web analytics
Ancient Rome Celts Julius Caesar Plato

Two consuls

An interesting debate followed Matt Parrott’s recent article at Counter Currents about the pros and cons of fascism for the coming ethnostate.

I admire both Julian and Hitler, who ruled without a system of checks and balances. But at the same time we must avoid blundering on colossal scales (Julian’s invading Persia; Hitler’s invading Russia). That’s why at Counter Currents Trainspotter asked me a most pertinent question about the concept of the Two Roman Consuls to avoid such civilization-destroying blunders.

This is the lead paragraph of the current Wikipedia article on Roman consuls:

A consul served in the highest elected political office of the Roman Republic. Each year, two consuls were elected together, to serve for a one-year term. Each consul was given veto power over his colleague and the officials would alternate each month.

However, after the establishment of the Empire, the consuls were merely a figurative representative of Rome’s republican heritage and held very little power and authority, with the Emperor acting as the supreme leader.

If someone deserves to be compared to LOTR’s Isildur he was Julius Caesar. We are barely taught at school the history of the Aryan people called the Celts. Studying their tragic history ought to change our idealized image about Caesar and the beginning of the Roman Empire.

Caesar betrayed the Republic and started what became known as the Roman Empire. The empire fell under the spell of the One Ring, “economics over race,” especially considering that the conquered Celts were whiter than the Romans. (It was the Romans, not the Celts, the ones who by the times of Caesar’s conquest of Gaul had started to miscegenate.)

Last year I was shocked to learn that Caesar practiced a sort of exterminationist anti-whitism. You see nothing of this barbarism in TV series like Rome or the other idealized series on the fall of the empire. But the grim fact is that Caesar killed… one of every four Gauls!

For instance, when his troops occupied the Gaulish town of Avaricum Caesar ordered all 40,000 inhabitants put to death. His conquest of Gaul was exterminationist, with whole tribes, including pure Aryan women and children, being slaughtered.

In William Pierce’s history of the white race we are told that by the autumn of 54 B.C. Caesar had subdued Gaul, having destroyed 800 towns and villages. More than three million (!) Celts were enslaved. And what is much worse, “behind his armies came a horde of Roman-Jewish merchants and speculators,” with “hundreds of thousands of blond, blue-eyed Celtic girls” that marched south in chains. They were “pawed over by greasy, Semitic flesh-merchants in Rome’s slave markets.”

So the century when we were born was not the first time that a “Hellstorm,” which we could define as whites’ enslaving and genociding the cream of their own race, happened in Europe.

From the time of Caesar’s abolition of the Two Consuls system, the fate of Rome was sealed. No Roman Emperor after Caesar ever shared power. All became absolute dictators. No Consul had veto powers. Miscegenating Romans started to forget the republican principles that had made them so strong—disciplina potestas, probitas, severitas, gravitas, pudicitia, pietas and especially the principle that the common good is the highest law: salus populi suprema lex. Instead, they started to behave like American pigs or, to use a Petronius term during the reign of another mad emperor, Caligula, like Trimalchios.


Marble bust of Brutus

Not Caesar but Brutus should be our model. And the history of Brutus’ ancestors, the founders of the Roman Republic, should be studied starting perhaps with Lucius Junius Brutus.

I told Trainspotter that throughout Plato’s Republic runs the fear that the degenerative Ionian and Athenian lifestyles could potentially ruin the state, and that this propensity of whites to behave like miscegenating pigs in the later stages of civilization could only be prevented by a tough Dorian discipline.

In a nutshell, the coming Fourth Reich must adopt the Two Consuls principle and repudiate all sorts of Caesarism.

19 replies on “Two consuls”

Was Hitler’s invasion of Russia a blunder of his own making, or was it done as a pre-emptive strike against a planned Soviet invasion? Senior figures in the Red Army have admitted that Stalin was about to stab Germany in the back. I think Suvorov, with his book ‘Icebreaker’, is not the only Russian to admit this.

Some of his generals knew that the operation would be suicidal. With the two consuls system they might have awaited until the atom bomb was developed in Germany.

Just before I saw the above comment I wrote the following in the previous post on Julian (link).

I am no expert in WWII, but the previous commenter is right on the money. I have heard of the book he mentions (link), and I have seen many a serious scholar arguing that the amount of weaponry and the number of soldiers ready to be put into action that Stalin had at hand is simply unexplainable if you rule out the option of his planning to start a massive invasion of the whole continent. Particulary noteworthy in this sense is this podcast by Mark Weber on the issue — highly recommendable (link).

Incredibly, Lenin was right here and not Hitler: the protection of the totalitarian State is priority #1. Hitler gambled his fate, even if he had good reasons. Just before Operation Barbarossa a Polish woman or someone managed to talk to the Fuhrer on the streets and, the legend says, warned like a visionary that bad and bloody omens were to happen had Hitler invaded. IMHO independently of this rumor he should have listened his generals, who were more knowledgeable about military matters than him. We cannot afford another big mistake after the ethnostate is formed.

I had not visited the Counter Currents website for a couple of days and therefore it was only now that I read Greg Johnson’s piece on Stolfi’s recent biography of Hitler (Mark Weber did a podcast about this book over a year ago (link).

Greg’s view on Operation Barbarosa are akin to the one I tentatively presented above and he even goes further and mentions two other books on the subject, plus a couple of articles published in the CC itself:

“Stolfi does not mention it, but there is a sense in which Hitler was the savior of Germany and all of Western Europe, although his accomplishments fell far short of his ambitions, consumed his life, and devastated his nation. When Hitler launched operation Barbarossa in 1941, the Soviets were poised to launch a massive invasion of all of Central and Western Europe. Hitler pre-empted that invasion, and although he failed to destroy the USSR, the Third Reich was destroyed instead, and Stalin conquered half of Europe, the outcome would have been much worse if Stalin had been able to launch his invasion. Stalin could have conquered all of Europe. At best he would have been repulsed after unimaginable devastation and bloodshed. Thus every Western European who has lived in freedom from want and terror since 1941 owes a debt of thanks to Adolf Hitler, the German people, and their Asxis partners.

(See on this site Daniel Michaels, “Exposing Stalin’s Plan to Conquer Europe” and the National Vanguard review of Viktor Suvorov’s Icebreaker; for more recent literature on this subject, see Viktor Suvorov’s definitive statement of his research has been published as The Chief Culprit: Stalin’s Grand Design to Start World War II [Annapolis, Md.: Naval Institute Press, 2008] and Joachim Hoffmann, Stalin’s War of Extermination, 1941-1945: Planning, Realization and Documentation [Capshaw, Al.: Theses and Dissertations Press, 2001].).”

Like I said before, I’m no expert in WWII history, but I strongly suspect that Hitler, a former soldier himself, would not have given orders to invade Russia if there were not compelling reasons for that. Maybe it was simply the only reasonable thing to do at that moment, even though it precipitated the end of the Reich afterwards.

The discussion is academic; but I still believe that if a Consul had veto power, the invasion of Stalin’s lands would be postponed until the Germans developed the Bomb. (BTW, today I’ll reproduce the entire Johnson article here in WDH.)

I think Hitler’s biggest problem during the war is that he didn’t realize how alone he really was. He was baffled by the British destroying their own empire just to kill him especially. He was ultimately, as Savitri Devi noted, too trusting.

Now, to the topic in question: although I was aware of the sheer brutality of the Roman conquests, the point you made is very disturbing. Right now I am starting to read Who We Are and what you mentioned from the book, concerning Caesar acting as the Allies in relation to the Germans during WWII, is really, really heartbreaking. I had no idea of such a thing.

The sheer reading of honest history, even by non-WNsts (like Gibbon), completely shatters your mind. That’s why I had to study first Psychohistory: to digest the heavy psych data that you won’t see in normal documentaries.

I still believe there are bigger (and more basic) concerns than simply what meta-political/meta-physical theory we should adopt until ‘we’ are clearly defined. There were some good comments at the CC article… One about needing an international white movement to combat international marxism and this;

“As someone from Canada I did not get the feeling that they (the confederate protesters) were fighting for me… I really think that if New rightists or whatever we might call ourselves are to start engaging in or supporting street protests, I think it is high time someone comes out with some new colours, symbols and slogans. The recycling of old ones will mainly confuse people.”

Now sure, there should still be an element of nationalism/race/ethnicity but they should only be called ‘branches’ of something greater. This was another of Hitler’s mistakes. As it is now, all this work only creates more (not less) conflicts within our own people, be it concepts of religion, racial purity or political systems. I, as an ethnic European, simply want to support other ethnic Europeans and not get divided on back-room/abstract issues.

I like the idea of roots, tree, branches as rallying symbol. It suggests relatedness, interconnection, and interdependence, but also distinction. Spainards one “branch,” Germans another, mixed Euro stock Americans another, and so on.

Yes I believe there must be some International theme to avoid the WW2 problem where Whites fought against Whites. Jews will use every trick in the book but with the current instant web-media, it won’t be so easy. If GD or American WN rises, then it should be made extremely difficult for Zio govts. to enlist white men to fight them.

A new symbol and label is essential to this process. Someone like CC should hold a competition to design it and this can be applied to all movements across the world… to engender solidarity.

I like this idea. It is also reminiscent of Yggdrasil, The Irminsul, the Algiz rune (‘life-rune’), and of course, the white tree of Gondor.

What is Pierce’s source for the ‘Roman-Jewish merchants and speculators’? I think assertions like these are dubious and altogether too convenient. Europeans massacring and enslaving each other throughout history is indeed tragic, but we must admit the uncomfortable truth that the Romans, and others, needed no Jews for this. They had a corrosive mercantile stratum of their own.

“In a nutshell, the coming Fourth Reich must adopt the Two Consuls principle and repudiate all sorts of Caesarism.”

Why not also pull a North Korea and make Hitler the God-Emperor of Europe? He can’t make mistakes since he’s dead, and he’d fill the head-of-state role preventing someone else from taking it.

Comments are closed.