web analytics
Sticky post

This site is about the recognition of the
enemy or Feinderkennung: Christianity.

See ‘The Wall’.

Might is right (book)

Might is right, 7

It is notorious, universally so, that the blackest falsehoods are ever decked out in the most brilliant and gorgeous regalia. Clearly, therefore, it is the brave man’s duty to regard all sacred things, all legal things, all constitutional things, all holy things, with more than usual suspicion. ‘I deny, and I affirm,’ is the countersign of material freedom. ‘I believe, and I obey’ is the shibboleth of serfage. Belief is a flunkey, a feminine—Doubt is a creator, a master. He who denies fundamentals is in triple armour clad. Indeed he is invulnerable. On the other hand, it has been said that every belief, every philosophy, has some truth in it, but so we might add has every insanity.

Strong men are not deterred from pursuing their aim by anything. They go straight to the goal, and that goal is Beauty, Wealth, and Material Power. The mission of Power is to control and exploit the powerless, for to be powerless is to be criminal. The world would indeed be a house of horrors, if all men were ‘good’ and all women—padlocked.

As far as human search lights have yet penetrated, into the darkness that enshrouds the origin of nations, we see the subduers and the subdued, the plebeians and the patricians, the chiefs who governed, and the vassals who obeyed. And there is nothing in the most modern social developments (of these deedless days) to warrant any belief that this ancient and natural division of human animals, into castes of superiors and inferiors, sovereigns and serfs, can ever be dispensed with. The slave-owner’s whip cracked from the beginning and it will crack till the day of doom. In every kingdom, republic and empire on earth, we have (in one disguise or another) the master and the slave—the ruler and the ruled. In the course of centuries, names alone have changed, essentials have remained the same. Forms of royalty may alter but kings can never die. There was mastership at the beginning, and there will be mastership to the end. We build, but as our fathers built. Change is not progress, nor numbers advance.

Everyone who would be free must show his power. Unalterable remains the basis of all earthly greatness. He who exalteth himself shall be exalted, and he who humbleth himself shall be righteously trodden beneath the hoofs of the herd. ‘The humble’ are only fit for dogs’ meat. Bravery includes every virtue, humility, every crime. He who is afraid to risk his life must never be permitted to win anything.

Human rights and wrongs are not determined by Justice, but by Might. Disguise it as you may, the naked sword is still king-maker and king-breaker, as of yore. All other theories are lies and—lures.

Therefore! If you would conquer wealth and honour, power and fame, you must be practical, grim, cool and merciless. You must ride to success (by preference) over the necks of your foemen. Their defeat is your strength. Their downfall is your uplifting. Only the powerful can be free, and Power is non-moral. Life is real, life is earnest, and neither heaven nor hell its final goal. And love, and joy, and birth, and death, and fate, and strife, shall be forever.

This earth is a vast whirl of warring atoms—a veritable revolving cock-pit. Each molecule, each animal, fights for its life. You must fight for yours, or surrender. Look well to it, therefore, that your beaks and spurs, your fangs and claws are as sharp as steel, and as effective as science can make them.

Though, the survival of the strongest is the logic of events, yet personal cowardice is the great vice of our demoralized age. Cowardice is corroding the brain and blood of our race, but men have learnt to disguise this terrible infirmity, behind the canting whine of ‘humanity’ and ‘goodness.’ Words flow instead of blood, and terrible insults are exchanged, instead of terrible blows.

How rich this degenerate world is in small, petty-souled, good-for-nothings, who are forever excusing their infantile ineptitude behind some plausible phrase—some conventional make-believe?

Courage, I say! Courage, not goodness, is the great desideratum—courage that requires neither tin horns, nor calcium lights, nor brass bands, nor shouting multitudes to call it into effective action.

But courage that goes its way alone, as undauntedly as when it marches to ‘victory or death’ amid the menacing stride of armed and bannered legions.

Courage, that delights in danger—Courage, that knows not despair! Courage that proudly, defiantly smiles on death!

Courage, that regards with equal loathing the multitude’s mad howls of hate, its stupid hee-haws and its stridulating ‘tremendous applause.’

Courage, that asks no quarter, even with the knife at its throat — courage that is stiff- necked, unyielding, sullen, pitiless!

Courage, that never falters — never retreats!

Courage, that looks down with supreme disdain upon all slave regulations, upon all rights and wrongs, upon all good and evil!

Courage, that has made up its mind to conquer or — perish!

That is the kind of courage this world lacks. That is the kind of courage that aids by active co-operation the survival of the Fittest — the survival of the Best.

That is the kind of courage that has never turned a master’s mill. That is the kind of courage that never will turn it.

That is the kind of courage that will die, rather than turn it.


______ 卐 ______


‘When Svipdag came to the enclosure, the gate of the burg was shut (for it was customary to ask leave to come in and see, or take part in the war games). Svipdag did not take that trouble, but broke open the gate and rode into the yard.’

Queen Yisa said: ‘This man will be welcome here.’ [1]


[1] Ancient Norse Saga.

Aryan beauty Hans F. K. Günther Nordicism

The Nordic ideal

Editor’s note: A correspondent sent me these translations of Hans F. K. Günther’s Der Nordische Gedanke unter den Deutschen with a note: ‘This will put white nationalists in their place and perhaps grant more moral and social legitimacy to the Nordic movement’. Those who want to delve deeper into the matter can use Google translator to read this article that Eduardo Velasco wrote on his webzine Evropa Soberana.


______ 卐 ______


Complaints against the Nordic idea

The Nordic idea is a consequence of the recognition of the importance of the Nordic race for the life of the Germanic-speaking peoples and therefore presents the image of the healthy Nordic person as the model for the selection of the German people. The Nordic idea thus aims at the birth victory of the Nordic person within all German tribes: at the higher number of children that can be achieved by the predominantly Nordic people of all German tribes after appropriate choice of spouse…

The opponents of the racial idea are now less concerned about the alleged incitement of people than about the ‘destroying intention’ of the racial idea. One would like to accuse the Nordic idea of causing a rift in the German people: on this side the Nordics, on the other the non-Nordics.

This accusation cannot apply to the Nordic idea, simply because the reality is quite different: the racial rift does not run through the German people but through almost every single German. It is a rift that brings every single German the unease of having to decide: for or against the select model of the Nordic people. By pointing to a rift in the German people that must separate Nordic Germans from non-Nordic Germans, the opponents of the Nordic idea were unable to arouse any effective resistance to the emphasis on the importance of the Nordic race, because just as the number of purely Nordic people in Germany is relatively small, the number of people without a Nordic influence is also relatively small. Moreover, it would not be possible to ‘organize’ a unity of all non-Nordic Germans because these non-Nordic people would have to be gathered from the most hostile circles and camps of the German religious denominations, classes, parties and tribes: an impossible undertaking…

It is difficult to understand how the Nordic idea can have a ‘completely disruptive’ effect if it praises the importance of a race that has proven itself to be the creative one among all German tribes. The Nordic-minded Germans will not be able to become ‘destroyers of the people’, as they have been accused because they emphasize the unity of the German tribes through the common Nordic blood, the creative blood in the German national body. They will not divide the German people as the political parties do, which emphasize class differences – the high number of children of a found Nordic working-class couple will be more important to them than the high number of children of a non-Nordic noble or rich person.

The Nordic movement will not divide the German people as the religious denominations do, which erect barriers between Germans and Germans that go beyond their matters. The Nordic movement does not want to achieve its goal through the means used by churches or parties, but through the higher birth rates of the predominantly Nordic Germans—a means that will not harm any of our fellow countrymen in any way. Just as the non-Nordic Germans are not blamed for having a higher number of descendants than the predominantly Nordic ones, we German Protestants do not blame the German Catholics for having a higher number of children (birth rate in Prussia per marriage in 1912: 47 for Catholics, 2.9 for Protestants)—neither can the predominantly Nordic people be blamed for having a higher number of children.

The ‘butterfly victory’ of the Catholic Church will serve as an example for the Nordic movement. All the arguments against the Nordic idea reveal again and again that the fact that this idea is new has a downright confusing effect on most observers. It is confirmed once again: most people who consider a new idea try to fit it into the traditional set of ideas of the time. But here we must once again demand that the idea of a re-Nordization can hardly be fitted into any one place; from its perspective, it will have to demand a completely new order, a thorough relearning…

While the theory of hereditary health (racial hygiene) shows the means to increase the higher-value genetic makeup in general and thus aims to benefit all peoples and all races represented in the nations, the Nordic idea is primarily aimed at increasing the higher-value genetic makeup of a race represented in the German people, in fact in all its tribes: the Nordic. It therefore wants to first stop the ongoing counter-selection of the Nordic blood component of all German tribes and then help this Nordic component to have higher numbers of children…

The promotion of the reproduction of hereditarily capable people regardless of racial affiliation will not meet with resistance in the long run. But the special promotion of the reproduction of hereditarily capable people of a certain race—this goal, which is precisely what makes the Nordic movement unique—will still bring this movement a lot of opposition… The promotion of the Nordic race, so that it achieves not only the same but higher numbers of children than the other races, will only ever be taken up as a task by a fraction of the people. But a fraction is enough to fulfil the task. If only he achieves the higher number of children from his circles, this fraction will always be proportionally satisfied. That is the nature of the birth rate.

Once that has been achieved, the Nordic movement has the task of monitoring the selection and number of children in its circles, supporting economically weakened, capable clans so that they can have a large number of children, etc.

Ultimately, the Nordic idea seeks to convince people through the fact of its existence and through the way of life of its adherents…

The knowledge of the value of the Nordic race for the German people will never be directed against an individual, but it will have to clearly distinguish between desirable and less desirable childbearing—this distinction seems indispensable. Everything must be done to increase the birth rate of Nordic and more Nordic people in Germany.

Martin Kerr Might is right (book)


by Martin Kerr

A few years back I wrote this brief account of my first encounter with Ragnar Redbeard’s Might Is Right in 1969:

I was raised in a Christian household, and nominally I identified myself as Christian until I was 17. But, in truth, I did not really understand Christian doctrine and even less did I subscribe to its values.

When I was 17, I was a member of the National Renaissance Party, based in New York City. I lived with my family about an hour away by bus.

One Sunday evening, following an NRP meeting, I was speaking with party leader James Madole. I told him that I was trying to plow my way through Nietzsche’s Thus Spoke Zarathustra, but that I was having a hard time of it, and there was much in it that I did not understand.

He told me that Nietzsche was indeed difficult, and that perhaps I should put Zarathustra aside until I was a little older. Instead, he gave me a condensed edition of Ragnar Redbeard’s Might Is Right, entitled The Whiteman’s Guidebook. He told me that I might find it more useful at that point in my intellectual development.

I read it on my bus ride home that night. When I stepped on the bus I was still a nominal Christian. By the time I got off the bus, I was a heathen and anti-Christian.

I still have that booklet on my shelf.


______ 卐 ______


You may use my email to you in any way that you see fit.

I mentioned that I still had the original booklet that James Madole gave me—see attached (the cover was orignally white but has been discolored a little with age).

I don’t know who produced it. It has a notation on the back reading “Aryan Publishing Co.” and giving a Milwaukee post office box. Madole just had this one copy. I have never heard of that publishing company in any other context and I have never seen the booklet advertised anywhere since then (1969). But somehow, this single copy it found its way to Madoles’ apartment / headquarters, and then into my hands at precisely the right moment.

Such are the workings of Destiny!

Film Mein Kampf (book)

Heydrich, 9

I have just watched the rest of Die Wannsee Conference from this point onwards (five minutes to the end).

I loved what Heydrich said to Kritzinger: he referred him to page 772 of Mein Kampf, where it is mentioned that poison gas should be used on the Hebrews. (I know I have said that I don’t like that book because I am very explicit and don’t like euphemisms. But I fully understand that in the face of the German people’s sensitivities, this sort of thing could only be said between the lines, or so far into the reading that few would read past page seven hundred.)

Shortly afterwards, with cognac, Heydrich toasts with Gruppenführer (Group leader) Heinrich Müller and Obersturmbannführer (Senior Assault-unit Leader) Otto Adolf Eichmann, and I asked myself a question.

If my beloved Nazis had won the war, would Disney Studios be putting out Star Wars films like the ultra-woke Acolyte, released this month, or would children be at home watching a healthier Disneyland (an anthology television series since 1954) as I did in the 1960s and early 70s? I remember one of those programmes, in black and white, where a teenage Billy Mummy discovered femininity through a beautiful white woman, within the decorum of the time, of course; and that gave me faith in Life.

Men Sword


In a discussion thread on this site today, Benjamin said:

I tend to just hope there are more decent people hidden away in the woodwork, unannounced and unpublicised, thinking deeply together about what to do next. It’s very hard, post-childhood, to encourage anyone to change or develop, and often impossible if they have not had the seeds in them to do this independently all along. I hope very much that there are enough pre-existing people though.

Rephrasing Dominique Venner, Michael O’Meara once said that the European in history is best seen as a warrior carrying his sword as a symbol of his will, adding that the Hellenes made their debut in history by refusing to be slaves.

But the white man has dropped his sword since 1945. What we now have are lobotomized eunuchs.

Metaphysics of race / sex


The beautiful Greek vs. the ugly Athenian

The last words of my previous post on Heydrich give us pause for thought. From this moment in the video linked in the comments section, we hear words that show the gulf between us and the contemporary racial right. I refer to a phrase, already quoted in my recent PDF Crusade against the Cross, that Socrates’ ugliness was practically a refutation to the ancient Greeks.

Alcibiades, ‘the most beautiful man in Greece’ according to the video, represents the ideals of this site; and Socrates represents the methodology of the contemporary racial right. In short, what really counts is physical beauty, the rest follows from there (art, politics, religion, social system, etc.).

As the author of the video said, Nietzsche is very difficult to understand because he is like a fish criticising the water around him. And as I said in one of my first posts about Heydrich, although I will no longer drop names of racialists whose POV I criticise, I can criticise them without mentioning them.

There are a couple of notable racialists who for years now have been talking about Nietzsche without understanding him (one of them has even appeared in the MSM). They don’t get it because the water is Christian ethics, and today that morality has enslaved both the Westerners, including the racialists, and that projection of the West that is Latin America. None of them even realise that they are living in a fish matrix.

Nietzsche would be like the fish that began to develop primitive lungs to get out of the ocean, and we would be animals starting to become adapted to the uninhabited land.

The video linked above is informative, although it bothers me that it contains advertisements from its sponsor.

Film Final solution Real men

Heydrich, 8

When the team resumes their work after the break, they go on to discuss the number of Jews to be deported from the conquered countries, quoting numbers and statistics.

What I find insane about those American anti-Semites who publish in respected webzines is that they fail to mention the blunder their country committed to waging war against Germany.

Result of the blunder? Instead of having figures of deported Jews on the desks of contemporary rulers, we have the figures on the SPLC director’s wall of the areas of the US that are no longer white!

As I said: it is a fight to the death between the two races, and by leaving the final solutions off the table these Christian and neochristian anti-Semites are only obeying the New Testament injunctions written by Jews to tame the minds of the brutal Aryans.

Or is there anyone among the most notable racialists in the US who secretly (like these at the Wannsee conference) approves of the Germans’ final solution and I have not heard about it?

If anti-white policies run their course to the extent of imprisoning these lukewarm Americans in a dystopian future (remember that three of the Englishmen I knew personally were imprisoned for thoughtcrime), will they be able, from prison, to finally acknowledge that their nation made a huge mistake in WW2?

Many visitors must have noticed that, in recent years, few articles on this site deal with the Jewish problem. That is because The West’s Darkest Hour focuses on the Aryan psyche. I like final solutions like the men on this roundtable and I have no patience for feminised males who do nothing but whine and whine and whine about what Jews (or blacks, or traitorous whites or feminists) have recently done here or there. Such an attitude shouldn’t be expected from the Aryan male: it is a woman’s attitude.

We are by nature murderers, rapists and creators of great civilisations (cf. Sparta, the abduction of the Sabine women by the early Romans, and the Viking raids on Christian monks).

Real men don’t complain: they plan how to seize power to leave no gene upon gene of the enemy and no stone upon stone of their civilisation.

Catholic Church Christendom


by Gaedhal

St. Colman’s Cathedral, County Cork, Ireland.

I would criticise atheism more, however, atheists are a tiny fraction of the Irish population. I expend my antitheistic energies upon what is causing the most harm. If I walk into town, I meet two illegally placed religious posters threatening me with Hell. Christian privilege means that Political Posters must come down, but posters threatening people with eternal post-mortem torture in the name of a fictitious legendary rabbi who floated off into the sky, 2,000 years ago, are never taken down. As a secularist, I would be equally opposed to illegally placed atheist posters. Secularism guarantees a neutral public space for us all.

And so atheism isn’t causing that much harm in Ireland. On the contrary, the divers hoisted Rabbi cults have caused 1600 years of harm in Ireland. Ireland hasn’t even begun to secularise, yet. Ireland is still, very much, a Christian theocracy. Our constitution begins by invoking an arithmetic-defying trinity of gods, and it ends with ‘Do chum glóire Dé agus onóra na hÉireann’ (This [constitution] has been composed for the glory of God and the honour of Ireland).

However, atheism can cause some harm. In this video, Seth Andrews drew a doodle of a cat, and Matt Dillahunty promptly tattooed this onto his thigh. Dillahunty just looks mentally ill, these days.

I agree with atheism on a single point: I claim to know, as a fact, that no classically theistic gods exist.

Mercifully, neither Seth nor Matt have reproduced. Hopefully natural selection will eventually put an end to this version of atheism.

However, all of the other things that atheists believe, my soul violently kicks against. Chaotic determinism, Heat death, Eliminative materialism etc.

Axiology Might is right (book)

Might is right, 6

He who saith unto himself, ‘I must believe, I must not question’ is not a man but a mere pusillanimous mental gelding. He who believes ‘because it has been handed down’ is a menial in his heart; and he who believes ‘because it has been written’ is a fool in his folly. Sagacious spirits doubt all things, and hold fast only to that which is demonstrably true.

The rules of life are not to be found in Korans, Bibles, Decalogues and Constitutions, but rather the rules of decadence and death. The ‘law of laws’ is not written in Hebrew consonants or upon tables of brass and stone, but in every man’s own heart. He who obeys any standard of right and wrong, but the one set up by his own conscience, betrays himself into the hands of his enemies, who are ever laying in wait to bind him to their millstones. And generally a man’s most dangerous enemies are his neighbours.

Masterful men laugh with contempt at spiritual thunders, and have no occasion to dread the decisions of any human tribunal. They are above and beyond all that. Laws and regulations are only for conquered vassals. The free man does not require them. He may manufacture and post up Decalogue regulations, to bind and control dependents with, but he does not himself bow down before those inventions of his own hands—except as a lure.

Statute books and golden rules, were made to fetter slaves and fools. Very useful are they, for controlling the herds of sentenced convicts, who fill the factories and cultivate the fields. All moral principles therefore are the servitors, not the masters of the strong. Power made moral codes, and Power abrogates them.

A man is under no obligation to obey anything or anybody. It is only serving-men that must obey, because they are caitiffs by birth, breeding, and condition. Morals are only required in an immoral community, that is to say a community held in a state of conquest.

Fear God, bridle the spirit, and obey the law, is advice most excellent, as from a philosopher to a yokel, but when directed in all earnestness at a man of inherent might, he smiles to himself in silent scorn. Full well he knows that in actual life the path to victory and renown, does not lie through Gethsemanies, but over fallen enemies, the ruins of rival combines, through Aceldamas. ‘Meekness of spirit’ is regarded by him as a convenient superstition, very useful for regulating the lives of his servants, his women and his children, but otherwise inoperative.

‘I rest my hopes on nothing,’ proclaimed Goethe, and masterful minds in all ages have never done otherwise. This unspoken thought gives to all truly great men their manifest superiority over the brainless, vociferating herd. The ‘common people’ have always had to be befooled with some written or wooden or golden Idol—some constitution, declaration or gospel.

Consequently the majority of them have ever been mental thralls, living and dying in an atmosphere of strong illusion. They are befooled and hypnotized even to this hour, and a large proportion of them must remain so, until time is no more. Indeed the masses of mankind are but the sediment from which all the more valuable elements have been long ago distilled. They are totally incapable of real freedom, and if it was granted to them, they would straightway vote themselves a master, or a thousand masters within twenty-four hours.

Mastership is right—Mastership is natural—Mastership is eternal. But only for those who cannot overthrow it, and trample it beneath their hoofs. Is it not a fact that in actual life, the ballot-box votes of ten million subjective personalities are as thistle down in the balance, when weighed against the far seeing thought, and material prowess of, say, ten strong silent men?

Aryan beauty Painting Women

Tender moments

Tender Moments (1877)
by Bertha Wegmann.