If you’re a normie who believes the politically correct narrative about the Second World War, start here (the Allies killed more defenceless civilians than the Germans, even after 1945). If you’ve read that review and, unlike white nationalists, are willing to cross the entire psychological Rubicon—don’t miss ‘The Wall’!
Criminal History, 185
For the context of these translations click here.
PDFs of entries 1-183 (abridged translations)
can be accessed in the featured post.
Killing ‘with God’s help’ and being defeated without it
For almost two decades, tribute payments by Charles the Bald had limited the attacks of the invaders. From 878-879, however, the raids increased again. At the time, the English king Alfred ‘the Great’, who supported the church with donations, monastery foundations and money sent annually to Rome, later known as ‘St Peter’s pence’, had at least halted the constant Viking attacks for the time being by reforming the army, establishing bases, castles and large ships. However, under pressure from the Anglo-Saxons, a new wave of Normans, the ‘Great Army’, swept across the sea from Britain and devastated the Morin city of Therouanne ‘with fire and sword, finding no resistance. And when they saw how well they had succeeded in the beginning, they ravaged the whole country of the Menapians with fire and sword. Then they invaded the Scheldt and destroyed all of Brabant with fire and sword.’ The rich monastery of St Omer was also burnt to the ground. The East Franconian king Louis III the Younger, the victor of Andernach, drove them out; indeed, he killed many ‘with God’s help’ (Annales Bertiniani), ‘by God’s hand the greater part’ (Reginonis chronica), ‘more than 5000’ (Annales Fuldenses). But Hugh, an illegitimate son of the king, also perished—otherwise ‘he would have won a marvellous victory over them’ (Annales Vedastini).
However, they were far too seldom chased away ‘and killed’, as the Fulda Yearbooks so beautifully put it in Christian terms, ‘by God forgiving them what they had earned’. In fact, on 2 February 880 near Hamburg, the Normans annihilated the army under Duke Bruno of Saxony. He, the queen’s brother, fell, as did Bishop Theoderic of Minden, Bishop Markward of Hildesheim, eleven counts, eighteen royal satellites, and all their men.
At the end of the year 880, a group of Normans, who advanced up the Rhine as far as the region of Xanten, burned down the magnificent palace built by Charlemagne in Nijmegen. On 28 December, the Northmen burnt the monastery of St. Vaast in Arras, burnt the town and all the farms in the area, killed, expelled, crossed the country as far as the Somme, dragged away people, cattle and horses, destroyed Cambrai, devastated all the monasteries on the Hisscar, all the monasteries and towns by the sea, raided Amiens, Corbie, reappeared in Arras ‘and killed everyone they found; and after ravaging all the surrounding country with fire and sword, they returned unharmed to their camp’ (Annales Vedastini). On 3 August 881, however, the young West Franconian Louis III (the eldest son of the stammerer from his first marriage to Ansgard) defeated the robbers at Saucourt-en-Vimeu (near Abbeville) at the mouth of the river Sommers, and an Old High German song of praise, the Ludwigslied, made him ‘immortal’. Written in the Rhine-Franconian dialect, it is the first free German rhyming poem and the oldest surviving historical song in our literature.
Of course, the unknown, presumably spiritual pen-hero blurs the story, overhyping everything in Christian terms. There heidine man fights godes holdon, the Franks, the lord’s chosen fighters. They battle with Kyrieleison [Medieval Latin: alternative form of Kyrie eleison or 'Lord, have mercy'—Ed.], Louis himself as the Lord’s representative, full of godes strength, noble love of enemies and, of course, mercy. ‘Suman thuruhskluog her, Suman thruhstah her’ (some he smashed in half, some he stabbed through). Yes, he who trusts God, he who lashes out bravely… He is said to have ‘killed 9000 horsemen’ (Annales Fuldenses). ‘Uuolar abur Hluduig, Kuning unser sälig!’ (Hail to thee, Louis, our blessed king!)
But now ‘the heathen’ under their princes Gottfried and Siegfried came to the defence. With a fleet and a land army reinforced by cavalry, they advanced far into the East Franconian kingdom, ravaging not only Maastricht, Tongern and Liège but also Cologne and Bonn ‘with churches and buildings’ (Annales Fuldenses) as well as the fortresses of Zülpich, Jülich and Neuss. In Aachen, they turned St Mary’s Church, the burial place of Charlemagne, into a stable and set fire to the magnificent palace. They also set fire to the monasteries of Inden (Cornelimünster), Stablo, Malmedy and Prüm. They mowed down the rising rural population ‘like stupid cattle’ (Regino von Prüm) and the streams of refugees poured into Mainz.
You might get a headache after watching this video but the Christian proves our point!
Bob’s main argument was that throughout the Middle Ages Christians didn’t try to expel the Jews from their kingdoms permanently (e.g., Edward I / Oliver Cromwell). It’s fascinating that the red-headed Jew, after the 16th minute, tried to give an example to try to refute Bob the Christian. The Jew said that they were expelled from Jerusalem after the wars against Rome. But that was before Constantine! Those who prohibited the Jews from entering Jerusalem were the so-called ‘pagan’ emperors after the Rome vs Judea wars!
The Christian is right: the medieval kingdoms, before the Enlightenment, were comparatively tolerant of the Jews because they always expected that they would convert. In other words: without Constantine and the subsequent Christian emperors, intolerance against the Jews would have taken its natural course.
Let’s imagine the opposite case: that the Church had eradicated Judaism and, conversely, had tolerated what they called ‘paganism’. What would the world be like today? There would certainly be no Jewish problem! The way this Christian preacher, Bob, proves our point is impressive.
Even more fascinating is that after the 22-minute mark, Bob admits that the whole argument started (earlier) when he was arguing with a white nationalist. Unlike him, Bob sees nothing wrong with black people in the West cohabiting with us. The preacher yelled to the multitudes: ‘The Christian worldview has always been multi-racial, multi-ethnic and multi-national’ (exact moment: here).
Wow! What a way to expose Christianity!
Do you understand my claim now as to why the Christian Problem encompasses the Jewish Problem? Later Bob, when discussing with the other Jew said, ‘Do you know that the first Christians were all Jews?’ And then he says that the first edict of tolerance for the Jews was issued by Constantine in the year 315 (those who worshipped the true Gods wouldn’t have done such a thing)! But a few seconds later he says something that is not true: that there was always a place for pagans in Christianity. (Like the racial right folk, Bob ignores what Constantine, his successors—except Julian—and the bishops with Semitic blood did with those who worshipped Aryan Gods.)
Do you finally understand the concept of the transvaluation of Christian values (what Heydrich attempted)? When we think like him and not like Xtian nationalists, the Jewish problem will be solved—and the black problem, and the Hispanic problem, etc.
‘I would say reevaluating the Second World War ranks higher in importance than being versed in race realism, the Jewish Question, or white identity, as crucial as all of these things are’.
Tucker Carlson’s interview with Darryl Cooper has enraged people in power because, for the first time in a popular show, someone says that the real villain of World War II was Churchill.
Cooper is not one of us, but what he said represents a baby step for the normies to cross the psychological Rubicon. The interview lasted more than two hours. At one of the crucial moments, Darryl spoke of the West’s darkest hour: mass non-white migration, mentioning the criminals who orchestrated it against their own European peoples (see one minute from here).
What caught my attention is that the central point of Darryl is something I tried to say in May 2019 when commenting on the final episode of Game of Thrones, but apparently, no one of my visitors understood me then. The story we tell ourselves marks the zeitgeist and eventual destiny. Thus, the story we currently tell ourselves about WW2 is like the music from Pied Piper, the antithesis of the 14 words: We mustn’t secure the existence of our people and a future for White children, courtesy of seeing Churchill as the good guy and Hitler as the bad guy.
by Gaedhal
Remember what the opposite of this is, white man. It was “academic literature” such as this that was burnt by the Hitlerjugund. Karl Andersson studies in England. England would be free of such pests had they not defeated themselves at World War 2.
Both the American Civil War and World War 2—both of which were the biggest, deadliest, most technologically sophisticated wars of their day—were really just the White man going to war to defeat himself. Only the negro won the American Civil War, and, as Alex Linder puts it: only the Jew won World War 2.
However, Christian axiology has convinced us that we win when we lose. The New Testament is full of enigmas like the last being first, the meek conquering the earth through their meekness; whores and tax-collectors (i.e. traitors and collaborators) being more heavenward than scribes and Pharisees; I am weak when I am strong.
That one wins when he loses is very much in this vein.
This is why I love: ‘Sieg Heil’. Christ tells us that we win when we lose. Hitler tells us that we win when we win. There are no oriental paradoxes, or enigmas or headscratchers from Herr Hitler. Nope: Hitler gives us the “straight dope” as a negro might phrase it in his ebonics.
As some of my regular visitors know, what I fear most in the event of the Aryan man becoming extinct is the fate of the animals at the hands of the more primitive versions of humans that would survive him, which in my soliloquies I call ‘Neanderthals’.
I have been watching amazing videos of a whale shark asking for help (oh how can it do so without verbal language!) from divers to remove a piece of rubbish attached to her body. Yesterday I saw other similar videos of a whale that also had rubbish stuck to him and another one with some orcas that got entangled in a human net. The non-verbal way in which these creatures call for help is striking! It is obvious that they have an intelligence of their own; and the compassionate instinct to help an entangled animal, a task that cost divers hours of hard work, is absent in non-Aryans.
The rescuers of these animals are always Aryans. If the race disappears, we can imagine the fate that awaits the animals on a planet that only the coloureds would inhabit. For example, we can already imagine the Chinese inheriting the Earth if the Aryan suicide is consummated…
The catastrophes we have predicted will only affect human societies: the collapse of fiat currencies and the energy devolution resulting from the gradual depletion of oil fields. But I have not discussed global warming on this site.
Yesterday I was watching videos about the melting of permafrost across the Arctic (e.g. this one). The social catastrophes we have talked about would not exterminate Homo sapiens, let alone the Homo sapiens neanderthalensis. But if the permafrost in Siberian Russia, Canada and the rest of the Arctic melts, the methane that the microbes would expel into the atmosphere would cause the Earth to warm up to a runaway greenhouse effect.
So if the Aryan goes extinct, Nature itself could take care of exterminating the surviving Neanderthals.
That’s my Good News, my gospel! Remember that the four words are not only Gens alba conservanda est but Eliminad todo sufrimiento innecesario: whereas only the most psychogenically emergent Aryans have behaved nobly towards our biological cousins. If Aryan man sinned in repudiating Heydrich and Himmler’s noble project of ethnic cleansing, Nature herself would see it through.
As Savitri Devi observed, you cannot denazify the Gods.
Criminal History, 184
For the context of these translations click here.
PDFs of entries 1-183 (abridged translations)
can be accessed in the featured post.
Emperor Charles the Fat in the Chartularium monasterii Casauriensis, ordinis S. Benedicti.
Volume V, chapter 5:
Norman plight and
Charles III The Fat
‘But Charles, who held the title of emperor, marched with a great army against the Normans and reached their fortifications; but then his heart sank and, through the mediation of others, he obtained by a treaty that Gottfried and his own were baptised and took Friesland and the other estates which Rorich had possessed as fiefs again.’
—Annales Bertiniani
‘When the emperor became aware of their cunning tricks and the collusion of their machinations, he negotiated with Henry, a very clever man, with the secret intention of using a ruse to get rid of the enemy he had let into the far end of the empire. He decided to try it more by cunning than by force, so he sent off the envoys with an unclear message and let them return to Godefrid with the assurance that he would answer his messengers to all matters of their mission, as befitted both him and Godefrid, just so that he would continue to remain loyal. Thereupon he sent Henry to that man and with him, to conceal the deceit at work, Willibert, the venerable bishop of Cologne. Indeed Godefrid dies after first Everhard had struck him with a blow and then Henry’s companions had pierced him, and all the Normans who found themselves on the Betuwe are massacred. Only a few days later, on the advice of the same Henry, Hugh is lured to Gondreville by promises and deceitfully captured; on the emperor’s orders, his eyes are gouged out by the same Henry. He is then sent to Aiamannia to the monastery of St Gallus. Finally, he was shorn by my hand in the monastery of Prüm at the time of King Zwentibolch.’
—Abbot Regino of Prüm
Having briefly read ‘The Yoke of Woke’ I see Tobias Lang inadvertently echoes Orwell’s Notes on Nationalism. Much as he’s correct to notice postwar Jewish subversion, he’s still promoting these Jews to an all-powerful force, much as with the ‘transposition of colour’ where non-whites are innately superior in that they are dominant and thus somehow to blame for everything. I see, as you always write, and as Wagner said, that these commentators simply cannot turn their gaze onto themselves and process that it’s their neochristian morality that allows the Jews to do this [emphasis by Ed.], and which keeps them otherwise weak and focussed on loving their enemy out-group, and their capitalist system that facilitates this individualistic, atomised ‘soul-saving’. He puts out his counterargument, but I don’t see at any point him dwelling on Christianity and honestly critiquing it the same way, thus sidestepping addressing Cofnas adequately. I take it it’s simply beyond them, much as with dealing with their ancestors’ catastrophic failures in turning on Germany, and indeed their own anti-Nordic miscegenation. To be honest, I grow tired of reading the entire white nationalist right continually preach on and on about Jews (especially the ‘every single time…’ line) whilst gaslighting the other, more fundamental aspects of their long dissolution. To fight back, they must first be honest enough to recognise what they are, not just what they are subjected to. They might as well be whimpering leftists otherwise, made saintly in the role of the oppressed, these conservative reactionaries. They dig their own graves.
I should add that Tobias seems to suggest somehow that without criticising hostile Jews (as would be natural for them) like he is prepossessed to do, all his opponents/oppressors are Marxists. I’d say cultural Marxists, though they do exist, are rare outside of academia and student life. What about the vast group of normies, the white everyday people, the 90%+ of society? They’re not tied to cultural Marxism. Normies would be the clearest point for expressing that our society’s values are shaped by generations of Christianity. The everyday people aren’t schooled in any of these progressive theories, and they’re not activists regardless. Still, preternaturally, they radiate egalitarianism. And it’s the same with the right. It seems like conservatives have backed themselves into a corner over this and created yet another oppressor myth to make themselves feel better (although I do not deny Jewish subversion, obviously). I don’t understand why they have such reticence to examine their own side, and their own people (as a race, and not as a political faction). I certainly don’t think whites are, on the whole, innocent victims, passively absorbing outside abuses, much as their suffering is prominent to us. Surely there is something rather narcissistic about their mantra of dogged self-defence also, as they continue to gloss over the problem. Losing the warped metaphysics and suicidal doctrines of a ridiculous long-entrenched foreign religion does nothing to physically diminish our potential as a race. I simply don’t understand why they hang onto it (when I think to myself on it, it’s beyond me totally), were it not for cowardice and false pride narcissism. It makes no sense.
Regarding recent articles in The Occidental Observer—one by Kevin MacDonald—about how Tobias Lang contradicts Nathan Cofnas, who believes that Christianity underlies the aetiology of Wokism, I’d like to give my two cents.
Cofnas is correct (cf. the books cited in Neo-Christianity) but misses the point that Jewry is a potent ethnocidal catalyst in an ethnosuicidal process that was already simmering long before whites allowed Jewry to become empowered.
On the other hand, Lang is right to acknowledge Jewish subversion but wrong not to realise that, without Christianity, whites would think as Titus and the Romans thought when they razed Jerusalem to the ground: when exterminating Jews was a legitimate sport in the Greco-Roman mindset.
In other words, if Constantine had been defeated a few centuries after Titus and Hadrian, every American white nationalist would have oil paintings of characters equivalent to Heydrich and Himmler in their living and dining rooms.
Never forget that whoever tells you in their new testaments that you must love your enemy is your enemy!
Right at the end of October 192 3, the Völkisch and paramilitary leaders assembled in Röhm’s Reichswehr office in Munich and began preparations for armed action. Their concern was at least as much to head off any separatist tendencies in the Bavarian leadership as it was to support them in joint action against Berlin. It was expected that Kahr would announce his plans for a coup against the Berlin government at a meeting scheduled for 8 November at the Bürgerbräukeller. If Hitler and his co-conspirators were going to forestall Kahr, and his suspected separatist agenda, or co-opt him for their own plans, this would be an excellent opportunity to catch all the major protagonists in one place.
Hitler struck in an evening of high drama. He burst into the Bürgerbräukeller, fired his pistol into the ceiling and announced to general applause that the Bavarian government of Knilling and the Reich government in Berlin were deposed. Hitler ‘suggested’ Kahr as regent for Bavaria and Pöhner as minister president thereof. He promised that a ‘German national government’ would be announced in Munich that same evening. He ‘recommended’ that he himself should take over the ‘leadership’ until accounts had been settled with the ‘criminals’ in Berlin. Ludendorff was to be commander of a new national army; Lossow Reichswehr minister, and Seisser German minister of police. Attempting to marry Bavarian local pride and the pan-German mission, Hitler said that it was the task of the provisional government to march on the ‘den of iniquity in Berlin’. In a considerable concession to Bavarian sensibilities he vowed ‘to build up a cooperative federal state in which Bavaria gets what it deserves’. Kahr, Lossow and Seisser were held captive and prevailed upon to support the coup.
The putschists now swung into action. Their ‘Proclamation to all Germans’ announced that the nation would no longer be treated like a ‘Negro tribe’. Hanfstaengl was detailed to inform and influence the foreign press; he tipped off Larry Rue of the Chicago Tribune that the coup was about to begin and appeared in the Bürgerbräukeller with a group of journalists from other countries. The offices of the pro-SPD Münchener Post were smashed up by the SA, but there was no ‘white terror’ on the streets of Munich; Hitler’s main anxiety was the Bavarian right, not the left. One of the few detentions was that of Count Soden-Fraunhofen, a staunch Wittelsbach loyalist who was accused of being a ‘hireling of the Vatican’. Winifred and Siegfried Wagner, who were almost certainly aware of the plot in advance, were due at the Odeon Theatre immediately after the coup, where Siegfried was to direct a Wagner concert, intended perhaps as a celebration. Hitler announced melodramatically that ‘the morning will see either a national government in Germany or our own deaths’.
The morning brought the sobering realization that the putschists were on their own. There was no general national rising across the Reich. Kahr, Lossow and Seisser, who had given their ‘word of honour’ under duress to support the coup, slipped away and began to mobilize forces to restore order. Hitler’s worst fears were confirmed: he was now fighting not merely red Berlin, but reactionary separatist forces in Munich. A bitter Nazi pamphlet rushed out that day announced. that ‘today the [November revolution] was to have been extinguished from Munich and the honour of the fatherland restored ‘. ‘This,’ the pamphlet added, invoking Hitler’s rhetoric, ‘would have been the Bavarian mission.’ Kahr, Lossow and Seisser, alas, had betrayed the cause. Behind them, the pamphlet continued, stood ‘the same trust of separatists and Jews’ who had been responsible for the treasonous Armistice in 1918, the ‘slave treaty of Versailles and the despicable stock-exchange speculation’ and all other miseries. It concluded with a call to make one last effort to save the situation. What was striking about this document was the far greater stress laid on the separatist-clerical and capitalist danger than on the threat of Bolshevism [emphasis by Ed.].
Hitler and his co-conspirators set out mid morning 9 November for central Munich in a column numbering about 2,000 men, many of them armed. Strasser, who had turned up from Nuremberg with a contingent of followers, was particularly belligerent. Their plan was unclear, but it seems to have been to wrest the initiative back from Kahr; Hitler may also have intended to go down fighting as he had vowed the night before. Outside the Feldherrenhalle at the Odeonsplatz, they encountered a police cordon. Hitler linked arms with Scheubner-Richter and the column marched straight at the police lines, weapons at the ready.
It is not clear whether he was seeking death as a blood sacrifice to inspire future generations or whether he was trying to imitate Napoleon’s famous confrontation with Marshal Ney, when the emperor marched slowly towards his old comrades, who refused to shoot. Shots were exchanged, leading to fatalities on both sides. Hitler himself escaped death only narrowly, injured his arm and fled the scene. Before the day was out, Kahr issued a proclamation announcing the failure of the ‘Hitler Putsch’. The great drama had ended in complete fiasco.