by Dunnyveg
Liberalism believes in a brotherhood of man while white nationalists want a brotherhood of whites. If we consider that the biggest enemies of whites are other whites, it should become obvious that white nationalism is a pipe dream.
As with other forms of liberalism, white nationalism either rejects or ignores real human tribalism, which isn’t centered around race, but ethnicity.
Although it might be possible to develop a racist interpretation of Christianity (e.g., what the Nazis tried), I’ve never seen a convincing theological justification of it. The fact that all major churches and 99%+ of all who today call themselves Christians reject racism ought to tell you something… You probably want to hang on to most of Christianity as it has been “traditionally” practiced in relatively modern times, while discarding only the anti-racism. Everyone who ever tried that has failed, but I guess you don’t see that as a problem.
Then again, the cognitive dissonance issue is nearly as problematic. In order to accept being called a racist or a Nazi with equanimity, normal American whites would have to reconcile that with their country’s history of being violently opposed to racism of any kind, from the Civil War forward. They would have to admit to themselves and to others that all of that blood shed in trying to stamp out racism had been shed in vain, and in fact, worse than in vain, in an evil cause. They would have to admit that their ancestors were evil, and that they themselves had also been evil before they saw the light and became racists.
It’s safe to say the chances of that happening on a mass scale are almost zero.
Berghof, 30th April 1942, at dinner
German tenors—The horror of Bruno Walter and Knappertsbusch—Furtwängler, the only real conductor.
I am very sorry that Germany at the moment possesses only two really first-class tenors, for these two unfortunates are forced to tear round and round the country singing in town after town with neither rest nor respite. The fault lies with the directors of the Operas and the conductors, who are not at sufficient pains to seek and recruit new talent.
Great conductors are as important as great singers. Had there been a sufficiency of good conductors during the time of the Weimar Republic, we should have been saved the ridiculous spectacle of the rise to eminence of a man like Bruno Walter, who in Vienna was regarded as a complete nonentity. It was the Jewish press of Munich, which was echoed by its Viennese counterpart, that drew attention to the man and suddenly proclaimed him to be the greatest conductor in Germany. But the last laugh was against Vienna; for when he was engaged as conductor of the superb Viennese Orchestra, all he could produce was beer-hall music. He was dismissed, of course, and with his dismissal Vienna began to realise what a dearth there was of good conductors, and sent for Knappertsbusch.
He, with his blond hair and blue eyes, was certainly a German, but unfortunately he believed that, even with no ear, he could, with his temperament, still produce good music. To attend the Opera when he was conducting was a real penance.
The only conductor whose gestures do not appear ridiculous is Furtwängler. His movements are inspired from the depths of his being. In spite of the very meagre financial support he received, he succeeded in turning the Berlin Philharmonic Orchestra into an ensemble far superior to that of Vienna, and that is greatly to his credit. Some people attribute this superiority to the fact that Berlin possesses a number of genuine Stradivarius, but this explanation must be accepted with reserve.
Editor’s note: The following is an article authored by by Hadding Scott
______ 卐 ______
There is an urban legend that has been floating around for some years now, that the word racist was coined by Leon Trotsky, for the purpose of cowing and intimidating opponents of leftist ideology. In his History of the Russian Revolution Trotsky applied the word racist to Slavophiles, who opposed Communism.
Just from the word’s etymology (the word race with a suffix added) it is not immediately apparent why this word is supposed to be inherently derogatory. Words like anarchist, communist, and fascist have a negative connotation for many people, but that is because of their perspectives on anarchism, communism, and fascism, not because the words are inherently derogatory. The words anarchist, communist, and fascist have objective content toward which one may be positively or negatively disposed. Likewise the word racist. Objectively, it seems to denote somebody for whom race is a concern.
Is it not possible that Trotsky’s use of the word, regardless of what his feelings about racism may have been, was merely descriptive, insofar as the effort of Slavs to assert and preserve their Slavic identity inherently involves a concern with race? Are not racists, as Trotsky regarded them, essentially just a species of anti-Communist, rejecting submersion into nondescript humanity under alien personalities and interests?
Our so-called conservatives in the United States do not ask such questions. If the left uses a term with a negative feeling attached, our conservatives accept that what the term denotes is objectively negative. If leftists and Jew-controlled mass-media disapprove of racists and racism, our so-called conservatives will not dispute that value judgment; for the purpose of rhetoric they will even embrace it. Conservatives outwardly accept that racists and racism are bad, and will not challenge it.
What the conservatives like to do instead of debunking their enemies’ assumptions, which are also supported by mass-media, is to try to find a way to throw an accusation back at them, even a ridiculous accusation based on a specious argument and a flimsy premise. The legend that Leon Trotsky coined the word racist offers a basis for that kind of rhetoric. It seems a silly argument, but they will say something like, If you use the word racist then you are a bad person like Communist mass-murderer Leon Trotsky, because he invented that word!
Did Trotsky really invent that word? No, apparently not. The work in which Trotsky is supposed to have coined that word was written and published in Russian in 1930. I found several examples of the French form, raciste, preceding Trotsky’s use of the word by far.
I find pensée raciste (French for “racist thought”) and individualité raciste (“racist individuality”) in the volume of La Terro d’oc: revisto felibrenco e federalisto (a periodical championing the cultural and ethnic identity of people in southern France) for the year 1906. Here the word racist was used without a hint of negativity:
I express my best wishes for the success of your projects, because I am convinced that, in the federation of the peoples of Langue d’Oc fighting for their interests and the emancipation of their racist thought, the prestige of Toulouse will benefit.
This unfortunate South! He is a victim in every way! Ruined, robbed, brutalized, it’s a fate of conquered countries that one reserves for him, and whatever would be likely to characterize his racist individuality and whatever’s survival or worship could make him regain consciousness of himself to snatch him from his torpor and safeguard his moral and material interests, is it good for anything except to be combated and ridiculed?
While racists were bad people for Leon Trotsky, some people in Occitania in 1906 did not share that value-judgment, because they had a different perspective and different interests. Why should I accept the value-judgments of my enemies? The label racist is only an effective attack if it is perceived as one, which means, only if the value-judgment attached to it is accepted. Don’t accept that! If you can stop worrying about being called a racist, if you can refrain from using a barrage of flaky counterattacks (the way “conservatives” do) to avoid talking about your own real views, then you can be sincere and really communicate with people. You might even have a chance to explain that almost everybody is racist and that it’s normal—which is a fundamental fact that every White person needs to know.
Even earlier examples
In Charles Malato’s Philosophie de l’Anarchie (1897) we find both raciste and racisme:
No doubt that before arriving at complete internationalism, there will be a stage which will be racism; but it must be hoped that the layover will not be too long, that it will be rapidly surpassed. Communism, which appears that it must inevitably be regulated at the beginning of its functioning, especially in regard to international trade, will bring about the establishment of racist federations (Latin, Slavic, Germanic, etc.). Anarchy—which we can glimpse at the end of two or three generations when, as a result of the development of production, any regulations will have become superfluous—will bring the end of racism and the advent of a humanity without borders.
Although Malato was not in favor of racistes or racisme as such, regarding them as constituting an intermediate stage on the path from the destruction of the existing empires to his ideal of global anarchy, his use of those words back in the late 19th century was clearly not polemical but based on their objective content. Malato saw a tendency in Europe toward reorganizing political boundaries and allegiances along racial (or ethnic) lines, and he called this tendency racism. Note also that Malato specifically refers to Pan-Slavism as a form of racism, thus anticipating Trotsky’s application of the word.
First English usage
A piece for National Public Radio (Gene Demby, “The Ugly, Fascinating History of the Word ‘Racism’,” 6 January 2014) cites the Oxford English Dictionary to the effect that the first use of the word racism (in English) was by Richard Pratt in 1902, five years after Malato’s use of raciste and racisme in French.
Pratt was a Baptist religious zealot who was particularly devoted to stamping out the identities of various North American tribes through assimilation. NPR’s author for some reason finds it paradoxical that somebody who condemns racism would be trying to stamp out the racial as well as the specific ethnic identities of Cheyenne, Choctaw, or Muscogee, when in fact it is perfectly consistent.
Racism in its proper meaning, as we see with Charles Malato and the Occitanian separatists a century ago (contemporary with Pratt), means concern for one’s race (however that race is defined), and an impulse to preserve that race, and, in accord with that, organization along racial lines. To condemn racism as such is ultimately to condemn the preservation of any race, with the mongrelization of all mankind, explicitly hoped by some, being the predictable long-term result.
Deliberate destruction of races through assimilation and mixture, as advanced—although in a more direct and obvious manner than we usually see—by Richard Henry Pratt with his Carlisle Indian Industrial School, is the ultimate implication of anti-racism. It is remarkable that anyone pretends to be confused about this.
One of the most corrosive effects on the white man in the post-war era has been “rock music” in my opinion. This “music” is derived from negro tribal music, yet it is listened to by quite a few so-called pro-whites despite Hitler speaking about the danger of alien cultures in degrading Aryan culture. The National Socialists would have outlawed this music as degenerate music and indeed there was a group of youth in National Socialist Germany who listened to negro music imported from the United States, the Edelweiss Pirates, who were sent to concentration camps and the heads of the group were even hanged.
The skinhead pictured in the cartoon above [click also here to see the whole pic] is based on the skinhead youth subculture that began in the mid-60’s in England that has nothing to do with National Socialism. Skinheads ended up getting involved with John Tyndall’s National Front after a youngster from the NF formed a group for youth that caved in to degenerate music-the Punk Front. From there on skinhead rock music became associated with National Socialism even though Hitler, Himmler etc. would have imprisoned youth in concentration camps for listening to rock music.
Considering many White Nationalists, including those in Golden Dawn, are involved in rock music and these are supposed to represent the best of our race, what does that say? It means the White race is in trouble, serious trouble. There are no White men on their way to becoming supermen like the heroic SS, of course there are still racially-conscious pure-blooded White men but their character and thinking is degenerate, unlike the SS. At this rate I wonder how the White race will survive at all. The post-1945 White Nationalist movement resembles a pathetic joke at times, especially when compared to the National Socialism and Fascism of the 1920’s-1940’s.
Terms like “White supremacist,” “racist,” “anti-Semite” “Nazi” have been devastatingly effective, but they are only effective because they are disseminated by our hostile elites. [a quotation from a Kevin MacDonald article]
They are only effective because whites take them seriously and accept that they’re evil. But this was no mere invention of modern mass media, as they were accepted as evil long before its advent. Racism and white supremacy have been out of style in America at least since the Civil War. White supremacy was offensive to Christians back in that day because it goes against so many Biblical teachings: the insignificance of race, the equal importance and uniqueness of all souls to God, the unimportance of the body, etc.
Thus they abolished it, at great cost to themselves in blood and treasure, before Jews even began arriving on these shores in any great number. Further, doesn’t the Bible (Matthew 19:28-30) predict that when Heaven on earth arrives, that then when Jesus’ followers have completely forsaken their blood relations in order to follow him, that those who were last shall be the first, and the first shall be last?
Here we have the essence of cuckservatism, foretold in the sayings of Jesus. Hence, a devout Christian must prep the bull, in order to make up for having sinfully been first (cf. Mark 9:35). It shows proper humility.
These two subjects are not unrelated: (1) As to date I got only one germane response to my Syssitias piece that I posted two weeks ago—Ward Kendall’s. And (2) my yesterday diatribe against white nationalists—“They are behaving like a cuckold watching two niggers, capitalism and Christianity, fucking his wife”.
They are two sides of the same coin. As William Pierce put it in Hunter:
Just because you and I have the balls and the inclination to join such a fight doesn’t mean that anyone else does. We’re unique. There aren’t any others like us left in this degenerate age. You’d end up with a few hundred White volunteers, and you’d find those impossible to discipline. The rest would be sitting at home waiting for their television sets to come back on and tell them what to think, running with the niggers and joining the looting and raping, or praying for Jesus to save them. Understand?
And you keep telling me that it’s all because of the Joooz? Don’t make me laugh!
Berghof, 1st May 1942, midday
Architectural problems—Our architects must plan on a grand scale—Bayreuth, Weimar and Dresden—Development of cultural life.
I am very grateful to Professor Giesler for having so successfully transformed the Schloss Kiessheim, which is to be our Guest House for distinguished visitors and which was opened in its new rôle by a visit from the Duce. The general lay-out, which corresponds so closely to my own ideas of spaciousness, pleases me particularly.
Giesler has planned on a grand scale. He has succeeded in leaving vast spaces between the portals and the staircase, and between the staircase and the entrance to the reception halls.
A sense of spaciousness is important, and I am delighted to see our architects planning on broad and spacious lines. Only thus shall we avoid the springing up of more towns in which the houses are cluttered up almost on top of each other, as one sees in Zwickau, Gelsenkirchen and so on.
If I were banished to a town of this kind, devoid of all beauty, I should lose heart and happiness just as surely as if I had been banished from my fatherland. I am therefore determined that some measure of culture and beauty shall penetrate even into the humblest of our towns, and that, step by step, the amenities of all our towns will reach a higher level. There is a lot of truth in the assertion that the culture of a town is dependent upon its traditions. Bayreuth, Weimar and Dresden afford classic examples.
It is not sufficient that a town should have a museum which the students occasionally visit; our representative must see to it that the men of the Labour Service and the Wehrmacht find it worthy of visit, and that gradually in this way the interest in, and the appreciation of, art will be aroused throughout the masses of the nation. The eye of the children must be weaned from the niggardly and trained on the grandiose, for only thus will they learn to appreciate both the ensemble and the finer points of any work of art.
“America is the least homogeneous country in the Western hemisphere… But there is one common feature which is characteristic for all Americans, regardless of their social and racial background or status; namely their rejection of their previous roots.”
—Homo Americanus, chapter 1
3rd May 1942, at dinner
Berlin must not monopolise the resources of the Reich—Berlin is not an artistic city—The choice of Nuremberg.
When I think of Bayreuth, I am invariably worried by the thought that one day we may have to appeal to the State for financial aid for the maintenance of its cultural institutions and surrender the administrative control of the city into the hands of the ministerial bureaucrats. This is one of the reasons why I am so interested in the two sons of Frau Winifred Wagner. I hope very much that they will prove capable of carrying on the great work of their parents. As long as I live, I shall always do everything in my power to maintain the prestige of Richard Wagner’s city. I see no better method of safeguarding cultural centres than to confide them to the safe-keeping of the cities which contain them.
Brilliant city though Berlin undoubtedly is, I doubt whether we can make of it a metropolis of the Arts. As a metropolis of political and military power, it is ideal, as I realised on the occasion of the procession organised for my last birthday. But the atmosphere of Berlin is not the atmosphere of an artistic city.
We have no reason for allowing any other town to attain the stature of Berlin. The Reich can be well content with one town of five million inhabitants, Berlin, two towns—Vienna and Hamburg—of a couple of millions, and quite a number which approach the million mark. It would be extremely stupid further to enlarge our great cities and to canalise all cultural activity towards them. I said one day to Christian Weber that it would be ridiculous to incorporate Starnberg into Munich. To preserve its own character, Munich must remain as it now is.
Had I so wished I could have arranged for the Party Congress to take place in Munich. But as I wished as many towns as possible—big, medium and little—to participate and to become centres of German cultural life, I suggested to the Party Committee that we should chose Nuremberg for our Rallies, and our annual gathering there must, I think, give the city for ten days the atmosphere of the Olympic Games Festivals of ancient days.
