web analytics

Month: October 2021

Categories
Artikel auf Deutsch

Amerikas unvergebbares Verbrechen

oder: „Mit dem Muttermord an Europa haben die Amerikaner den Scheiterhaufen für sich selbst aufgerichtet“

(Dieser Artikel von Michael O’Meara erschien unter dem Originaltitel „Sommer 1942, Winter 2010: Ein Austausch“ – ins Deutsche übertragen von Albus:)

Im Sommer 1942 – als die Deutschen auf dem Höhepunkt ihrer Kräfte waren und sich des herannahenden Feuersturms, der ihr Land in ein Inferno verwandeln sollte, in keiner Weise bewusst waren – schrieb der Philosoph Martin Heidegger (für eine bevorstehende Vorlesung in Freiburg) die folgenden Zeilen, die ich der englischen Übersetzung entnehme, die als Hölderlins Hymne „Der Ister“ bekannt ist: (*)

„Die angelsächsische Welt des Amerikanismus“ – so Heidegger in einer Nebenbemerkung zu seiner nationalistisch–ontologischen Auseinandersetzung mit seinem geliebten Hölderlin – „hat sich vorgenommen, Europa, das heißt die Heimat, zu vernichten, und das heißt: [sie hat beschlossen,] den Ursprung der westlichen Welt zu vernichten“.

Mit der Vernichtung des Ursprungs (der Anfänge oder des Aufgehens des europäischen Seins) – und somit mit der Vernichtung des Volkes, dessen Blut in den amerikanischen Adern floss – zerstörten die Europäer der Neuen Welt unbewusst das Wesen ihres eigenen Seins, indem sie ihre Ursprünge verleugneten, die Quelle ihrer Lebensform verunglimpften und sich somit die Möglichkeit einer Zukunft versagten.

„Alles, was einen Anbeginn hat, ist unzerstörbar.“

Die Amerikaner haben ihre Selbstzerstörung bestimmt, indem sie ihren Ursprung bekämpften, indem sie die Wurzel ihres Seins abtrennten.

Aber Europa – dieses einzigartige Zusammenwirken von Blut und Geist – kann nicht getötet werden, denn sein Wesen ist, wie Heidegger sagt, der „Anbeginn“ – das Ursprüngliche – das Dasein – die immerwährende Erdung und Neubestätigung des Seins.

Europa erhebt sich wie ihr Stier also immer wieder unweigerlich aus dem Wasser, das sie überspült, während sie sich unerschrocken in das Kommende stürzt.

Ihr letzter Stand ist folglich immer ihr erster Stand – ein weiterer Anbeginn –, da sie zu ihren Ursprüngen vordringt – das unverdorbene Wesen ihres Anbeginns besitzend –, da sie sich in der Fülle einer Zukunft authentifiziert, die ihr ermöglicht, immer wieder neu zu beginnen.

* * *

Das gilt auch für das Gegenteil.

Amerikas Vernichtung seines Ursprungs offenbarte seinen inhärenten Mangel an solchem.

Von Anfang an bestand sein Vorhaben darin, seine europäische Herkunft zu verleugnen – das Wesen zu verleugnen, das es zu dem machte, was es war –, so wie seine Low-Church–Siedler die Metapher der zwei Welten, der alten und der neuen, gebrauchten.

Für Heidegger ist Amerikas „Eintritt in diesen planetarischen Krieg nicht der Eintritt in die Geschichte; vielmehr ist er bereits der ultimative amerikanische Akt amerikanischer Ahistorizität und Selbstzerstörung“.

Denn nachdem Amerika, unbefleckt empfangen, aus der Jeremiade seines puritanischen Auftrags hervorgegangen war, definierte es sich in Ablehnung seiner Vergangenheit, in Ablehnung seiner Ursprünge, in Ablehnung seiner fundamentalsten ontologischen Grundlage – als es westwärts blickte, der Abendsonne und der sich immer weiter ausdehnenden Grenze seiner wurzellosen, flüchtigen Zukunft entgegen, mythisch legitimiert im Namen eines aus der protestantischen Ethik und dem Geist des Kapitalismus heraufbeschworenen „American Dream“.

Der Amerikaner, der durch und durch rationale, wurzellose, uniforme Homo oeconomicus, hat sich nie die Mühe gemacht, nach vorne zu schauen, weil er nie zurückgeblickt hat. Vergangenheit und Zukunft, Wurzeln und Äste – alles abgerissen und abgeschnitten.

Keine Erinnerung, keine Vergangenheit, kein Sinn.

Im Namen des Fortschritts – den sich Friedrich Engels als einen grausamen Wagen vorstellte, der über einen Haufen Leichen fährt – löst sich das amerikanische Wesen in seinem hektischen Vorwärtsdrang in Richtung des schwarzen Abgrunds auf.

Doch wie man es auch dreht und wendet, die Amerikaner kamen aus dem Schoß Europas in die Welt, und nur durch die Bejahung des europäischen Wesens ihres Mutterlandes und ihrer Vaterschaft bestand die Möglichkeit, in ihrer „neuen“ Welt Wurzeln zu schlagen – ohne den Barbaren und Fellachen außerhalb des Mutterbodens und der väterlichen Kultur zu erliegen.

Stattdessen machten sich die Gründer Amerikas daran, ihre Mutter zu verwerfen. Sie nannten sie ägyptisch oder babylonisch und nahmen ihre Identität – als die „Ausersehenen“, die „Auserwählten“, das „Licht für die Völker“ – von den Wüstennomaden des Alten Testaments, denen die großen Wälder unserer nördlichen Länder fremd waren, die neidisch auf unsere blauäugigen, blonden Mädchen blickten und welche die großen, gewölbten Höhen unserer gotischen Kathedralen abstieß.

Dass sie ihr ursprüngliches und einziges Wesen aufgaben, machte die Amerikaner zu den ewigen Weltverbesserern, zu ideologischen Verfechtern der vollkommenen Bedeutungslosigkeit – zur ersten großen „Nation“ des Nihilismus.

* * *

Während Heidegger seinen Vortrag vorbereitete, machten sich Zehntausende von Panzern, Lastwagen und Artilleriegeschützen auf den Weg von Detroit nach Murmansk und dann an die Ostfront der Deutschen.

Kurze Zeit später fielen die Feuer vom Himmel – Feuer, die den Fluch Cromwells und die verbrannte Erde Shermans in sich trugen – Feuer, die deutsche Familien in Asche verwandelten, zusammen mit ihren großen Kirchen, ihren palastartigen Museen, ihren dicht gedrängten, blitzsauberen Arbeitervierteln, ihren uralten Bibliotheken und hochmodernen Laboratorien.

Der Wald, der tausend Jahre brauchte, um zu werden, vergeht in einer Nacht voller Phosphorflammen.

Es würde lange dauern – es ist noch nicht so weit –, bis die Deutschen, das Volk der Mitte, das Zentrum des europäischen Seins, wieder aus den Trümmern auferstehen, diesmal mehr geistig als materiell.

* * *

Heidegger konnte wenig von dem apokalyptischen Sturm wissen, der im Begriff war, sein Europa zu zerstören.

Aber ahnte er wenigstens, dass der Führer Deutschland in einen Krieg verwickelt hatte, den es nicht gewinnen konnte? Dass nicht nur Deutschland, sondern auch das Europa, das sich den anglo-amerikanischen Mächten des Mammons entgegenstellte, zerstört werden würde?

* * *

„Der verborgene Geist des Aufbruchs im Westen wird nicht einmal den Blick der Verachtung für diesen Selbstzerstörungsversuch ohne Aufbruch haben, sondern aus der Erleichterung und Ruhe heraus, die zum Aufbruch gehören, seine Sternstunde abwarten.“

Ein erwachtes, neu beginnendes Europa verspricht also, Amerikas Verrat an sich selbst zurückzuweisen – Amerika, diese törichte, von aufklärerischer Hybris durchdrungene europäische Idee, die (wie eine Familienschmach) in Vergessenheit geraten soll, sobald Europa sich wieder aufrichtet.

1942 wusste Heidegger jedoch nicht, dass sich die Europäer, selbst die Deutschen, bald an die Amerikaner verraten würden, als die Churchills, Adenauers und Blums – Europas Speichellecker – an die Spitze der Nachkriegspyramide der Yankees aufstiegen, die jede Idee von Nation, Kultur und Schicksal zerschlagen sollte.

Das ist die Tragödie Europas.

* * *

Erwacht Europa – und das wird eines Tages der Fall sein –, wird es sich wieder selbst bestätigen und sich behaupten, nicht mehr abgelenkt von Amerikas Glitzer und Flitter, nicht mehr eingeschüchtert von seiner Wasserstoffbombe und seinen Lenkraketen, sondern endlich klar erkennend, dass sich hinter dieser hollywoodesken Unterhaltung eine ungeheure Leere verbirgt – endlose Übungen in vollendeter Bedeutungslosigkeit.

Unfähig, neu anzufangen, weil sie sich selbst den Anbeginn verweigert hat, wird die schlechte Idee, zu der Amerika geworden ist, im kommenden Zeitalter von Feuer und Stahl in ihre Einzelteile zerfallen.

In diesem Moment werden die weißen Amerikaner aufgerufen sein, als Europäer der Neuen Welt ihr „Recht“ auf ein Heimatland in Nordamerika geltend zu machen – damit sie dort endlich einen Platz haben, an dem sie sein können, wer sie sind.

Sollte ihnen dieses anscheinend unerreichbare Glück gelingen, werden sie zum ersten Mal die amerikanische(n) Nation(en) gründen – und zwar nicht als das universelle Simulakrum, das Freimaurer und Deisten 1776 zusammengebraut haben, sondern als das Geblüt des amerikanischen Schicksals Europas.

„Wir denken das Geschichtliche in der Geschichte nur halb, das heißt, wir denken es gar nicht, wenn wir die Geschichte und ihre Größe nach der Länge … des Gewesenen berechnen, anstatt das Kommende und Zukünftige zu erwarten.“

Der Anbeginn als solcher ist „das Kommende und Zukünftige“ – das „Historische in der Geschichte“ –, das sehr weit zurückreicht und in jede ferne, sich entfaltende Zukunft hineingetragen wird – wie Picketts gescheiterter Infanterieangriff in Gettysburg, der, wie Faulkner sagt, immer wieder versucht werden soll, bis er gelingt.

* * *

„Wir stehen erst dann am Anbeginn der eigentlichen Geschichtlichkeit, d. h. des Handelns im Bereich des Wesentlichen, wenn wir in der Lage sind, auf das zu warten, was aus dem Eigenen bestimmt werden soll.“

Das „Eigene“ – diese Selbstbehauptung – wird, so Heidegger, nur dann eintreten, wenn wir uns über Konformität, Konvention und unnatürliche Konditionierung hinwegsetzen, um das europäische Wesen zu verwirklichen, dessen Bestimmung allein die unsere ist.

In diesem Moment, wenn es uns gelingen sollte, aufrecht zu stehen, wie es unsere Vorfahren taten, werden wir nach vorne und darüber hinaus zu dem reichen, was durch jede futuristische Bejahung dessen, was wir Europäer-Amerikaner sind, begonnen wird.

Dieses Ausgreifen wird jedoch kein „handlungs- oder gedankenloses Kommen- und Gehenlassen der Dinge sein … [sondern] ein Stehen, das bereits vorausgesprungen ist, ein Stehen in dem, was unzerstörbar ist (zu dessen Nachbarschaft die Verwüstung gehört, wie ein Tal zu einem Berg)“.

Denn die Verwüstung wird – in diesem Kampf, der auf unseresgleichen wartet – in dieser bestimmten Zukunft trotzig eine Größe aushalten, die nicht zerbricht, während sie sich im Sturm biegt – eine Größe, die mit der Gründung einer europäischen Nation in Nordamerika sicher kommen wird – eine Größe, von der ich oft befürchte, dass wir sie nicht mehr in uns haben und die deshalb in den feurigen Kriegerriten beschworen werden muss, die einst an die alten arischen Himmelsgötter erinnerten, wie weit entfernt oder fiktiv sie auch geworden sind.

– Winter 2010

Anmerkung

_________

(*) Martin Heidegger, Hölderlin’s Hymn „The Ister“, übers. von W. McNeill und J. Davis (Bloomington: Indiana University Press, 1996), S. 54 ff.

Categories
Kali Yuga Neanderthalism Souvenirs et réflexions d'une aryenne (book) Technology

Reflections of an Aryan woman, 32

It is natural that he should want to do nothing to help ‘save’ a civilisation whose demise he wishes to see, and that the people who admire it should, more or less vaguely, smell the enemy in him. It is no less natural that a doctrine that runs against the tide of Time—a doctrine that preaches, in the name of a Golden Age ideal, revolt, and even violent action, against the ‘values’ of our decadent age and its institutions—should arouse his enthusiasm and secure his support: he is himself an individual of those I have called ‘men against Time’.

But why do the people who are the submissive and obedient children of our time turn out to be so dissatisfied and anxious? Why is it that this ‘progress’, in which they so firmly believe, doesn’t bring them, in the exercise of their profession, that minimum of joy without which all work is a chore?

It is because the technical environment doesn’t only act on the masses; it creates them from scratch. As soon as technical development exceeds a certain ‘critical point’, which is difficult to define, the human community, naturally hierarchical, tends to break up. Little by little it is replaced by the mass; the mass, that is to say above all the great number, with little or no hierarchy, because of unstable, shifting and unpredictable quality.

Quality is (statistically) always in inverse proportion to quantity. And the most nefarious technique from this point of view—the one most directly responsible for all the consequences of the indiscriminate formation of human masses on the surface of the globe—is undoubtedly medicine: the most harmful because it is the one that is in the most flagrant opposition to the spirit of Nature from one end of the scale of living beings; that which, instead of seeking to preserve the health, and any kind of biological priority of the strong, strives to cure diseases and prolong the lives of the weak by keeping alive the incurable, the monsters, the idiots, the insane, and all sorts of people whose removal in a society founded on sound principles would take for granted.

The result of the progress made by this technique—achieved at the cost of the most hideous experiments, practised on perfectly healthy and beautiful animals, which are tortured and dislocated, always in the name of man’s ‘right’ to sacrifice everything to his species—is that the number of men on earth is increasing in alarming proportions, while their quality decreases. You can’t have quality and quantity. You have to choose.

It is now a fact that the population of the world is growing geometrically; that, above all, the population of the hitherto ‘underdeveloped’ countries is growing faster than any other. These countries have not yet reached the technical level of the industrialised countries, but they have already been sent a host of doctors; they have already been indoctrinated into taking ‘hygienic measures’ which they didn’t know about, when they were not outright imposed on them.

As a result, the traditional occupations like working the land or various crafts are no longer sufficient to absorb the countless energies available. There will be unemployment and famine, unless mechanised industries are installed everywhere, that is to say, unless the immense majority of the population, whose numbers have quadrupled in thirty years, are turned into proletarians; unless they are torn away from their traditions, wherever they have retained any, and are forced into factories and work that, by its very nature—because it is mechanical—cannot be interesting.

Production will then skyrocket. It will be necessary to sell what has been manufactured. To do this, it will be necessary to persuade people to buy what they neither need nor want, to make them believe that they need it and to instil in them the desire for it at all costs. This will be the task of advertising.

People will fall for this deception because there are already too many of them to be moderately intelligent. It will take money for them to acquire what they don’t need, but have been persuaded to want. To earn it quickly, to spend it right away, they will agree to do boring jobs, jobs in which there is no creative element and that in a smaller society, with a slower life, nobody would want to do.

They will accept them, because technology and propaganda will have turned them into an increasingly uniform, or rather formless, multitude in which the individual exists, in fact, less and less while imagining himself to have more and more ‘rights’, and aspiring to more and more purchasable enjoyments—a caricature of the organic unity of the old hierarchical societies, where the individual thought himself nothing, but lived healthily and usefully, in his place, as a cell of a strong and flourishing body.

The key to discontent in everyday life, and especially in working life, is to be found in the two notions of multitude and haste.

Categories
Quotable quotes

War without end

by Sanguinius

‘Eternal struggle, within and without, until the end of the journey. It is not the fall toward the abyss nor the rise toward the heavens that spawns the great. It is the endless war, that bridge between the two that creates the greatness of Aryan. We are tested, and we should not break from the path to the Sun’.

Categories
Degenerate art Souvenirs et réflexions d'une aryenne (book) Technology Third Reich

Reflections of an Aryan woman, 31

 

Chapter VI

Technical Development and Tradition

No more clattering sounds on the walls of the abyss;
Laughter, vile noises, cries of despair.
Between hideous walls, a black swarming,
No more arches of foliage at sublime depths.

Leconte de Lisle (‘La Forêt vierge’, Poèmes Barbares)

Since the disaster of 1945 we have been talking about the ‘free world’ and the ‘other world’, that is to say the world where Democracy reigns and the one dominated by Communism: the only totalitarian ideology whose adherents are in power anywhere, after the destruction of the Third German Reich.

I’ll tell you what I think of each of these enemy worlds. Their superficial differences strike you to the point of diverting your attention from their similarities, or rather their profound affinities. And you have been told and continue to be told about these differences and to insist on them, so that you don’t get where you are being led. And you are told again and again that you wouldn’t have been ‘any freer’ under the Hitler regime, as Germany knew it for twelve years, than you would be today under any kind of Marxist totalitarianism. We repeat this to you to remove in advance any possible nostalgia for this regime which we, who admired and supported it, present as based on ‘joyful work’.

If there is anything certain, it is that in the so-called ‘free’ world at least—I haven’t lived in the other, and know it only from the criticism of hostile propaganda and the praise of its propaganda—not one person in ten thousand ‘works with joy’, and this is because not one person in ten thousand really likes his livelihood or his ‘state’, to speak as in the old days. They don’t like it, and rightly so. For the activity that they’re obliged to do, during all the time of sells, to be able to live, to an individual employer, a collective employer (a public company for example) or to the State, is more often than not so boring that it’s impossible to like it.

And this is all the more general the more technically advanced a society is, that is, the more mechanised. Just think of the thousands of workers who have been condemned to ‘assembly-line’ work by a sinister fate: to the indefinite repetition, eight hours a day, of the same easy gesture devoid of any perceived usefulness (since the worker never sees the finished product, car, plane or improved machine, or the manufacture of which each of his monotonous gestures has contributed), of a gesture without any real meaning for the one who performs it. Just think of the woman sitting in some ‘box’ at the foot of a metro staircase, who punches tickets every day, eight hours a day, sowing around her as much beige confetti as people coming out of the staircase to get into the cars with automatic doors that will wait for them for a few seconds, every two or three minutes. Just think of the ‘typist’ who ‘types’ all day long letters whose content doesn’t and cannot interest her.

The list of work which, by its very nature, can be of no interest to anyone could be extended indefinitely. The number of such chores that are ‘indispensable’ to the economy of modern society doesn’t depend on the political regime under which people live, but only on the degree of mechanisation of the cogs of production and exchange. And if it is sometimes possible to remove one or two of them, by replacing a person with a machine—for example, by an automatic banknote punching machine, such as is now used in the buses of Germany and Switzerland—it will never be possible to eliminate them all. The development of technology will create new ones: workers will be needed to manufacture the parts of the ‘latest’ machines.

And these new machines will have to work under someone’s supervision. But it is impossible to make interesting the task of producing identical parts ad infinitum, or of supervising the same machine, let alone pleasant. And if one imagines this task performed under the blinding light of neon tubes, and in continuous noise (or with a background of light music and ditties, even more irritating, for some ears, than any roar of machines), one will agree that for a growing number of men and women earning a living is a chore, if not, a torment.

But it is not only the work that is boring in itself, and therefore exhausting despite the ease with which it can be done by anyone. There are jobs which would undoubtedly interest some people, but which don’t interest a considerable proportion of the employees who perform them, either because these employees haven’t chosen their professional activity, or because they’ve chosen it for the wrong reasons. And the question arises: How is it that at a time when (in the ‘free world’ at least) so much emphasis is placed on the ‘rights of the individual’ and when, in the technically advanced countries, there are so many institutions whose purpose is precisely to help parents guide their children in the direction in which they should be both happiest and most useful. How is it, I ask, that there are so many malcontents, failures, bitter people, uprooted people and downgraded people; in a word, people who are not where they should be and not doing what they should be doing?

The answer presupposes some observations, the first of which is that it is impossible to ask a mass of people, even of a superior race, to resist the pressure of their environment for a long time, or even only for a few decades. It is certainly wrong to assert with Karl Marx that man is no more than what his economic environment makes of him. Racial heredity and history play a part in shaping the personality of individuals and peoples.

This is undeniable. But it must be admitted that the more one deals with a mass, the more important is the influence of the environment, and in particular that of the technical environment, in the formation of the collective personality, or rather in the evolution which results, in people taken as a whole, in an increasingly striking lack of personality.

In other words, the more one deals with a mass, the more the basic proposition of Marxism—‘man is what his environment makes him’—tends to be verified in practice. One could almost say that Marx would be right, if humanity consisted only of the masses. And it is understandable that people who love man above all else, and who are not put off by mass life, should be Marxists. (In order not to be, and to be sure never to be tempted to become, one must love not ‘man’, whoever he may be, but the human elites: the aristocracies of race and character.)

The technical milieu acts on the masses: it dictates to them by advertising the ‘needs’ they must have, or hasten to acquire to encourage ever more advanced research leading to ever more varied and perfected applications of the laws of nature to man’s ‘happiness’.

It offers her real electrification of housework and leisure activities: the ideal modern house, where you only have to turn a knob to heat the soup, bought ready-made, to clean the floor, to wash the clothes, or to watch the day’s film on the small screen (the same one for fifty million viewers), and to listen to the dialogues that are an integral part of it. Only a man who knows in advance what he wants has no use for the technical environment all his life, or even be unaware of it because they are so irrelevant to him; a man who is much more aware of his own psychology (and in particular of his scale of values) than ninety-five per cent of our contemporaries; in a word: a man who, by the grace of the Gods, doesn’t belong to the masses.

______ 卐 ______

 
Editor’s Note. I would recommend the book Lord of the Rings to those who want to get out of the monstrosity that Saruman did with his arboreal destruction, iron industry, multiplication of Orcs, and technology like the ubiquitous cell-phones (which I don’t use since I have zero male friends in my native town).

If I were a film director and wanted to make a childrens’ TV series, I would bring LOTR to the screen by retrieving all those detailed descriptions of the bucolic fields in Tolkien’s prose, lacking in Peter Jackson’s strident trilogy after his first film.
 

______ 卐 ______

 
He will not ‘fit in’ in the modern world, and probably, whatever his profession may be. The mere fact of being happy where three-quarters of the people would be bored, and of being bored on the contrary, of having the most irritating impression of ‘wasting one’s time’ amid the distractions that the majority seeks, sets him apart.

He is really only at home among his few fellows, he who has no transistor, no radio, no television set, no washing machine, and that neon light hurts his eyesight and so-called ‘modern’ music ‘grazes his ears: he who persists in remaining true to himself and who refuses to love ‘on command’ what the advertisements and propaganda present to him as ‘progress’.
 

______ 卐 ______

 
Editor’s Note:

If there is one thing almost all white nationalists fail at, it is this. The pop music most of them listen to only degrades the Aryan spirit. The transvaluation of all values begins with the music we listen to: food or poison for the soul.

It is impossible to save the race if the white man enjoys the inane and grotesque melodies of the fallen West—often not even melodies, but the grossest and cacophonous ape rhythms we can imagine (just compare it with the film’s Evenstar).

Categories
Autobiography Judeo-reductionism Racial right

Dumb Americans

Lately I no longer read what American white nationalists say. But I always check my spam tray and, as long as I am subscribed to articles from The Occidental Observer, before deleting them I usually see the first lines of the latest article published by that webzine. I no longer have the patience to read an entire article. So this day I only read the lead paragraph of ‘Jones vs. KMac: Spirit or Material? Toward a Synthesis’:

By now, healthy numbers of informed people are generally aware of the work of our editor Kevin MacDonald and traditional Catholic thinker E. Michael Jones. Much of their influence comes from the fact that both have devoted major portions of their careers to writing about what is absolutely the most pressing issue of our age: The Jewish Question.

The most pressing issue, really? Also, I only read a single comment, the one that appears at the top in the comments section:

In essence… it always was… and still is… a war on Christ!

Definitely, as Thomas Kuhn said, science advances at funerals while people who believe in the old paradigm (e.g., JQ monocausalism) have to die for the new paradigm (CQ) to gain momentum.

The saddest thing is that people older than those who write and comment on MacDonald’s webzine already knew the causes of Aryan decline. That remarkable SS pamphlet that mentions not only Jewry, but Christian churches and Gentile liberals comes to mind (and in the case of Savitri, this priestess of the holy words had a perfect notion of the role that Christianity had played in the darkest hour in which we live). The contrast between what the cream of Nazi power said and these dumb Americans cannot be greater.

As for myself, I will continue to translate Savitri’s book. At least I have already found a soulmate in the world after 1945. It’s curious, but the first time I visited England was precisely the year Savitri died there, in 1982. I was unaware that she existed! In the last of my autobiographical books I mention the anecdote that, in 1973, I asked in a bookstore if they had books ‘in favour of Nazism’. I say in my book that the person who attended me was stunned by my question, and he said no. I would never have imagined that it would take so long for me to find the books I was looking for. And who would have told me that they were written by a woman?

In the photo we see the bookstore where, as a teenager, I asked that. In recent years all that was demolished and in its place they built a huge building. Although I found a Spanish translation of Mein Kampf in that bookstore, I was looking for updates on Nazism: books written by my contemporaries. At the Madrid High School where I was studying, very close to the Librería de Cristal (‘Crystal Bookstore’ would be the translation), there was a classmate with Canary-yellow hair who admired Nazism. But I lost contact with Eduardo after the principal expelled us both because we were bad students of the silly program that these dumb refugees of the Francisco Franco regime taught us.

Categories
Souvenirs et réflexions d'une aryenne (book) Third Reich

Reflections of an Aryan woman, 30

He who has risen above time and who, in spite of this (or even because of it) has a mission to accomplish, sees fit to act in time, acts with the certainty of beings who do not choose; with that of the plant that grows towards the sun—what shall I say?, he acts as the magnet that attracts iron, or the elements that combine to yield the compounds that chemistry studies. With consciousness, certainly; but without deliberation or choice, since he clearly ‘knows’ and there is no choice except for the consciousness that doesn’t know, or that knows only imperfectly. (One doesn’t ‘choose’ between the two propositions ‘Two and two make four’ and ‘Two and two make five’. We know that the first is true, the second false. Nor do we ‘choose’ to think that an object is white, if we see it as such. We feel unable to make any judgement about it that would exclude its ‘whiteness’).

What can encourage a decision by someone who is still a prisoner of time—who doesn’t ‘know’, who doesn’t ‘see’, what the future will be to which he contributes, and who has the impression that he can ‘choose’ his action? What could motivate him, especially if he is ignorant of the whole future yet knows that it will go against him, what is dearest to him in the world, and that his action is, on a practical level, perfectly useless? What could sustain the attitude of men like Teia, last king of the Goths in Italy? Or like the Amerindian princes and warriors, who, in spite of the decree of their own gods, deciphered in the heaven by the sages of their lands, fought all the same, albeit too late—and with desperate heroism—against the Spaniards? Or, closer to us, like those thousands of Germans and Aryans from all over the world who, even though they knew that all was lost, even though there were only a few square metres left of the great National Socialist Reich that had been shelled by Russian artillery, continued to fight, one against five hundred, like lions? [1]

What can sustain them in their action, in their refusal to give in, in their defiance, in their useless attitude—not a martyr who foresees, beyond death, a future of beatitude which will compensate him for the worst torments in this world, but these iron winds of all lost causes which, who have no hope either in this world or in any other—who are not even enlightened enough to imagine the triumph of their truth at the dawn of a future time cycle and who, humanly speaking, should feel that they fight, suffer and die for nothing? What can they oppose to this nothingness that is worth all the sacrifices?

They can—and do, no doubt, if only in their subconscious—oppose it with the only certainty that remains when all else collapses: that of the irrevocability of the past.

For them, it is no longer a question of the future of their people and of the world, over which they will have no influence. It is even less about their personal future, which has long ceased to interest them. It is about the beauty of the moment they are going to live, right now, in a second, in an hour, whenever; it is about the beauty of that moment which represents, in endless time, the last scene of their struggle, a moment which, as soon as it has been lived, will take on that unshakeable stability which is the very essence of the past; which will still ‘exist’, in the manner of the whole past, millions and billions of years hence, when there will be no memory of it on earth for a long time to come: when there will be no more earth; no more solar system; when all the visible worlds of today will have ceased to exist materially.

They feel that this moment is all that still depends on them; all that is yet given to them to create. They feel that it is in their power to make it beautiful, or ugly: beautiful, if it fits into the very structure of their being, like the perfect detail that crowns a work of art, the last perfect phrase of a musical composition. Ugly, if it contradicts it, if it betrays it; if, far from completing and crowning it, it robs it of its value; if it destroys it, just as a last brushstroke can turn a smile into a grimace, or a drop of impure liquid can stain, destroy forever, the most exalting of perfumes.

They feel—they know—that it depends on them to make it beautiful or ugly, depending on whether they proclaim, and proclaim for eternity, their honour or their shame; their fidelity to their true raison d’être, or their disavowal. For what is it to disavow, as soon as they become unpopular, the principles that one has professed, a king or a leader whom one has pretended to love and serve as long as there was some tangible advantage in doing so? This is not to prove that one ‘took the wrong path’—otherwise one would have changed it sooner—but it shows that one values effort only for attaining purchasable comfort and pleasures, and that one is incapable of disinterested allegiance, not only to the leaders one has betrayed, but to anyone else; that one has neither honour nor courage, in other words, that one is not ‘a man’ even if one has human form. For a coward is not a man.

The horror of an eternity of ugliness—for the revulsion of a man of honour before a degrading action or attitude is nothing else— is perhaps more decisive even than the aspiration of the faithful one, vanquished on the material plan, to remain himself after the defeat. In fact, if it is rare that a man who knows himself before circumstances reveal his true scale of values, he at least knows himself, to a certain extent, negatively.

If he doesn’t know, in general, what he is capable of, at least he has—and this, apparently, from the moment of the awakening of his self-consciousness—a fairly clear idea or feeling of things that he would never do; of some attitudes that could never be his, whatever the circumstances. The man of good breeding spontaneously shrinks before a degrading action or attitude. He feels that once it has been done, or taken—once it has become part of the past, henceforth unchangeable feeling—it would mark him for eternity, in other words, it would sully him and scar him irreparably. And it is against this projection of his degraded ‘self’—against this contrast between the nobility, the beauty he feels in himself, and the image he has of the ugliness, inseparable from all cowardice, that his fallen being would put on—that he revolts. Anything, rather than this! Anything rather than to become so repellent!—and that forever, for no contrition can erase what once was; no forgiveness can change the past.

And what can be said of the vanquished of this world who act ‘against Time’—that is to say, futilely, from viewpoint of his hostile surroundings—is also true of those to whom all action properly speaking is forbidden, even though they have not necessarily transcended the temporal realm, and who continue to live, day after day, for years and decades, in the spirit of a doctrine that is against the current of Time.

They leave, by the mere unfolding of their existence, with their increasingly impeded expression, an unwritten page of History. The humblest of them could claim a spiritual kinship, distant, no doubt, but undeniable, with certain illustrious figures: with a Hypatia, in the Alexandria of the 4th and 5th centuries, increasingly controlled by Christianity; with a Pletho, in the 15th century, in the atmosphere of Byzantine Hellenism, all steeped in Christian theology.

He could, in his moments of depression, think of all those who, in a forced, almost complete inactivity—or a phantom of activity, that their persecutors try to render useless—continue, in an indefinite captivity, to be the most eloquent witnesses of their faith. (As I write these lines I am thinking of Rudolf Hess and Walter Reder, the former locked up for thirty years, the latter for twenty-seven, behind prison bars.)[2] He could rightly say to himself that he is, that his brothers in the faith are, and that forever; that everything they represent is extended in them, already in our visible and tangible world.

Ancient Hellenism lives on in Pletho, as well as in some other men of the 15th century, insofar as they preserved its spirit. In the same way, the ‘real Germany’, that is to say, the Germany which has, in Hitlerism, rediscovered its original spirit, lives in the cell of Rudolf Hess—and more invincibly than anywhere else, certainly, since the captive of Spandau is one of the spiritual initiators of the more-than-political movement that the ‘Party’ represented in its origins, and probably one of the Führer’s co-initiates.

It also lives on—their truth and vision—in Walter Reder and in all the faithful Germans still in captivity, if there are any, as well as in the immortal figures of the irrevocable past, such as Dr. Joseph Goebbels and his wife, who in their spectacular demise carried along the six children that they had given to the Third Reich rather than letting them survive it. Not to mention the Führer himself, whose whole life is that of Man both ‘out of Time’ and ‘against Time’—out of Time if we consider him from the viewponut of knowledge, against Time (against the current of universal decadence, which is increasingly evident at the end of our cycle), if we speak of him from the point of view of action. But I would add that unless one has transcended Time through direct awareness of ‘the original meaning of things’[3] it is impossible to draw millions of people, even for a few short years, into a struggle against the general trend of temporal manifestation, especially near the end of a cycle.
 

______ 卐 ______

 
Editor’s Note: This perfectly explains my loneliness in the raven cave behind the Wall during Westeros’ darkest hour.
 

______ 卐 ______

 
He who, still trapped in the ‘before’ and ‘after’, cannot objectively relate his action or attitude to the ‘original meaning of things’, can only justify himself by the beauty of that episode of unwritten history that is, and will remain, even if unknown forever, his own history. The awareness of this beauty of something that nothing can destroy is the most exhilarating thing for the individual—all the more so because all beauty is, even if he doesn’t realise it, the radiation of a hidden truth.

But as a lived experience, it concerns only him and those who accept the same values. It may be enough for him. For many of them, this immutably beautiful past will soon be only a past. Only he who, having risen out of Time, knows that his action ‘against Time’ reflects the truth of all time—the truth, whose Source is the divine order—can transmit to multitudes not this truth (which is incommunicable and moreover would not interest them) but his faith in the necessary action; his conviction that his fight against the inverted values long preached and accepted, against erroneous ideas, against the reversal of the natural hierarchies, is the only one worthy of all sacrifice.

Only he can do this because he has, at the same time as the joy of the fight, even if practically useless, on behalf of a true idea, the vision of our historical cycle in its place in the indefinite rhythmic unfolding of all cycles, in the ‘eternal Present’; because there is, in the objectivity of this vision, a light capable of being projecting, be it only for an instant—a few years—onto our world, like a glimmer heralding the dawn of the next cycle; a force capable for an instant of holding it back in its race toward disintegration.

The multitudes are seduced by this light, and feel this force—but not for long. Every mass is, by nature, inert. The man of vision, Adolf Hitler, for a time drew the privileged crowds to him, as a magnet draws iron. They felt that they had a God as their leader: a man in touch with the ‘original’ (eternal) ‘meaning of things’. But they didn’t understand him. With him gone, they became modern crowds again. They remained, however, marked in their substance by the memory of a unique experience, and imbued with an immense nostalgia: a nostalgia that the whirlwind of life haunted by the idea of money, production, comfort and over-saturated with purchasable pleasures cannot dispel. I have been told that more than thirteen thousand young people commit suicide every year in western Germany alone.

Fortunately, there are also young people who, knowing full well that they will never see the equivalent of what the Third Reich was, live with courage and conviction the faith against the tide of time—the faith in the eternity of the Race, the concrete symbol of the eternal beyond the visible and transcendent world—that the Führer left to them in his so-called ‘political’ testament. They live it with courage and without hope, in the manner of the Strong who need neither support nor consolation. When these young people, who are now twelve, fifteen or eighteen years old, have become old men and women, those of them who will have remained unwaveringly faithful all the days of their existence—in thought, in their silence, in their speech, whenever possible by their behaviour in the ‘little things’ as well as in the big ones—those, I say, will be able, even without ever rising above the ‘before’ and the ‘after’, to look at this page of unwritten history which their life will represent, and to be satisfied with it as with a work of beauty. To this page, their children will add another. And the faith will be passed on.

There are, finally, some very few faithful ones who, sensing in the Führer’s teaching a more-than-political doctrine, devote themselves to its study in order to discover what makes its unshakeable value independently of the lost war and the tenacious hostility of the whole world, conditioned by the enemy. They gradually realise that Hitlerism—Aryan racism in its past and present expression—is, stripped of the contingencies that marked its birth, nothing other than a path, which implies in its Founder the vision, in all those who follow him in spirit, the acceptance of the metaphysical truths at the basis of all ancient traditions, in other words, of the supreme truth.

And they strive to come closer to the departed Leader, by coming closer to the One he was indeed: to the One who, in the Bhagawad-Gita, teaches the Aryan Warrior the mystery of union with the infinite Self through violent action, freed of any attachment; to the One who returns from age to age to fight ‘for Justice’, i.e., for the restoration of the divine order against the tide of Time. In other words, they seek the eternal, certain that only they will find it.

_________

[1] Among others, the French members of the Waffen S.S., who defended Berlin to the end.

[2] This sentence was written in December 1970.

[3] ‘der Ursinn der Dinge’ (Mein Kampf, ed. 1935 p. 440).

Categories
Quotable quotes

Be an ascetic warrior

by Sanguinius

‘The greatest one is he who applies the arts of war and divine knowledge in his life’.

Categories
Judeo-reductionism Parapsychology Souvenirs et réflexions d'une aryenne (book)

Reflections of an Aryan woman, 29

Sometimes, even if his soul is less complex, that is to say, in this case, less divided against itself, the agent who senses, or even knows, what the inevitable course of events will be, will decide—and this, without any need for him to ‘deliberate’—in favour of the most useless action from the practical point of view. Teia, the last king of the Ostrogoths in Italy, knew that it was now impossible for his people to remain masters of the peninsula. This did not prevent him from launching himself without the slightest hesitation into the fight against Byzantium and finding a death worthy of him at the famous ‘Battle of Vesuvius’ in 563. He is credited with the historical words which, even if he didn’t say them, capture his attitude: ‘It is not a question of leaving or not leaving Italy; it is a question of leaving it with or without honour’. Words of a lord… words of a man ‘against time’, i.e. defeated in advance on the material plane.

One can say that to the extent that what the Sanskrit Scriptures call the Dark Ages unfold, and as a cycle of time draws to a close, more and more lords—both in the biological and psychological sense of the word—are men ‘against Time’, defeated in advance on the material plane. They don’t feel any less ‘free’ in their spontaneous choice of the practically useless act.

The impression of freedom is thus not at all related to hesitation and ‘deliberation’ before a decision. It has to do with the agent’s ability to imagine a future different from the one that will result from his act—the one that he would like to see result from it, if possible—and with the illusion that he is the source and principle of this act—whereas he is only the instrument of realisation of possibilities destined, in our world of time, to pass from the virtual to the actual, because they already exist, in the state of actualities, in the ‘eternal present’.

In other words, this impression of freedom is linked both to the agent’s thinking and his ignorance. For the man who acts in time, true freedom consists of the absence of external or internal constraint (i.e. from the deep contradictions of his ‘I’), and the total authorship of the ‘I’ concerning the decision and the act. Ignorance of this future—which sometimes partly follows from the act, but which cannot follow fully in the case of a practically useless act—may help some men to act. Was it not said that the foreknowledge of the fate that awaited their civilisation had broken the spirit of the leaders of 16th-century America, both Aztec and Inca, that they were unable to resist the Spaniards as quickly and as vigorously as they might have done, had they never known of the prophecies of destruction? It can give the illusion of an absence of constraint—a knowledge of the absence of the constraint of Destiny— and thus allow the blossoming of hope, which is a force of action.
 

______ 卐 ______

 
Editor’s Note: Once again, Savitri is assuming that precognition exists. Since I am more familiar with the 16th texts about the Conquest than her, and since for some years I read sceptical literature about the paranormal, I see things differently.

I don’t remember the source and I’m not going to dig for the moment into the literature I read when writing the section on pre-Columbian Amerindians for Day of Wrath, but I seem to remember that what the Amerinds began to say after the Conquest is that everything was prophesied. That is to say: it was not a real prophecy but vaticinium ex eventu: a psychological trick to better cope, based on the Mesoamerican worldview, with the trauma of the Conquest.

I mention this because it seems vital to me to question the existence of the extrasensory powers that came into vogue right after Savitri wrote her book. For the Westerner to regain his sanity, he cannot afford the slightest cognitive distortion of reality. This is why on this site we have been insisting so much on debunking the claims of the conspiracy theorists. Saving the Aryan race from extinction involves declaring war on all cognitive distortion, which includes blaming the Jews for everything. (Kevin MacDonald does generally a good job but there are quite a few racialists who, in their comment threads, blame Jewry for things they didn’t orchestrate. These guys would do well to read MacDonald’s trilogy, especially his first book, before keep seeing kikes under every stone.)

The same can be said of the American racialists who want to save their race but at the same time believe in the Hereafter, the existence of the god of the Jews and other paranoias. Savitri continues:

______ 卐 ______

 
But, as I said earlier, the Strong don’t need this help to do what the sense of honour dictates, which is always the consciousness of loyalty to a Leader, or an idea, or both, and the duty that this implies. Even in the full knowledge that the future escapes them, that their beloved truth will henceforth remain under a bushel and that, indefinitely, they will decide for action, useless certainly but honourable; for beautiful action, daughter of all that is most permanent, more fundamental in their lordly selves: an action for which they will be rigorously responsible and that they will never regret, because it is ‘them’.

They can, of course, imagine a future different from the one they only envisage with horror or disgust, and to which their whole attitude opposes them. But they cannot imagine themselves acting differently. In them, there is neither idle ‘deliberation’ nor choice, but a reaction of their whole being in the face of the elementary alternative: to be oneself, or to deny oneself; internal necessity—exactly like the sage ‘above Time’ when he acts.

The only difference is that, for those who do not yet ‘see’ the future from the point of view of the eternal, this internal need doesn’t necessarily merge with that which governs the visible and invisible cosmos, and the Being itself, beyond its manifestations. It can, by accident, merge with it. But it also can represent only the fidelity of action to the ‘ego’ of the agent, sages being rare, and a great character not always—alas!—being put in service of a true idea, an eternal cause.

This is enough to make the agent absolutely responsible. For one is responsible for everything with which one feels solidarity: initially for his action, insofar as it expresses his true ‘self’, and then for the actions of all those with whom one is bound by a common faith. So much the worse for the man who gives his energy to a doctrine that moves him away from the eternal instead of bringing him closer! No value of the individual as such, no nobility of character can make a false idea true and a cause centred on false ideas or half-truths objectively justifiable.

Categories
Parapsychology Souvenirs et réflexions d'une aryenne (book)

Reflections of an Aryan woman, 28

‘But if’, I am told, ‘in the view of the man above Time, the future is ‘given’ in the same way as the past, what becomes of the notions of freedom and responsibility? If a wise man can see, centuries in advance, how long a civilising doctrine is destined to retain its credit with one or more peoples, what is the use of militating ‘for’ or ‘against’ anything?

I believe that there are, in response to this, a few remarks to be made. Firstly, it should be pointed out that all action—in the sense that we understand it when we speak of ‘struggle’ and ‘activists’, or when we have in mind the gestures of everyday life—is intimately linked to the notion of time (of time at the very least, if not moreover of space). We should then note that the philosophical concepts of freedom and responsibility only make sense in connection with an action, direct or indirect—actual or possible, or even materially impossible to direct or modify on behalf of whoever conceives it, as is for example the case of any action thought of in retrospect—but always with an action, which could or should have been thought of. Finally, it must be understood that, as a consequence of this, these notions no longer have any meaning when, from the temporal state, one rises to that of consciousness outside time.

For those who are placed in the ‘eternal present’, i.e. outside of time, there is no question of freedom or responsibility, but only of being and non-being; of possibility and absurdity. The world that we see and feel, that others have seen and felt or will see and feel—a set of indefinite possibilities that have taken or will take shape—is simply what it is and, given that the intimate nature of each limited (individual) existence cannot be anything else. The consciousness above Time ‘sees’ it, but does not take part of it, even though it sometimes descends into it as a clairvoyant instrument of necessary action.

The beings that cannot think, because they are deprived of the word, thus of the general idea, nevertheless act and are not responsible. They behave according to their nature, and could not behave differently. And ‘to be free’, for them, consists simply in not being thwarted in the manifestation of their spontaneity in the exercise of their functions by some external force: not to be locked up between four walls or the bars of a cage; not to wear a harness or muzzle; not to be tied up, or deprived of water or food, or access to individuals of the same species and the opposite sex, and in the case of plants not to be deprived of water, soil and light, and not to be diverted in their growth by any obstacle.

It may be added that most humans are, although they can speak, neither freer nor more responsible than the humblest of beasts, or even of plants. Exactly like the rest of living, they do what their instincts, their appetites, and the demands of the moment urge them to do, and this, insofar as external obstacles and constraints allow. At most, many of them believe themselves to be responsible, having heard it repeated that this is ‘the nature of man’, and they feel, among the fridge, the washing machine and the television set—well as in the factories and offices where they spend eight hours a day under the blinding neon light—that they are less captive than the unfortunate tigers in the Zoological Garden. This only tends to show that the tigers are healthier in body and mind than they are, since they are aware of their captivity, and suffer from it.

Freedom[1] and responsibility are to be sought in different degrees between these extreme planes which are either active in time without thought, or consciousness outside of time without action, or accompanied by a completely detached, impersonal action, accomplished per an objective need. In other words, in an absolute sense, no one is ‘free’, if ‘freedom’ means the power to direct the future as one pleases.

The future is all oriented, since few wise men know it in advance, or rather who apprehend it as a ‘present’. But it is undeniable that the man of goodwill who lives and thinks in time has the impression of choosing between two or more possibilities; that he has the impression that the future, at least in its immediate course (and also in its distant course if it is a question of a decision of obvious historical significance) depends partly and sometimes entirely on him. This is, no doubt, only an impression. But it is an impression of such tenacity that it is impossible to ignore it, psychologically speaking. It forms so much a part of the experience of every man who must act in time, that it persists, even if that man is informed in advance (either by an invincible intuition, or by the evidence of one fact after another, or by some prophecy to which he gives credence) of what the future will be despite his action.
 

______ 卐 ______

 
Editor’s Note:

When Savitri wrote her book the criticisms of purported precognitions had not been popularised.

As I already said a couple of years ago, when I lived in Marin County, in 1985 I had the opportunity to realise that the foundations of the ‘science’ I was studying were shaky. In a bookstore I saw that they sold the recently published A Skeptic’s Handbook of Parapsychology. Decades have passed since that night and I still remember the image of James Randi on the dustcover.

But as an immigrant who still had to get a job in the US for elemental survival, I thought I couldn’t afford it. If I had obtained a copy, years of my life would have been spared from my quixotic project of trying to develop psi and become a Bran before Martin wrote his novel!

(Left, the signature of the book’s editor on the first page when he visited Mexico City and I was, finally, able to purchase it at a reasonable price for my modest income.) The difference between the priest and the priestess, is that the priest already had the opportunity to read books like this one because he was born half a century after the priestess…
 

______ 卐 ______

 
[1] We are talking here, of course, about freedom in the sense that this word is generally understood, not about ‘freedom’ in the metaphysical sense in which René Guénon understands it, for example.

Categories
Alexis de Tocqueville Egalitarianism Film French Revolution Quotable quotes

The monkey

Much of my autobiographical work was studying a psychosis that broke out in my family that destroyed several lives, a work that took me decades to write. Today I remembered a few words from Brad Griffin when considering the final state of psychosis in which westerners find themselves: ‘Having brought down kings and queens and aristocrats in the name of “equality”, it was logical [for white liberals] to declare war on Nature itself’.

But already in the 19th century Alexis de Tocqueville had seen the first signs of the psychic cancer with the words: ‘They [the Americans] have an ardent passion for equality; insatiable, eternal, invincible… They can put up with poverty, subjugation, barbarism, but they cannot stand aristocracy’ (De la Démocratie en Amérique II.I. §1), and in a lapidary phrase he nails it: ‘The desire for equality becomes more and more insatiable as equality increases’.

What would de Tocqueville have said about the cultural revolution that we suffer today, even in the previous Catholic Latin America, about equalising, with all the power of the State, trans people with normal people?

But like Griffin, de Tocqueville didn’t do deep archaeology. It was Christianity that originally psychotized Europeans with the first cancer cells, which only until now reached their final metastasis. I’m referring to the universalism of the Eastern Imperial Church, which admitted all ethnic castes in Constantinople. In Rome itself, Catholicism also implied blatant universalism, insofar as ‘all are equal in the eyes of God’.

I mention this because many racialists assume that things only began to deteriorate in the 1960s. More cultured conservatives believe that aristocratic values only collapsed after the French Revolution. But the cancer had started much earlier although, due to the nobility of the Aryan man, the metastasis had been stopped and equilibrium was reached in Europe (an equilibrium that the foundation of the US and the French Revolution broke).

All this reminds me of one of those silly movies that Hollywood produces. Outbreak, titled Epidemia in Latin America and Estallido in Spain, is a film based on the novel The Hot Zone. Starring Dustin Hoffman, Rene Russo, Morgan Freeman and Donald Sutherland, the plot revolves around a small monkey carrying a virus that unleashed a global pandemic: a monkey that had been illegally captured and transported by boat from Zaire to the US. The plot of the film revolves around finding the infected monkey so that scientists may save the world.

We could see it as a metaphor. Let us find Subject Zero! Where did the first virus come that, in a state of a pandemic, is nowadays killing whites? (for newcomers, the masthead of this site may guide you). As William Pierce wrote in 1989: ‘If our race survives the next century it will only be because we have gotten the monkey of Christianity off our backs…’