web analytics

Tag: National Socialism

Categories
'Hitler' (book by Brendan Simms) French Revolution Savitri Devi

Hitler, 33

Le Serment du Jeu de paume by Jacques-Louis David (c. 1791), depicting the Tennis Court Oath.

More immediately relevant to Germany’s predicament were the dramatic recent examples of national revival, where peoples had bounced back from decline or catastrophic defeat. Perhaps surprisingly, Hitler was open to inspiration from France. ‘The French Revolution was national and constructive,’ he argued, ‘whereas the German one wanted to be international and to destroy everything.’ Hitler took a similarly positive view of later French radicalism. ‘When France collapsed at Sedan,’ he wrote, ‘one made a revolution to rescue the sinking tricolour!’ ‘The war was waged with new energy,’ he continued, and ‘the will to defend the state created the French Republic in 1870’, thus restoring ‘French national honour’. This shows that Hitler’s fundamental objection was not to the ‘ideas of 1789’, which he hardly ever mentioned. His real trauma—to which we will return later—was the fragmentation of Germany beginning with the Treaty of Westphalia in 1648.

The way I quote from Brendan Simms’ book may seem strange. I read through it and, when I come across a passage that requires comment, I pause and comment on it here.

The passage above, for example, strikes me as remarkable because it shows us a young Adolf who was unaware that the egalitarian ideas of 1789 were already symptomatic of a cancer in which Christian ethics were secularised to be metastasised in subsequent centuries. Recall that the French had been inspired by the American Revolutionary War of 1775-1783 and that in turn these American ideals were inspired by Protestant ethics (those who haven’t read Tom Holland’s Dominion should at least read our excerpts now). The young Hitler, naturally, didn’t have all this in mind. He was first and foremost a politician, not exactly a philosopher and certainly not, to use my metaphor, a visionary who sees the remote past in a cave north of the Wall (for example, to realise that Protestantism is behind today’s mass psychosis if we psychoanalyse the West from the remote past).

One of the things that distinguishes me compared to the American organisation founded by George Lincoln Rockwell is that, unlike the Commander, I am convinced that National Socialism must be understood as an organism in continuous development. And NS is developing even in the darkest age of the West in which Savitri Devi used the metaphor of ‘gold in a furnace’, in the sense that all the chaff burns in the burning furnace and only the element gold, which being a chemical element cannot burn there, will survive it.

Although Savitri came up with this metaphor at a time when the denazification of Germany was in full swing, in our time it could be said that the fire of that furnace has already burnt up all the chaff, except for people like us who continue to believe in Uncle Adolf’s ideals.

But Uncle Adolf couldn’t have known what we now know! His untimely death in 1945 prevented him from realising the levels of anti-white delirium to which the white man would fall after the decades-long process of trying to demonise NS throughout the West!

A mature NS man has to take into account the darkest hour for the white man and explain it. One oblique way to do this is to realise that American white nationalism has gone astray. It is at a dead end, as I said this morning in this thread.

It is high time to be humble; to retrace our steps from that alley, and return to the main avenue leading us to a National Socialism of the 21st and 22nd centuries. But I don’t see that humility anywhere on the racial right…

Categories
Autobiography Free speech / Free press Holocaust

The BBC brainwashed me

As we see in the highlighted posts ‘Myth’ and ‘Throne’ which appear in red letters at the top of this page, it is the story we have been telling ourselves for the last few decades that has produced the darkest hour for the white race. That is why it is so important to assimilate the meaning of the Shakespeare and Faulkner quotes in the post I uploaded a little after midnight today.

A pen pal overseas has informed me that someone, who surely hates me for what I write here, has been impersonating me in the comments section of Occidental Dissent (OD) writing nonsense and using my full name. I haven’t been able to locate the specific threads because the admin of that site has been unwilling to respond to my emails (I guess the admin also hates me for my criticism of his site!). Whoever the guy is who’s posting comments in my name without the OD admin banning him or her, the hatred and contempt that many feel for what I say here might be better understood if I confess that, before, I was exactly like them.

The books I devour, I underline copiously. If you visit my library, you will see that many of my books are marked not only with highlighter pens but with my hand-written footnotes. They are a real treat to open a window on the normie I was in the last century.

In 1999, when I was living in Manchester, I bought and devoured Laurence Rees’s The Nazis: A Warning from History, a BBC book. It is Allied propaganda at its worst, precisely the propaganda exposed in the aforementioned ‘Myth’ article. A couple of decades after I read the book I saw an internet image of Rees standing next to a Negress. Cuck Island Britons like him commit ethnosuicide precisely because they have been telling themselves stories like this one from BBC TV, and then passed on more formally to books.

When I lived on that island, propaganda had infected me about the Third Reich and the Second World War. The things I wrote in the blanks of that book represent a window into my biographical past that sheds light on those who now hate me because they still think as I did last century.

The climactic pages of The Nazis, obviously, are descriptions of the so-called Jewish holocaust. The César I was last century wrote, in the book, things like: ‘By now, there should have already been a plot to kill him [Hitler]’ (about a passage on page 107); ‘Here it is clear: even the British didn’t recognise the danger in Czechoslovakia after the atrocities in Kristallnacht and humiliation of the Austrian Jews’ (about a passage on page 116); ‘Wow: a decent German among monsters’ (about a passage on page 129); ‘This is why I bought the book: just as I think, let’s distribute guilt to all the German people’ (about the introductory passages on pages 10ff); ‘Clear-cut case of folie à nación, Austria’ (about a passage on page 110); ‘Close your heart to compassion. Act brutally, Hitler’ (about a passage on page 122), ‘Now I know why I unconsciously identified myself with Stauffenberg [the ringleader of the bombing of 20 July 1944]’ (about a passage on page 215); ‘One good thing really came out of this trip to England: discovering the BBC’ (when on 14 June 1999 I finished reading The Nazis).

Well, well… If I can have empathy, and even sympathy, for the brainwashed César of the last century, I must now have it for those who haven’t crossed the psychological Rubicon.

What would I say to the César of the last century if I could visit him through a time tunnel?

First of all, I hope that by now visitors have seen my post yesterday linking to a video by David Irving showing what I believe about the historical facts of the so-called holocaust from the viewpoint of what Irving calls ‘real history’. Let’s start from that, and also from what I responded to Jewish Enrique Krauze in The Occidental Observer on the subject. Krauze’s position is the same as the position of Rees in his BBC book, where on page 194 Rees picked up a quote: ‘Nobody can explain why the Germans did it’ when the explanation is so obvious that even the Jew Albert Lindemann laid it out in his scholarly Esau’s Tears.

But there is more to it than that.

The César of the last century had to cross the Rubicon. To move from identifying with Stauffenberg (!) to wanting history to be told before and after Hitler (!), which is what I want now, requires a great metamorphosis.

The first step, I have already confessed on this site, I owe to the fact that on 20 April 2010, Greg Johnson posted in the comments section of OD the full text of an article by Irmin Vinson, if I remember correctly this one, which Johnson then published in the webzine Counter-Currents and eventually in print along with other essays by Vinson.

That was the first stepping stone for me to start crossing the psychological Rubicon.

I don’t want to link here all the other stepping stones I had to step on before I reached the other side of the river because it would overwhelm the reader with countless links. But even the first stone gives an idea of the direction in which I was heading.

I want to say a final word about César in the last century.

There is something I underlined a quarter of a century ago in that book that I still believe, ‘Despite being widely bought [Mein Kampf] it was not widely read [in Germany]’ (page 90). That’s because, in my humble opinion, the Führer had to divide his message in twain: a message analogous to today’s American white nationalism for the masses, and a more anti-Christian one for his inner circle of friends. The problem wasn’t Hitler’s hypocrisy, but that the masses of Germans were unprepared to receive his full message (He didn’t say anything to them without using a parable; but when he was alone with his own disciples he explained everything…).

This bifurcation of the NS message is now unnecessary. Hitler’s after-dinner conversations, an anthology like The Fair Race or Savitri Devi’s memoirs linked in my featured post explain it so clearly that, unlike Mein Kampf in the 1930s, they would be devoured as highly entertaining novels once the American troops leave Europe and the Germans and Austrians reinstate the freedom of press eliminated since 1945 (again: see what Irving said in yesterday’s post).

Categories
Podcasts Racial right

Podcast 100

One might think that I am at home with sympathisers of National Socialism who, like me, have no qualms about harbouring an exterminationist ideology. That is, those who, following the metaphor of ‘The Wall’, are already on the north side of the wall.

But from the lofty perspective of a fabulous bird that could fly really high, it would see that although a wall separates them from the white nationalists who camped on the south side of the wall, the National Socialists and the nationalists are geographically very close to each other. It is I who have broken away from that cluster of people to go much further north, and I would like to illustrate this with the 100th podcast of the show Manifest Destiny, which I listened to yesterday on the Volkish website.

The show opens with degenerate music: something that if Hitler had won the war we wouldn’t be listening to today. It pains me to say it, but a literate Jew opens his video with a Chopin nocturne (I’ve been listening to those nocturnes in the evenings these days: such beautiful music that comforts the spirit). When I had my podcast before SoundCloud cancelled our account, I also started the show with a piano piece played by my mother’s students, and it was very comforting for my soul.

After the 27th minute of the Manifest Destiny podcast, we heard a few words about the Hellstorm Holocaust: ‘The greatest extermination slaughter in Aryan history… carried on by Aryans under the thrall of Jews and… Jewish ideas… The first time in history [that such a holocaust was perpetrated] to this extent’. And after 39:40, speaking of that genocide of millions of Germans, we hear: ‘all the actions of the Jews and the Allies…’

Note that he speaks first of the Jews and then of the Allies. I couldn’t speak like that, for Stalin, Roosevelt, Eisenhower and Truman weren’t Jews.

This reminds me that, although Hunter Wallace of Occidental Dissent and I are on the other side of the wall, a few years ago Wallace published an article mentioning a neologism of mine, ‘Type B Bicausalism’ referring to there being more Aryan than Jewish culpability in white decline: something Wallace seemed to agree with.

On the Manifest Destiny podcast, another voice, Jake I think, said that Hitler is hated worldwide. But he’s really only hated in the West. When I lived in England for a year in 1998-1999 I was still a normie and I was shocked that no one from the Middle East, Muslim or otherwise, shared this hatred. Nor did Asians seem to hate Hitler in the guesthouse where I lived. Only the next century would I discover the English writer Tom Holland who explains that Christianity, in its axiological (i.e. no longer dogmatic) phase, survived after 1945 thanks to the demonisation of Uncle Adolf.

Another thing where I differ from those of Manifest Destiny is the lack of gravitas in their tones of voice. Since I come from such a hellish family past that drove my sisters mad and led me astray into cults that consumed decades of my life (before I came to my senses), as a survivor the tone of my voice reflects both existential fury and deep melancholy: a gravitas very useful for the priest of the sacred words that I have never heard in those close to the wall.

At 1:07 of the show we hear of the denazification of Germany: a ‘religious war’. True, but the forces of evil had already practised a holocaust of Germans in the Thirty Years’ War. Few have pointed out that it has been the Germans who have been rebelling first against Catholic dogma (at the hands of Rome’s mudbloods) and then against Christian axiology (a moral code covering the West). Both rebellions were punished with real holocausts of which no films have yet been made!

In the show, we hear about ‘the greatest book burning’ that was allegedly perpetrated in history, what the Allies did in Germany after 1945. But the speaker omits an even greater destruction, which took place from the 4th to the 10th century when the triumphant Church tried to erase all traces of the classical world (cf. Karlheinz Deschner’s work in German or, more modestly, Catherine Nixey’s in English).

But one thing I liked the podcast to point out is that Christian preachers were the most prominent denazifiers after 1945. This fits perfectly with the current subtitle of this site, Feinderkennung, and speaks against what I have called ‘Type A Bicausalism’ (something Wallace seems to agree with me on).

Near the end of the podcast, a quote from Savitri Devi struck a chord with me: the victors of World War II ‘cannot denazify the Gods’ (remember that in speaking of providence we priests of the sacred words use the plural to distinguish our panentheism from the god of the Jews). The Nazi defeat was so crushing that it wasn’t only a military defeat on a par with the Hellstorm Holocaust to kill as many National Socialists as possible. Millions of surviving Germans were then brainwashed with a denazification that persists to this day even outside Germany! It was also discussed in the podcast that Savitri initiated post-1945 National Socialism: a NS that, because of such a crushing defeat, must be different from the previous one.

This is very true.

Categories
'Hitler' (book by Brendan Simms) England

Hitler, 31

If Hitler saw Germany’s salvation in a domestic revival, this did not make him blind towards foreign models. Indeed, the international context within which all his thinking was embedded made him particularly interested in the strength of rival powers. Hitler’s principal model here was Britain. ‘The British,’ he admitted, ‘are entitled to feel proud as a people.’ Britain’s vitality was based on the ‘extraordinary brilliance’ of her population. They had the ‘British national sentiment which our people lacks so much’ and they had maintained ‘racial purity in the colonies’, by which he meant the general absence of intermarriage between settlers and colonial administrators and the native population .Unlike the belated German national state after 1871, Britain enjoyed ‘a centuries-long political-diplomatic tradition’. Unlike Germany, she had grasped the true connection between politics and economics. ‘England has recognized the first principle of state health and existence,’ Hitler argued, ‘and has acted for centuries according to the principle that economic power must be converted into political power’ and ‘that political power must be used to protect economic life’. ‘There are things that permit the British to exercise world domination,’ he explained: ‘a highly developed sense of national identity, clear racial unity, and finally the ability to convert economic power into political power, and political power into economic power’.

There were, however, two profound contradictions in Hitler’s thinking about Britain. First of all, he dubbed the country a ‘second Jewry’, which sat ill with his otherwise respectful attitude. Hitler regarded British Jews as primarily urban, and so well integrated ‘that they appeared to be British’, which prevented the growth of anti-Semitism there. If true, then this might—in Hitler’s reasoning—account for British hostility to the Reich, but he did not explain why this uniquely high level of Jewish penetration did not render her even weaker than Germany. This paradox at the heart of Hitler’s view of the United Kingdom was never resolved.

This is interesting and I feel I must give my opinion.

My view differs not only from the liberal (at its extreme pole, the Woke) or the common conservative (at its extreme pole, the white nationalist). It also differs from Hitler, as we can see from the masthead, ‘The Wall’, in the sense that discovering that Jesus didn’t even exist, but that one hundred per cent of the NT was Jewish literary fiction, takes us further away from even the northern side of the wall, to follow the masthead’s metaphor.

I still admire Hitler as the greatest politician Western history has ever produced, but I emphasise the anti-Christian Hitler who only revealed himself to his close friends and in some after-dinner talks (see Weikart’s book): not exactly the Hitler of his public speeches or Mein Kampf.

And that is the point. As Simms reveals throughout his book, Hitler’s thinking evolved from the basically monocausalist letter to Gemlich (i.e., like the Judeo-reductionism of the contemporary white nationalist) to a realisation of international chess: something like the realist John Mearsheimer school of international relations. (Besides having written a book on the immense power of the Jewish lobby, Mearsheimer understands international chess as well as Hitler did; though Mearsheimer does so from the American POV, not the German, let alone the racial one.)

Therefore, what Simms says requires a response. This academic, of course, is neither aware of the JQ nor the CQ and, like psychologist Richard Grannon about whom I spoke yesterday, Simms doesn’t give a damn about the current British Establishment promoting the interbreeding of English roses with orcs, as I witnessed a decade ago with the ubiquitous propaganda I saw on the streets, especially on billboards.

We could say that while it is true that before WW2 the English maintained to some extent the ethnic pride that Hitler saw, after 1945 the monsters from the Christian Id so overwhelmed that pride that it engendered an ethno-suicidal mania (remember that the first orcs were invited to the island by the ethno-traitor government in the second half of the 1940s). Hitler himself, had he survived the war, would have been shocked by this new twist of the collective Aryan unconscious, and would surely have revised his early views on England.

In other words, National Socialism is not a tightly closed system but continually evolving, even in our century, thanks to the post-1945 NS bequeathed to us by Savitri Devi. Simms continues:

Secondly, there was the apparent contradiction that Britain had risen to greatness under the parliamentary system he so despised. There are grounds for believing, however, that he believed representative government suitable for the British but not for the Germans. ‘If all Germans belonged to the tribe of the Lower Saxons [that is the tribe from which the English trace much of their descent—and the only one which Benjamin Franklin had considered fully white]’, he remarked, ‘the republican state form might be the most suited’ to enabling the state ‘to weather all storms and to draw on the best elements for running the country’. ‘Because that is not the case [in Germany],’ Hitler continued, ‘the German people will always need an idol in the shape of a monarch.’ It was an early indication of Hitler’s profound anxiety about German racial fragmentation in the face not so much of Jewry, as of the globally dominant Anglo-Saxons.

Categories
'Hitler' (book by Brendan Simms) Racial right

Hitler, 30

Hitler therefore espoused ‘socialism’, but not as the Social Democrats, the Independent Socialists or the communists knew it. ‘National’ and ‘social’, he argued, were ‘two identical terms’. ‘True socialism teaches the most extreme performance of one’s duties,’ Hitler explained, ‘real socialism in the highest form of the Volk.’ ‘Marxism is not socialism,’ he claimed, ‘I shall take socialism away from the socialists.’ This was what the words ‘worker’ and ‘socialist’ in the party’s name meant. There was ‘no room’, Hitler said, for ‘class-conscious proletarians’ in the party, just as there was no place either for a ‘class-conscious bourgeois’. He repeatedly reached out to workers. All this explains Hitler’s ambivalence towards communists, whom he regarded not only as good men led astray, but as temperamentally more congenial than the lukewarm bourgeois who clove to the safe middle path.

This is indeed interesting, for it shows the gulf between German National Socialism and American white nationalism: something George Lincoln Rockwell didn’t understand because biographies like Simms’ didn’t exist in his time. (Although this English scholar is anything but a NS sympathiser, his prose portrays the ideals of the Führer better than the crude and simplistic propaganda that was circulated in the US in Commander Rockwell’s time.)

‘I would rather be strung up in a Bolshevik Germany,’ he averred, ‘than be made blissful in a French southern Germany.’ One observer noted that Hitler ‘was courting the communists’, saying that ‘the two extremes, communists and students, should be brought together’. The centre ground, he claimed, was full of useless ‘lickspittles’ (Schleimsieder), whereas ‘the communists had fought for their ideal with weapons and only been led astray’. They only need to be led towards the ‘national cause’. With German communists, Hitler hated the sin, but loved the sinner.

Alas, any attempt to imitate German NS on the other side of the Atlantic would run into formidable difficulties. Imagine how (almost) impossible it would be to convince the racial right that, for the fourteen words, capitalism is even worse than communism and that the worship of Mammon must be transvalued to these Hitlerian ideals if the sacred words are to be fulfilled (read the last page of The Fair Race’s Darkest Hour).

To boot, a century ago Hitler was referring to a Germany composed basically of Aryans. In today’s polluted America, such a transvaluation couldn’t even be preached without openly stating that the proposed socialism is solely for the benefit of Aryans. In other words, to implement Hitler’s ideals on this side of the Atlantic the dictators of the new state would first have to become Himmlers to achieve an ethnic cleansing similar to the Pierce Diaries.

Can you see why I no longer visit the sites of the American racial right? Almost all white nationalist information sources are cleverly written to pacify whites back into the Christian and neo-Christian fold. And it all has to do with what we on this site have called slaves of our parents’ introjects. I know no one understands me on this point but my autobiographical findings, or what I have written about mental disorders (for example what I said yesterday in my postscript about narcissism), provide the key to understanding how these introjects still hold the Aryan in bondage.

Categories
Bible Tom Holland

Slave cult for Goyim

by Gaedhal

I have laboured under the delusion that ‘Sieg Heil!’, in German, meant ‘praise victory!’ I thought that ‘Heil’ was an imperative verb. Aber nein! (But no!) Heil is a noun. Thus, what ‘Sieg Heil’ actually means is: ‘Victory [in this life is] Salvation!’ And this is an extremely antichristian sentiment. In Christianity, it is God who avenges. When Job said:

‘For I know that my redeemer liveth, and that he shall stand at the latter day upon the earth’ (Job 19:25 KJV).

He could very easily be saying: ‘I know that my avenger liveth’, as the Hebrew word: ‘goʔel’ can mean both: ‘avenger’ and ‘redeemer’. ‘Redemption’ and ‘vengeance’ are similar concepts.

Anyhow, in Christianity, it is victory in the life to come that is salvation.

However, the Jews have the correct idea: ‘salvation’ or in Hebrew: ‘shewangah’ is simply: ‘the ability to live in an ethnostate in one’s ancestral homeland’. The Jews care not for post-mortem paradises in the skies. Neither do Nazis. Nazis want their own homogenous ethnostate in their ancestral homelands.

‘No pride, no honour!’—Aron Ra (a leftist).

Indeed! Pride is tabooed by Christianity. However, what was the slogan of the SS?

‘Meine Ehre heisst Treue’ (‘My honour is called loyalty’).

In Nazism, pride is a good thing, whereas in Christianity, it is the worst of sins. Indeed, ‘Ehrmann’, the name of a prestigious American Bible scholar—although, the final ‘n’ is truncated from how he spells it—means: ‘honourable man’.

This is why I think that saint Paul equivocates when he says:

‘For I would not, brethren, that ye should be ignorant of this mystery, lest ye should be wise in your own conceits; that blindness in part has happened to Israel, until the fulness of the Gentiles be come in. And so all Israel shall be saved: as it is written, There shall come out of Sion the Deliverer, and shall turn away ungodliness from Jacob’ (Romans 11:25 KJV).

In my view, what he is saying is that by ‘saving’ the Goyim, by converting them to an auxiliary slave cult that promises a mythical post-mortem paradise, then the Jews will be saved in the sense that Jews understand it, i.e., they will have a homogenous ethnostate in their ancestral homeland of Palestine.

Thanks, largely to Christianity, the Jews were indeed ‘saved’ in the sense that they understand it, in 1947 with the creation of the state of Israel.

The reason why the Jews are bombing the living daylights out of the luckless Palestinians is because they are perfecting their salvation. There still exist filthy Goyim dogs in both Judea and Samaria, and Gaza. The Jews will not consider themselves fully saved, until the Goyim are either exterminated or evicted from the West Bank and Gaza.

Who lets the Jews get away with this? The Christians. Biden is a Zionist Catholic. Catholicism is the largest sect of Christianity. Michael Johnson will not countenance calls for an Israeli ceasefire. Thus, it is not sufficient for antitheists just to criticise Christianity and Islam. The root of this rotten Abrahamic tree, i.e. Judaism, must also be strenuously criticised.

In short, I think that Tom Holland is largely correct. Nazism was a repudiation of Christian moral axiology. Christianity is otherworldly. Nazism, like Judaism, want Sieg or Shewangah in this life! Christianity sees humanity as fallen and incapable of good. Nazism says: you can act, even without the grace of a Jewish desert god, with faithfulness and honour. Thus, Nazism is Pelagian i.e. it posits that man has no need of the gods to act in a virtuous way. Christianity says Pride is a Sin. Nazism says: My Pride is called Faithfulness.

The slave cult for Goyim, in both Romans and in the Petrine epistles demands passivity in the face of government tyranny. Nazism starts revolutions in beerhalls. When the Nazis had an uprising or Putsch then they were directly disobeying Romans 13. This is a point that Andrew Seidel brings up concerning the American Revolution in The Founding Myth. When the American Revolutionaries rebelled, they defied Romans 13. Thus, Seidel argues, that the American Revolution was also antichristian in spirit.

Funnily enough, both the American Revolution and the German Revolution seemed to begin in beer halls. In America, seemingly, it was the Green Dragon Tavern. It is a talking point on the left that the American Revolution, and its subsequent westward expansion inspired the Nazis.

Categories
Democracy Nordicism Racial right

Slope

Or:

Why is ‘white nationalism’ doomed to failure?

Simply put, it is a slippery slope that leads to miscegenation.

I’ve been searching the major American racial right sites these days for an article on Tucker Carlson’s recent interview with Putin and, as far as feature articles go, I only found one by David Zsutty in Counter-Currents, ‘In Tucker vs. Putin, Nationalism Wins’. I confess I liked this passage from Zsutty’s article:

Tucker Carlson’s interview of Vladimir Putin illustrates a number of points. Its first approximately 30 minutes consisted of an extensive history lesson going back to Novgorod, up through the Second World War and ending in the present day… Putin spoke articulately, at great length, and in depth about history. This highlights how we in the West are almost exclusively ruled by uncultured imbeciles. This is because democracy, and especially liberal democracy, tends to select for bad leaders.

However, in the comments section of that article, I discovered that the commenters consider Russians to be pure whites. Contrast that not only with Mauricio’s recent quote but with what I say in our featured post:

He who has transvalued his values endorses the Generalplan Ost or General Plan East: a secret Nazi plan of ethnic cleansing, the aim of which was to deport more than thirty million Untermenschen from the western parts of the Soviet Union to Siberia.

Such an exterminationist ideology, which cannot contrast more with the neo-Christian racialism of our day, is based, as can be read in the last words of our featured post, on principles that were taken for granted in the Germany of former times:

Lebensraum is a German concept of expansionism and Völkisch nationalism, whose philosophy and policies were common to German politics from the 1890s to the 1940s (see On Exterminationism, pages 117-129).

What emerges from the echo chamber that is the comments section of Zsutty’s article is that these typical white nationalists have granted racial amnesty to many Slavs who shouldn’t be considered Aryans. In Putin’s own face in his interview with Tucker, one can see Asian features due to the intermarriage that occurred centuries earlier with the Mongol and Tatar invasions (cf. William Pierce’s Who We Are; what I say about the girl Dúrochka of the Russian film Andrei Rublev, and Arthur Kemp’s March of the Titans).

But all this, which was common knowledge to American and European eugenicists before the Second World War, vanished like dew with the tale the Establishment has been telling us since 1945, a tale to which the so-called nationalists subscribe: the rejection of Nordicism.

So-called white nationalism is a slippery slope not only because it betrays the legacy of the American eugenicists of yesteryear like Madison Grant, but Hitlerism itself. Once one starts sliding down the slope by calling pure whites a large part of the Slavs, who as Putin conceded coexist with many other peoples and ethnicities within Russia, the ideological foundations are laid for the eventual extinction of the Aryan (compare Putin’s ideology with Pierce’s ‘Extermination or Expulsion’).

But we have already discussed this countless times on this site: the ethno-traitor phobia that white nationalists feel for Nordicism, a Nordicism that includes not only National Socialism but Grant’s legacy. With this post, I am reiterating for the umpteenth time what has already been said.

I find it hard to devote myself one hundred per cent to the Führer’s memory, say reviewing Brendan Simms’ book and awaiting the material I will soon receive from David Irving, when I come across nonsense like what I read today in one of the most prestigious white nationalist webzines.

In the near future I will have to discipline myself not to visit such sites, but to confine myself to trying to better understand the Germany of other times through the programmed bibliography I still have to read…

Categories
'Hitler' (book by Brendan Simms)

Hitler, 22

The NSDAP programme—for example point 13[1] with its attack on ‘trusts’—was ferociously anti-capitalist and so, as we have seen, was much of Hitler’s rhetoric. Despite Hitler ‘s willingness to moderate his message to business audiences, emphasizing his anti-French and anti-Bolshevik themes, business was not reassured. Paul Reusch, a major Ruhr baron, noting the Nazi nationalization plan, remarked that ‘we have no reason to support our own gravediggers’. The party remained dependent on donations from the Bavarian Reichswehr, either in cash or in kind in the form of weapons or vehicles, and from a motley group of smaller donors, mainly traders, retailers and small businessmen.

Given the shortage of funds, the growth of the party and especially its propagandistic reach was impressive. There were significant gains in membership: 4,300 by the end of 1921, and more than 20,000 a year later… There was a real quantum leap in early 1922, when Hitler regularly spoke to between 2,000 and 6,000 listeners in the larger beer halls. A high point was the Deutsche Tag in Coburg in October, which culminated in a massive brawl with hostile demonstrators…

The purpose of all this activity was not the creation of a party organization capable of winning elections, still less that of a force capable of mounting an armed challenge to the Weimar Republic. Instead, Hitler’s main aim remained the establishment of ideological coherence in the movement. ‘The final strength of a movement,’ he claimed in mid February 1922, lay ‘not in the number of its local groupings but in its internal cohesion’…

Hitler claimed that ‘there was no fruitful work to be done in parliament’, and that ‘individual National Socialists would be corrupted by the swamp of parliamentarism’.

Throughout the early 1920s, therefore, Hitler used his speeches to rehearse and develop his ideology. During this period his words—which were, of course, acts in themselves—were more important than his deeds. The recent defeat and its causes remained the central preoccupation. Hitler repeated his conviction that the war had been caused by an Anglo-American capitalist conspiracy. Sometimes, he attributed the ‘original sin’ to Britain, whose commercial and colonial ‘envy’ of the Reich had driven a ‘policy of encirclement’ against Germany, and whose press had vilified her before and during the war as a nation of Huns and barbarians. On other occasions, he targeted the United States. ‘Not least because the social welfare and the cultural development [of the German Empire] was a thorn in the eyes of the American trust-system,’ he thundered in March 1921, ‘we had to disappear from view.’ Hitler repeatedly contrasted ‘Germany’s social culture’ with American capitalism. He reserved particular scorn for US president Woodrow Wilson as the ‘agent of international high finance’…

Fighting France, and especially the British Empire, was bad enough, but what had ultimately tipped the scales was US intervention. This, Hitler was convinced, would have taken place with or without the U-boat war. Having previously been a ‘passive’ supporter of the Entente through the supply of armaments, the Americans intervened when Britain and France were on the verge of defeat in order not to lose the ‘billions’ which it was owed by the Allies. ‘America was called in,’ he claimed, ‘and the power of international big capital thereby became openly involved’…

___________

[1] Editor’s Note: ‘We demand nationalization of all businesses which have been up to the present formed into companies (trusts).’

Categories
'Hitler' (book by Brendan Simms) New Testament

Hitler, 20

Recently, five people who tweet at X liked a tweet in which a visitor to this site, Ørdnung, quoted some words of mine: ‘It could even be argued, as I do in the featured post, that Hitler and Rosenberg themselves could be bridges to an even more refined NS than the one they promoted’ (I originally said this in ‘Bridges’). The following passage from Simms’ biography of Hitler illustrates it perfectly:

In other ways, Hitler and the NSDAP sat uneasily in the Munich mainstream, which was dominated by Catholicism and the Bavarian People’s Party (BVP). The BVP had complete command of the local parliamentary political scene. All of the sixty-five BVP Landtag deputies were Catholic, six of them clerics; all but one of its twenty Reichstag members were Catholic, two of them clerics. While the party was confessionally homogeneous, it was socially diverse, representing Bavarians from all classes, and was determined not to break away from the Reich but also to resist the Weimar Republic’s vision of a more centralized state. Despite his Austrian—essentially south German—roots Hitler found it very difficult to break into this constituency. It was for this reason he attempted to reach out to the churches through his concept of ‘positive Christianity’. Hitler claimed that Jesus had been ‘slandered’ by the same people who were scourging Germany today—the Jews. ‘We should follow the example of this man,’ Hitler argued on another occasion, ‘who was born poor in a cabin, who pursued high ideals and whom for this reason the Jews later crucified.’ ‘The Christian religion is the only possible ethical basis of the German people,’ he said soon after, adding that it was important to avoid any tension between the confessions, because ‘religious divisions’ had been one of ‘the worst things to happen to the German people’. Though Hitler made some headway with Bavarian Catholics in the early 1920s, it was a demographic with which he struggled to connect until the end of his life.

Emphasis added! Hitler and his people stayed close to the Wall, to follow the metaphor of my featured post. What we now need to do is go much further north; study the New Testament in depth from the POV of scholars like Richard Carrier and Richard Miller, and realise that the ‘positive Christianity’ of the Nazis was a hallucination (as hallucination is the Christianity of today’s White Nationalists).

Once we know that it was the Jews themselves who wrote it and that the figure of Jesus is mythical (here I am closer to Carrier than to Miller), we are finally in a position to reject the Bible in toto. No ‘positive’ Christianity. That’s an impossible chimera.

Salvation for the Aryan is found in the cave of the three-eyed raven, the greenseer who, patiently scanning the career of Pontius Pilate in Judea, realised that not even a very human Jesus existed. It had all been a Jewish invention to invert Roman values. And if the Third Reich failed, it was because, in a West flooded with Christian ethics, the Germans didn’t realise something so elemental. In the same featured post is the link to my short post ‘Old Town’, which explains why once Hitler reached power in Germany it was time for metapolitics rather than politics (invasions, wars, provoking the Anglo-American Christians, etc.).

A more enlightened National Socialism than that of the last century is what we certainly need…

Categories
Racial right

The Gatekeepers

—White Nationalists—

‘The refusal to talk about violence, ever,
and not even ironically, metaphorically, or
theoretically is White Nationalism 101…’
—Travis LeBlanc (Counter-Currents author)

‘Nearly every White Nationalist info source
is cleverly scripted towards re-pacifying Whites
into the Christian, pro “justice system” fold.’
—An old tweet by Young White Family.

Thinking about the metaphor of ‘The Wall’, the current featured post on this site, a revelation came to me today.

All Aryans south of the Wall are committing ethnic suicide, including white nationalists, whose role has been to act as gatekeepers to keep whites from crossing to the other side. These kinds of radical revelations I only developed over the years.

Tyrone Patten-Walsh is one of two Englishmen who this month were jailed in the UK for thoughtcrime, as we alluded to in my other post this day.

It had been right in his flat in London when Tyrone told me things I had never read on American racial right forums. For example, I was flabbergasted when Tyrone told me that virtually all whites have an unconscious ethnosuicidal wish. I didn’t know what to say back then, but back in my home country, I kept thinking for years about those words, especially since what I saw on racialist forums seemed too degenerate compared to Hitlerism.

I was in Tyrone’s flat almost ten years ago: the same flat that the UK thoughtpolice stormed, breaking down the door, the day they arrested him.

Let’s follow the metaphor of my featured post about white nationalists not having transvalued their values but being stuck south of the Wall. Following Tyrone, no matter how close they are to the Wall, they are still committing ethnic suicide. Failure to cross it to the ideals of National Socialism is tantamount to a mortal sin since such behaviour leads to their extinction. A single example will suffice for me to illustrate this.

Jared Taylor, whom Greg Johnson once called ‘the granddaddy of the Alt-Right’, was raised by parents so fanatical that they emigrated to Japan to convert the heathen to the gospel written by Jews, the New Testament. Taylor has repeatedly said that every race deserves its nation, its homeland and its culture; its human rights—not just whites (David Duke, a white nationalist Christian, used to say the same thing). That cannot contrast more with what William Pierce, who unlike Taylor repudiated Christian morality, tells us in Who We Are: that for the conquest of a territory to work there must be either extermination or expulsion of non-whites.

Pierce came to these conclusions because he made a good reading of the history of his race, and how it failed in India; failed with the Asian conquests of Alexander the Great, and failed after the catastrophic Peloponnesian War and the Punic Wars as the Greeks and Romans consented, after those wars, to interbreeding. And it failed again with the Spanish and Portuguese because they did the same but this time throughout the newly discovered continent. In the case of blacks imported to Lisbon when Christianity hadn’t yet been ‘subverted by Jewry’—the myth of the white nationalists!—, Portugal suffered miscegenation with blacks (see ‘The black man’s gift to Portugal’ in The Fair Race).

If we compare the love for all featherless bipeds that Jared Taylor professes, a love that in Hitlerism should be exclusive to Aryans, we will understand what the metaphor of stagnating on the south side of the Wall means. As I have already said—and visitors who haven’t read the articles on Greece and Rome in The Fair Race should now read them—, whites in the Ancient World didn’t give a damn that Titus and Hadrian were perpetrating real holocausts of Semites during Rome’s wars against Judea. It was only after the New Testament transvalued classical values to the values the Jews wanted to inculcate in us that these genocides were viewed with moralizing scruples.

English historian Tom Holland is right: all whites, whether Christian or neo-Christian, find themselves worshipping the Cross. Christians worship it with the image of the crucified rabbi (Jesus). Atheist neo-Christians worship it with the outcast Coloured or the outcast Transsexual—that which is equivalent to the crucified Jews of other times! Taylor may have abandoned his parental worship of the crucified rabbi. Alas, by axiological inertia, he still loves non-whites to the degree that he doesn’t long to expel them in terrible wars of ethnic cleansing—or even exterminate them in new Auschwitz concentration camps on this side of the Atlantic. And the rest of the white nationalists think like him. Or am I wrong?

Who thinks in terms of The Turner Diaries? In no nationalist forum do I see a prominent author openly talking about Pierce’s prescription in Who We Are: either extermination or expulsion.

Tyrone, now serving a seven-year sentence for thoughtcrime (and I think it’s more since he didn’t respond to my last emails of 2023—would he have already been imprisoned even before hearing the sentence?), was right. All whites, racialists included, suffer from an unconscious death wish. Otherwise, and here comes my metaphor, they would try to cross the fucking Wall: to think as the Greeks, Romans and Vikings thought before the greatest catastrophe of all time: the imposition of the Cross on the Aryan psyche.

The West’s Darkest Hour invites those who have reached the foot of the Wall to cross it. Only those who cross it will have a chance of saving their little race from extinction. Incredible as it may seem, the gatekeepers, the white nationalists, are now my enemies in that, because of their Judaeo-Christian programming, they are now preventing the Aryan adventurer who has reached the Wall from crossing it.

Following one of the first paragraphs of my featured post, one might think that I should be grateful to the racialists who, a dozen years ago, found my own way to the North and I was able to reach the Wall. But it’s just that years after I ventured across it I realised that they weren’t going to make it. Now I see that by their reluctance to abandon Christian morality these racialists have become a liability, not an asset, to the fourteen words.