of course lacks a moral basis. Instead, my definition of the enemy is specifically the traitor. Thus, my targets would be whites – specifically, in a British context, white MPs who have opposed white interests, as well as other whites of importance, and whites who serve the system – police officers, civil servants, judges, etc.
        You may ask: Why not target the racial enemy first? I do not rule out the idea of violence to enforce micro-territorial/communal imperatives, but white traitors are the first order racial enemy, and before terrorising ‘the other’, we must first terrorise our own community – a necessary paradox. The aim is to create a situation in which whites who set out to serve the system in any way whatsoever know that they are risking life and limb.
        In the above I am referring to ‘terrorism’ rather than attritional war per se. The latter would call for a different aim and different methods and targets.