“The type of Europeans who went to America were the Jew-envious protestant kind who cared more about pursuing economic gain over ties to their blood and soil.”
Categories
Month: August 2015
Categories
This Time, 5
A passage from This Time the World
by George Lincoln Rockwell
This is only an infinitesimally tiny bit of the huge mass of evidence that the “Russian” revolution was not Russian at all, but Jewish. The documents include the Overman Report to the U.S. Senate, 1919, Senate Document 88, which shows that of the 388 members of the first Soviet Government, sitting in the Old Smolny Institute in Petrograd, 371 were Jews and 265 of these Jews were from the lower East Side of New York City!
In March 1918, both Russia and Germany were in the advanced throes of Bolshevik revolution. Lenin was on his way in a sealed train to Russia, with over 417 exiled Jewish Marxists, to set up the first Bolshevik government in the world. The Jewish revolutionaries were at work in all the other chaos-ridden European countries, with Bela Kun (Cohen) seizing Hungary for the Jew-Communists and Rosa Luxemburg and Karl Liebknecht, both Jews, leading the Bolshevik uprising in Germany.
Meanwhile, an unknown German corporal lay in hospital in Pasewalk, outside of Berlin, his eyes all but burned out by a gas attack. He writes movingly in Mein Kampf of the hot tears which poured down his face when a gang of deserters from the Navy rushed in proclaiming the Red revolution, which forced Germany to sue for an armistice. He writes even more movingly of his disgust and helpless rage when he learned that the deserters were not combat fighters from the front lines, where he himself had won his Iron Cross of valor, but were Jews from the rear echelons!
Five thousand miles across the Atlantic Ocean, in Bloomington, Illinois, Claire Schade Rockwell entered the Kelso Hospital at this same time to give birth to her first child, on the night of March 9, 1918. The greatest marathon race of human history was launched…
Adolf Hitler started the year I was born, the year that Marxism took Russia. He made a miraculous sprint into history, almost overtook the Reds, but exhausted himself in the agony of his superhuman exertion. His baton seemed to fall, to be crushed into the earth by the ferocity of the other side. It has lain buried now for fifteen years. All over the world, it appears to be crucified. But now, at last, it has been seized up by new hands! It will be carried to triumph as inevitably as the laws of Nature decree the eventual victory of the strongest and best…
I have made it my mission in life, above all things, to carry that baton to victory! No matter how long it takes, how painful it may be, or how an eternally blind world scorns and hates it, Adolf Hitler’s noble vision of racial idealism will yet master today’s chaos and bring order, decency and the innocent fun and laughter of my father’s day…
Karen and Amanda:
Instead of engaging in the familiar bleat of “forgive them, they know not what they do”, you two girls ought to come down off your crosses and answer the question. Where’s the resistance? The fact is, there is no way to distinguish the current situation (“domination”, according to you and some others) from active cooperation. People who actively cooperate in their own genocide don’t deserve any pity. Such “victims” are indeed blameworthy.
Revilo Oliver’s texts on Aryan ethnosuicide and the need to create a religion of hate have moved me to translate some explanatory notes of Thus Spoke Zarathustra at the bottom of this entry (see also my first post in the comments section).
1[1]
When Zarathustra was thirty years old[2] he left his home and the lake of his home and went into the mountains. Here he enjoyed his spirit and his solitude and for ten years he did not tire of it. But at last his heart transformed, – one morning he arose with the dawn, stepped before the sun and spoke thus to it:
“You great star! What would your happiness be if you had not those for whom you shine![3]
For ten years you have come up here to my cave: you would have tired of your light and of this route without me, my eagle and my snake.[4]
But we awaited you every morning, took your overflow from you and blessed you for it.
Behold! I am weary of my wisdom, like a bee that has gathered too much honey. I need hands that reach out.
I want to bestow and distribute until the wise among human beings have once again enjoyed their folly, and the poor once again their wealth.
For this I must descend into the depths, as you do evenings when you go behind the sea and bring light even to the underworld, you super-rich star!
Like you, I must go down[5] as the human beings say, to whom I want to descend.
So bless me now, you quiet eye that can look upon even an all too great happiness without envy!
Bless the cup that wants to flow over, such that water flows golden from it and everywhere carries the reflection of your bliss!
Behold! This cup wants to become empty again, and Zarathustra wants to become human again.”
– Thus began Zarathustra’s going under.[6]
______________________
The above German-English translation by Adrian del Caro is taken from Thus Spoke Zarathustra (Cambridge University Press, 2006). This Cambridge edition lacks the more detailed notes by Andrés Sánchez-Pascual in Así Habló Zaratustra (Madrid: Alianza Editorial, 2014). Thus, I have translated Sánchez-Pascual’s notes to English. Page numbers refer to that edition in Spanish.
Notes:
[1] This § 1 of Thus Spake Zarathustra literally reproduces the aphorism 342 of The Gay Science. Only the “Lake Urmi” that appears there is here replaced by “the lake of his home.” The aforementioned aphorism is entitled “Incipit tragædia” (Tragedy begins) and is the last of the fourth book of The Gay Science, entitled “Sanctus Januarius” (St. January).
[2] This is the age at which Jesus begins his preaching. See the gospel of Luke, 3, 23: “Jesus was about thirty years old when he began his work.” In the sought antagonism between Zarathustra and Jesus, this is the first of the confrontations. As can be seen throughout the work, Zarathustra is partly Jesus’ anti-figure. And so, the age when Jesus begins preaching is the same in which Zarathustra withdrew to the mountains in order to prepare for his task. Immediately after, a second contrast between the two becomes apparent: Jesus spent only forty days in the wilderness; Zarathustra spent ten years in the mountains.
[3] Zarathustra will pronounce the same invocation to the sun at the end of the work. See, in the fourth part, “The Sign.” [Note of the Ed.: Precisely the chapter mentioned by the end of my 2012 essay, “Dies irae”]
[4] The two heraldic animals of Zarathustra respectively represent his will and his wit. They will provide company on numerous occasions and even act as his conversational partners, especially in the very important chapter of the third part entitled, “The Convalescent.”
[5] “Untergehen.” It is one of the key words that illustrate the figure of Zarathustra. This German verb contains several nuances that hardly may be held simultaneously in the Spanish translation. Untergehen is primarily, and literally, “walk (gehen) down (unter).” Zarathustra, in effect, gets down from the mountains. Secondly the term usually designate the “sunset,” and Zarathustra makes it clear that he wants to act like the sun at sunset. Thirdly, Untergehen and the substantive Untergang are used to mean sinking, destruction, decay; thus the title of the famous work of Spengler’s, Der Untergang des Abendlandes (translated as The Decline of the West). Zarathustra also declines in his task and fails. His task, he says several times, destroys him. As a Castilian terminus technicus of Untergehen, here it has been adopted “hundirse en su ocaso” [Note of the Ed.: literally, “sinking into his sunset”—contrast it with the Cambdridge translation, “go down”] which seems to retain the three senses. However, Nietzsche plays countless times with this German compound word and also in contrast to other compounds. For example, he contrasts and joins Untergang and Übergang. Übergang is “passing to the other side” over something, but it also means “transition.” Man, Zarathustra would say, is “a transit and a sunset.” That is, by sinking into his decline, like the sun, he moves to the other side (of the earth, it is understood, according to the old belief). And “passing to the other side” means surpassing oneself and becoming the Overman.
[6] This same phrase is repeated later, on page 62. The “sunset” of Zarathustra ends towards the end of the third part, in the chapter entitled “The Convalescent” which states: “Thus – ends Zarathustra’s going under!”
Categories
Uncle Adolf’s table talk, 107
4th April 1942, midday
Rules for a good education.
I’m in favour of an absolutely strict law of inheritance, declaring that a single child shall inherit everything, and all the others shall be thrown out into life and obliged to ensure their livelihood themselves. The father who truly loves his child bequeaths him a healthy heredity and a good education.
A good education consists in the following: (a) forming the child’s character by giving him a sense of what is good; (b) giving him a background of solid knowledge; (c) it must be strict as regards the object to be attained, and firm as regards the methods used.
Furthermore, the father who has a lot of money must take care to give his child as little of it as possible. The man who wishes to bring up his child rightly must not lose sight of the example of nature, which shows no peculiar tenderness.
The peasant class has remained healthy in so far as this form of law has been applied to the countryside. One child inherited the estate, the others received nothing, or almost nothing.
That’s exactly the practice amongst the English nobility. The title passes to a single one of the descendants, to the exclusion of all the others. By thus ensuring that the bananas don’t fall from the trees into the mouths of the young people, one protects them from cowardice and idleness. I’ve given instructions that, from now on, estates given to our colonists in the Eastern territories may not be parcelled out. Only the most capable son will be entitled to inherit his family’s farm, the other children will have to break a road through life themselves.
Such measures apply to the family as they do to other living things. Every human organism, however small, can recognise only one chief—and it is only in this way that the patrimony acquired by a family has a good chance of being preserved.
Categories
Duke debates Jones
The West’s Darkest Hour is “esoteric” in the sense that only a very small group of visionaries can see that there has been huge Aryan problem (materialism and Christian axiology) behind a secondary infection: Jewish takeover of key Western institutions. But esoteric doctrine is so strong meat for the masses of awakening whites that the “exoteric” message is far more palatable: just focus on Jewry, don’t speak against Christianity to the masses. This is the tactic that Hitler and his inner circle used during their public speeches and, conversely, in informal table talks.
For this very reason, the masses of awakening whites should hear the voice of David Duke—not mine! Today’s debate between David Duke and Alex Jones for example is worth viewing. In the introduction Jones spoke favorably of “Christian western ethic of transcending tribalism” and that “Christians promoted the end of slavery.” The Daily Stormer, the archetypical exoteric site for nationalists, failed to grasp that this sort of morality has been behind the Jewish opportunistic infection. This, in spite of the fact that at one point Jones asked Duke if our problems would not exist in absence of Jews. Duke, who in the Q/A session from listeners recognized he’s a Christian, responded: “we let them take over…”
Of course, Duke believes that Jews are the root problem, not us. But as I have implied, whites that start awakening are unprepared to listen the voice of Zarathustra. (Stay tuned for a forthcoming Nietzschean entry this week.)
4th April 1942, midday
No mercy on the feeble—Nature is better than pedantry— All climates are alike to the Jews—I like hard, self-opinionated men.
In a general way, one must never have pity on those who have lost their vital force. The man who deserves our pity is the soldier at the front, and also the inventor who works honestly amidst the worst difficulties. I would add that, even here, our sympathy should naturally be restricted to the members of our national community.
As in everything, nature is the best instructor, even as regards selection. One couldn’t imagine a better activity on nature’s part than that which consists in deciding the supremacy of one creature over another by means of a constant struggle. While we’re on the subject, it’s somewhat interesting to observe that our upper classes, who’ve never bothered about the hundreds of thousands of German emigrants or their poverty, give way to a feeling of compassion regarding the fate of the Jews whom we claim the right to expel. Our compatriots forget too easily that the Jews have accomplices all over the world, and that no beings have greater powers of resistance as regards adaptation to climate. Jews can prosper anywhere, even in Lapland and Siberia. All that love and sympathy, since our ruling class is capable of such sentiments, would by rights be applied exclusively—if that class were not corrupt—to the members of our national community. Here Christianity sets the example.
What could be more fanatical, more exclusive and more intolerant than this religion which bases everything on the love of the one and only God whom it reveals?
My attachment and sympathy belong in the first place to the front-line German soldier, who has had to overcome the rigours of the past winter. If there is a question of choosing men to rule us, it must not be forgotten that war is also a manifestation of life, that it is even life’s most potent and most characteristic expression. Consequently, I consider that the only men suited to become rulers are those who have valiantly proved themselves in a war. In my eyes, firmness of character is more precious than any other quality. A well-toughened character can be the characteristic of a man who, in other respects, is quite ignorant. In my view, the men who should be set at the head of an army are the toughest, bravest, boldest, and, above all, the most stubborn and hardest to wear down.
But jews fight not just on the battlefield, they primarily fight thru money mechanisms and mass media control. They must there be countered.
Categories
Uncle Adolf’s table talk, 109
5th April 1942, midday
The importance of climate—Leningrad is doomed.
As regards the Russian territories that will pass under our sovereignty, the problems are so plentiful that they’ll provide us with opportunities for work for several centuries. In the central sector, it will be necessary to cultivate the marshes, which extend further than eye can see, by planting reeds.
They’ll form a barrier in future to break the extraordinary waves of cold of the Russian winter. In other parts, it will be necessary to set up plantations of cultivated nettles, for, according to the experiments made by a Hamburg firm, the fibres of these nettles enable one to manufacture a cellulose much superior to cotton. Moreover, it’s becoming urgently necessary to re-afforest the Ukraine, in order to struggle effectively against the rains which are a real scourge in that region. They really did a good job those hunters who, in order to satisfy their passion for the chase, took care to re-afforest 37 per cent of German soil. In the meantime, along the whole periphery of the Mediterranean, people were de-foresting without thinking of the importance of the forest and, consequently, without adopting the policy their action entailed.
Since there is a question of the future of Leningrad, I reply that, for me, Leningrad is doomed to decay. May the ports and naval dockyards of Leningrad decay in their turn! As a matter of fact, there can be only one master in the Baltic, which must be an inland sea of Germany’s.
That’s why we must see to it there’s no room for an important port on the periphery of our Reich. The development of our own ports and those of the Baltic countries will amply suffice to cover our maritime needs, so that we shall be well able to dispense with the port of Leningrad, which in any case is blocked by ice for half the year.
Categories
Frost on Dickens
Below, a passage from today’s article by Tobias Langdon at The Occidental Observer:
Charles Dickens understood liberal pathology
In the twenty-first century, liberals pride themselves on their sophistication and discernment. In fact, they’re as naïve and prone to self-deceit as liberals were in the nineteenth century. If you want proof of that, just turn to Charles Dickens and his character Mrs Jellyby, who neglects her own children in favour of Blacks in far-off Africa:
We passed several more children on the way up, whom it was difficult to avoid treading on in the dark; and as we came into Mrs. Jellyby’s presence, one of the poor little things fell downstairs—down a whole flight (as it sounded to me), with a great noise.
Mrs. Jellyby, whose face reflected none of the uneasiness which we could not help showing in our own faces as the dear child’s head recorded its passage with a bump on every stair—Richard afterwards said he counted seven, besides one for the landing—received us with perfect equanimity. She was a pretty, very diminutive, plump woman of from forty to fifty, with handsome eyes, though they had a curious habit of seeming to look a long way off. As if—I am quoting Richard again—they could see nothing nearer than Africa!…
The room, which was strewn with papers and nearly filled by a great writing-table covered with similar litter, was, I must say, not only very untidy but very dirty. We were obliged to take notice of that with our sense of sight, even while, with our sense of hearing, we followed the poor child who had tumbled downstairs: I think into the back kitchen, where somebody seemed to stifle him.
But what principally struck us was a jaded and unhealthy-looking though by no means plain girl [Mrs Jellyby’s daughter Caddy] at the writing-table, who sat biting the feather of her pen and staring at us. I suppose nobody ever was in such a state of ink. And from her tumbled hair to her pretty feet, which were disfigured with frayed and broken satin slippers trodden down at heel, she really seemed to have no article of dress upon her, from a pin upwards, that was in its proper condition or its right place.
“You find me, my dears,” said Mrs. Jellyby, snuffing the two great office candles in tin candlesticks, which made the room taste strongly of hot tallow (the fire had gone out, and there was nothing in the grate but ashes, a bundle of wood, and a poker), “you find me, my dears, as usual, very busy; but that you will excuse. The African project at present employs my whole time. It involves me in correspondence with public bodies and with private individuals anxious for the welfare of their species all over the country. I am happy to say it is advancing. We hope by this time next year to have from a hundred and fifty to two hundred healthy families cultivating coffee and educating the natives of Borrioboola-Gha, on the left bank of the Niger… No, Peepy! Not on my account!”
Peepy (so self-named) was the unfortunate child who had fallen downstairs, who now interrupted [his mother] by presenting himself, with a strip of plaster on his forehead, to exhibit his wounded knees, in which Ada and I did not know which to pity most—the bruises or the dirt. Mrs. Jellyby merely added, with the serene composure with which she said everything, “Go along, you naughty Peepy!” and fixed her fine eyes on Africa again. [From Dickens’ novel Bleak House, 1853]
Dickens was a liberal who didn’t allow his emotions to over-rule his intellect, which is why he satirized figures like Mrs Jellyby.
Jack Frost commented:
The interposition of the Dickens character Mrs. Jellyby is provocative. Her behavior towards her own children contradicts evolutionary theory, doesn’t it? She would seem to have her counterpart in those other nineteenth century do-gooders across the pond, the American abolitionists, who were more concerned with the supposed plight of the negro slave than they were with their own posterity’s.
They were the ones who set loose the negro land sharks to swim among the white fish, and they did it without being “controlled” by Jews, unless Christianity is conceded to be such a means of control.
Or can we point to any other Jewish cause of these phenomena other than the long-standing influence of Christianity in creating a culture of moral masochism? Who were the Jews behind the Mrs. Jellybys and the Harriet Beecher Stowes of this world besides Jesus and his apostles?