web analytics
Categories
Alfred Rosenberg Arthur de Gobineau El Grial (book) Miscegenation Racial studies

‘Philosophy’

Today in the morning the first thing I did when I got up was to take a walk in the street. Whenever I go for a walk I think. Keeping in mind what we said yesterday about the pretentious academic profession called ‘philosophy’, I remembered a passage from my book El Grial that is worth translating into English:
 

______ 卐 ______

 

In the mid-1970s, when I wanted to study philosophy, I treasured one of the most popular philosophical dictionaries in the Spanish language: that of the Italian philosopher Nicola Abbagnano. After sleeping for decades in an era that hid fundamental questions from me, when I became awake it occurred to me to see what Abbagnano’s dictionary of philosophy said about National Socialism, but there was no article about it. So I looked up the word ‘Racism’ and was in for a surprise. After a good introductory paragraph, Abbagnano wrote the most propagandistic falsehoods one can imagine, breaking even the tone of his usual academic prose. We mustn’t forget that Abbagnano finished writing his dictionary in 1960, when the West knew nothing about the Third Reich except Allied propaganda. It is therefore not surprising that an Italian professor had to bow to such a narrative. But I would like to focus on his article:

Racismo (English racialism; French racisme; German Rassismus; Italian razzismo). The doctrine according to which all historical-social manifestations of man and his values (or disvalues) depend on race, and which enunciates the existence of a superior (‘Aryan’ or ‘Nordic’) race destined to be the guide of the human race. The founder of this doctrine was the Frenchman Gobineau in his Essai sur l’Inégalité des Races Humaines (1853-1855), aimed at defending aristocracy against democracy.

Not long ago, by the way, I added Count Gobineau’s book to my library, but let’s see what Abbagnano says next:

Towards the beginning of the 20th century a Germanophile Englishman, Houston Stewart Chamberlain, spread the myth of Aryanism in Germany in Die Grundlagen des XIX Jahrhunderts (The Foundations of the 19th Century, 1899), identifying the superior race with the Germanic race.

Here the problems begin, because that is not a myth. It is no coincidence that, until very recently, the Aryans have dominated culture, science, technology, and the political world.

Anti-Semitism dated back to ancient times in Germany and therefore the doctrine of racial determinism and the master race found easy dissemination there, resolving itself in support for anti-Semitic prejudice and the belief that there is a Jewish conspiracy for the conquest of world domination and that therefore capitalism, Marxism and, in general, cultural or political manifestations that weaken the national order are Jewish phenomena.

Here it is already raining ignorance. Abbagnano writes as if the Jewish problem were hallucinatory: a German prejudice. The best way to answer the late Abbagnano is simply to say that it is not hallucinatory. When Abbagnano was in his prime, Jews were over-represented not only among Lenin’s willing executioners, but the civic associations that lobbied to open the doors to mass non-white migration to the United States were Jewish. Those who doubt the veracity of these claims should read two books that document this, one by a Gentile and one by a Jew: Kevin MacDonald’s The Culture of Critique and Albert Lindemann’s Esau’s Tears.

After the First World War, racism was for the Germans the myth of consolation, the escape from the depression of defeat, and Hitler made it the foundation of his politics.

Abbagnano was a scholar. It seems improbable that he was unaware of a few things in Western history. The paragraph above implies that racism was a 20th-century German myth. The truth is that racism is millennia old: from the Aryans who invaded India and developed a Brahmanical religion so as not to contaminate their blood; from the ancient Egyptians who posted signs that no blacks were allowed in their lands beyond a certain latitude; from the blond Spartans of ancient Greece who had very strict rules to avoid interbreeding with non-Dorians, to the Visigoths who burned at the stake any Goth who married a mudblood in ancient Hispania. Republican Rome used to practice patrician inbreeding to avoid mixing with the lower classes; the patricians being more Aryan than the plebeians (not to mention the slaves). Racism was not Hitler’s invention. All that the Germans of the century in which Abbagnano and I were born did was to provide racism with the scientific basis, and the political impetus, that such a healthy instinct required. The philosopher’s ignorance continues:

The doctrine was elaborated by Alfred Rosenberg in The Myth of the Twentieth Century (1930). Rosenberg asserted a rigorous racial determinism. Every cultural manifestation of a people depends on its race. Science, morality, religion and the values they discover and defend depend on the race and are the expressions of the vital force of the race. Therefore, truth is always such only for a given race. The superior race is the Aryan, which from the North spread in antiquity through Egypt, India, Persia, Greece and Rome, and produced the ancient civilisations: civilisations that declined because the Aryans mingled with inferior races. All the sciences, the arts, the fundamental institutions of human life have been created by this race. Opposed to it is the parasitic Jewish anti-race, which has created the poisons of the race: democracy, Marxism, capitalism, artistic intellectualism, and also the ideals of love, humility, equality spread by Christianity, which represents a Roman-Judaic corruption of the teaching of the Aryan Jesus.

True, some National Socialists fantasised about an Aryan Jesus, Hitler included; but as we saw in the section on Jesus in my previous volume, 21st century New Testament studies have revealed that, in real history, Jesus of Nazareth didn’t even exist. But let’s return to the Italian philosopher. The reprint I own of Abbagnano’s Dictionary is from 1987. My original copy from the mid-1970s is now in the hands of a friend of the Arboledas Park [see The Human Side of Chess]. It is not worth quoting his entire article, ‘Racism’, pages 977-8 in the Fondo de Cultura Económica edition, but I should point out that it is on page 978 that the dictionary becomes nonsense. This is Abbagnano’s first nonsensical sentence: ‘There is no such thing as an “Aryan” or “Nordic’ race”.’ While it is true that, if one wants to write accurately one could say ‘ethnic group’ instead of ‘race’, the Nordics as an ethnic group do exist. The malevolence in an assertion like Abbagnano’s is similar to denying that races exist. Abbagnano’s second nonsensical claim deserves to be indented:

There is no proof whatsoever that race or racial differences influence in any way cultural manifestations or the possibilities for the development of culture in general. Nor is there any evidence that the groups into which mankind can be distinguished differ in their innate capacity for intellectual and emotional development. On the contrary: historical and sociological studies tend to reinforce the view that genetic differences are insignificant factors in determining the social and cultural differences between different groups of men.

I dare say that such a paragraph invalidates not only the article ‘Racism’ but the whole dictionary. What is the use of so much ontology, so much theory of knowledge, so much metaphysics and logic of academic philosophers if they are unable to see the most elemental thing of the empirical world? What value can the so-called social sciences like the sociological studies that Abbagnano mentions—opinions in fact—bring to us as opposed to the exact sciences? If there is one thing that has been clear since Darwin and his disciples in physical anthropology (Franz Boas’ ‘social anthropology’ is pseudoscientific), it is the difference in cranial capacity between, say, blacks and whites. Moreover, there are psychometric tests on baby blacks adopted into the homes of wealthy whites. Such studies not only show that IQ varies between races, but also between men and women. Among active chess players there are no black chess grandmasters. And the world championships have to be divided between men and women, while the latter have been unable to reach the crown that has been won by champions such as Capablanca, Fischer and Carlsen.

If there is one thing that raciology, the study of human races, teaches us, it is that genetic differences between humans are determining factors in social differences (I have already mentioned Jared Taylor’s group that brings together all these scientific studies). The ivory tower of philosophers like Abbagnano, who all they do is bend the knee before the current narrative, should be the laughingstock of anyone who has overcome political correctness.

There is also no evidence that breed mixtures produce biologically disadvantageous results. It is very likely that ‘pure’ races do not exist and have never existed over time. The social outcomes, both good and bad, of miscegenation can be attributed to social factors.

Passages like that move me to say that what goes on in the minds of academics like Abbagnano is on the level of the Byzantine discussions of other times: thinking of angels on the head of a pin instead of real and concrete facts. The notable Italian philosopher seems to be deliberately dissociating reality. Any honest Italian can see that the mixed people of Sicily with the Turks in the south belong to an inferior culture than the whiter Italians in the north of the peninsula. And let us not speak of how, by interbreeding with Indians and blacks, the Iberians produced an inferior stock to their Anglo-German counterpart north of the Rio Grande. What on earth is Abbagnano basing his statement that there is no historical evidence that admixture produces disadvantages in mestizo offspring? The answer is not hard to find. In the last paragraph of his article we see that Abbagnano subscribes, religiously, to the suicidal universalism of the West: the heritage of the universal Catholicism of his country’s church. Let us hear what Abbagnano, who was born and died in Italy, opines about racism:

…it is an extremely pernicious prejudice, because it contradicts and hinders the moral tendency of humanity towards universalist integration and because it turns human values, beginning with truth, into arbitrary facts that express the vital force of race and thus have no substance of their own and can be arbitrarily manipulated for the most violent or heinous ends.

Violent ends? Who were the biggest genocidaires in World War II, the racists or the anti-racists? The most common way of lying by academics and the media is omission. The classic case of lying by omission is the Holocaust of Germans perpetrated, after 1945, by the Allies when the Germans had already surrendered; not to mention Lenin’s and Stalin’s wilful executioners and their tens of millions of dead.

Categories
Miscegenation

Philosophical quackery – in German

I am pleased to announce that the 2013 article by Brazilian John Martinez, ‘On Philosophical and Religious Quackery’, has been translated into German and can be read in the German section of this site (here).

It is an important article. It exposes the quackery of all that Bertrand Russell called ‘wisdom of the West’ (in fact, Wisdom of the West is the title of one of Russell’s books I have read: an introduction to Western philosophy).

But Russell et al weren’t wise. There is nothing wise about what philosophers have been saying for millennia if we start serious thinking from the darkest hour of the West. If the ‘philosophers’ had been wise since ancient Athens, they would have warned us about the danger of interbreeding with the mudbloods of the Mediterranean.

John Martinez himself is, or was (I ignore if he’s still alive), a product of the three races of his native country. When he commented here it was clear that he was perfectly aware–unlike academic philosophers—of the havoc that miscegenation meant.

To make a tabula rasa of the so-called wisdom of the West, or rather to replace the unwise paradigm with National Socialism, is the only way ahead.

Categories
Artikel auf Deutsch

Über philosophische und religiöse Quacksalberei

und ihre düsteren Folgen für die weiße Rasse

Ein Brief von John Martínez an César Tort *

Solange die Weißen nicht die tiefen mentalen Wurzeln ihrer gegenwärtigen Malaise begreifen (besonders was das Christentum und seinen säkularen Ableger, den Liberalismus, betrifft), werden sie sich wie ein Mann fühlen, der mitten in einer stockfinsteren Nacht von einem Bienenschwarm angegriffen wird.

Ein paar Punkte.

German-PhilosophyErstens sind Sie zu Recht misstrauisch gegenüber der „Philosophie“ – haben Sie schon einmal darüber nachgedacht, wie anmaßend („Liebe zur Weisheit“) schon der Name dieser Disziplin ist? Ich habe auch meine Zweifel daran.

In einem anderen Beitrag haben Sie die Tatsache erwähnt, dass nicht ein einziger der angeblich größten Philosophen jemals etwas über die Bedeutung der Rasse für die Entstehung einer großen Zivilisation wie der unseren gesagt hat. Das heißt, diese Leute haben Millionen von Arbeitsstunden darauf verwendet, jedes einzelne Thema unter der Sonne zu erörtern – bis auf das, was aus der Sicht unserer Zivilisation vielleicht das Wichtigste von allen ist: die Tatsache, dass es sich um eine weiße Zivilisation handelt und dass diese Diskussionen nicht in Afrika, Asien oder sonst wo stattfinden.

Auch ich habe lange über diese eklatante Lücke in ihren Diskussionen nachgedacht und bin zu dem Schluss gekommen, dass das Feld der so genannten „Philosophie“ im Großen und Ganzen eine Sahara unfruchtbarer Diskussionen ist und dass die Tatsache, dass diese Leute nach Tausenden von Jahren endloser Diskussionen im Gegensatz zu anderen harten Feldern wie Physik oder Chemie zu keinerlei allgemein akzeptierten Schlussfolgerungen gelangt sind, ein Zeugnis für die Leichtfertigkeit ihrer Tätigkeit ist.

Es stimmt, dass auch Bereiche wie die Literaturkritik keine „harten Wissenschaften“ sind, aber selbst hier gibt es, anders als bei der Philosophie, eine Reihe allgemein akzeptierter Urteile – die zentrale Stellung von Dante und Shakespeare in der abendländischen Dichtung und die ästhetische Vorrangstellung von Tolstoi und Proust in der abendländischen Prosaliteratur zum Beispiel, neben vielen anderen allgemein akzeptierten Meinungen –, während man keine einzige philosophische Ansicht finden kann, die von allen der unzähligen philosophischen Schulen und Moden geteilt wird, die in den letzten 2.500 Jahren entstanden sind.

Was ich für meinen Teil sagen kann, ist, dass die gelegentlichen tiefgreifenden Einsichten, die ich von professionellen Philosophen gesehen habe, niemals das Ergebnis eines ausgeklügelten philosophischen Systems sind, sondern stattdessen einfache Produkte des gesunden Menschenverstandes, die sehr wohl von normalen, intelligenten Menschen hätten ausgesprochen werden können. Warum sich also die Mühe machen? Man kann viel mehr über die menschliche Natur und die reale Welt lernen, wenn man die großen Klassiker der westlichen Literatur liest, als wenn man sich durch unendlich langweilige Bände von Pseudo-„Liebhabern der Weisheit“, wie sich diese Typen hochtrabend nennen, wälzt.

Zweitens: Welchen Sinn hat es, einen Aberglauben aufzugeben, nur um einen anderen anzunehmen? Leider ist es das, was die Leute normalerweise tun. Atheisten verlassen normalerweise das Christentum, nur um sofort zum Liberalismus zu konvertieren und umgekehrt. Was bringt es, der westlichen Spiritualität skeptisch gegenüberzustehen und gleichzeitig ihr östliches Gegenstück zu verehren? Das ist ein Widerspruch in sich. Ich glaube nicht an den Buddhismus, Hinduismus oder was auch immer, und zwar aus denselben Gründen, aus denen ich die abrahamitischen Lehren nicht ernst nehme: Trotz all ihrer bombastischen Behauptungen sind ihre Behauptungen empirisch nicht überprüfbar, Punkt. Wenn ich ihre offensichtlichen Absurditäten im Besonderen akzeptieren soll, warum dann nicht auch alle anderen Absurditäten im Allgemeinen?

Drittens ist das, was Sie über die dem Buddhismus innewohnende Verzweiflung und den Pessimismus gesagt haben, ebenfalls wahr, und auch das ist mir schon aufgefallen. Der Grund, warum die Lehre von der Reinkarnation für den Buddhismus so grundlegend ist, liegt darin, dass man, wenn man sich die schreckliche Sichtweise dieser Religion auf das Leben ohne den Glauben an ein Leben nach dem Tod zu eigen macht, logischerweise den Drang verspürt, Selbstmord zu begehen. Menschen, die zum Buddhismus konvertieren, müssen überzeugt werden, am Leben zu bleiben, indem ihnen der Glaube an die Reinkarnation eingeimpft wird; und in der Hoffnung, nicht wieder zu inkarnieren, indem sie dem achtfachen Pfad folgen, um das Nirvana zu erreichen und nicht mehr wieder zu inkarnieren.

Nun, jeder nicht geistesgestörte Mensch kann den Wahnsinn solchen Gedankenguts erkennen. Aber leider sind alle religiösen Systeme letztlich so verrückt wie der Buddhismus. Man muss nur ihr aufgeblasenes, selbstgerechtes Gerede auf den Punkt bringen, dann sieht man, worum es ihren Vertretern wirklich geht.

Christen sagen zum Beispiel gerne, dass „Gott einen Plan für dein Leben hat“. Das scheint alles sehr schön zu sein, bis man merkt, dass dieser Plan darin besteht, dass man den Juden Jesus anbetet. Wenn du das tust, erhältst du die Möglichkeit, ihn für immer im Jenseits zu verehren, an einem Ort namens Himmel (offenbar eine übernatürliche Version von Nordkorea, mit dem christlichen Gott an der Stelle von Kim Jong Il), während du, wenn du dich weigerst, für immer gefoltert und in einer überhitzten Kammer namens Hölle verbrannt wirst. Es spielt keine Rolle, wie verworren ihr Gerede ist, was für ernste Gesichter sie machen, während sie ihre Ideen predigen, oder unter wie vielen Seiten angeblich tiefgründiger Weisheit die Christen versuchen, dieses schreckliche Bild zu verbergen. Tatsache ist, dass ihre Grundüberzeugungen so dumm sind wie die eines Wilden aus der Bronzezeit – und wohl noch viel bösartiger als diese.

Meiner bescheidenen Meinung nach sollten die Weißen solchen Unsinn die Toilette hinunterspülen und dem Beispiel gesünderer Rassen wie der Japaner, der Chinesen und der Juden folgen – im Gegensatz zu deren Schlechtigkeit. Shintoismus, Konfuzianismus und Judentum sind einfache pseudoreligiöse Kasuistiken, die darauf abzielen, die zeitliche Sozialordnung ihrer jeweiligen Zivilisation zu bewahren. Um es ganz offen zu sagen: Das oberste Ziel dieser Lehren ist die physische Erhaltung und der Wohlstand ihrer jeweiligen Völker, und zwar so sehr, dass sie nicht einmal Zeit damit verschwenden, sich mit einem angeblichen Leben nach dem Tod zu befassen, sondern sich stattdessen auf den Ahnenkult und auf praktische Regeln der öffentlichen Moral konzentrieren. Mit anderen Worten: Es handelt sich hier um Kulte zur Rassenerhaltung. Das Christentum, der Islam und der Buddhismus hingegen sind universalistische Ideologien, die diese Welt als Ablenkung von transzendentalen Wahrheiten betrachten, auf die wir unser ganzes Leben aufbauen sollten.

Ich schlage nicht vor, dass Weiße eine neue Religion gründen sollten, in der sie sich selbst anstelle des christlichen Gottes oder irgendeiner anderen nicht-weißen Gottheit oder eines spirituellen Führers verehren (Ben Klassen zum Beispiel war dieser Überzeugung). Weiße Nationalisten sind eine intellektuelle Vorhut der Weißen Rasse, und sie sind einfach zu klug, um eine neue Religion zu gründen. Es braucht Idioten, um eine neue Religion zu gründen (ungebildete Fischer im Falle des Christentums, ungebildete Karawanenräuber im Falle des Islam), und ich glaube ehrlich gesagt nicht, dass wir in dieser Bewegung genug von ihnen haben – zumindest nicht in einer Zahl, die groß genug ist, um eine kritische Masse zu erreichen.

Im Gegensatz zu einigen „Philosophen“ glaube ich, dass wir keine übernatürliche Weltanschauung brauchen, um eine stabile, gesunde Gesellschaftsordnung zu schaffen und zu erhalten. Ich kann mir vorstellen, dass die Chinesen, die Japaner und die jüdischen Rassen bis weit in die Zukunft hinein unter der Schirmherrschaft bodenständiger, metaphysisch unambitionierter Lehren wie des Shintoismus, des Konfuzianismus und des Judentums leben. Aber können Sie sich die rassische Stabilität der Völker vorstellen, die unter universalistischen Glaubensbekenntnissen wie dem Christentum, dem Islam oder dem Buddhismus leben, die die physische Welt nur anerkennen, um sie im Gegenzug für eine angebliche postmortale Belohnung mehr oder weniger zu verwerfen? Diese Frage zu stellen, heißt, sie zu beantworten.

Sehen Sie, Philosophien und Religionen kommen und gehen. Aber die große weiße Kunst, zum Beispiel die Literatur, die ich oben erwähnt habe, wird bleiben. Und vor allem ist die Rasse, die die Artikulation der drei Phänomene möglich gemacht hat, das, was wirklich zählt.

Letzten Endes sollte man für die Weiße Rasse kämpfen und nicht für Religionen oder Philosophien „A“ oder „B“ oder „Z“ – vor allem, wenn diese Philosophien und Religionen nicht nur zweifelhaft sind (gelinde gesagt), sondern den Weißen von Leuten aufgezwungen (oder zumindest stark beeinflusst) wurden, die sie hassen und vernichten wollen.

_________

* Quelle: Brief von John Martínez an César Tort, anknüpfend an dessen Ausführungen zum Buddhismus und zu Julius Evola: On philosophical and religious quackery (and its dismal implications for the white race):

On philosophical and religious quackery

Categories
PDF backup

WDH – pdf 409

Click: here

The software converter could not add the image at the top of the sidebar, but I’ve embedded it below:

The same within the post ‘Aelia Capitolina’:

Categories
NS booklets

SS booklet, 9

‘The illegitimate child is also a valuable member of the folk community—as long as it is conceived by genetically healthy, Nordic parents who are fully conscious of their full responsibility to their clans, the child, and the folk community of blood’.

Categories
2nd World War Léon Degrelle Savitri Devi Souvenirs et réflexions d'une aryenne (book) Technology

Reflections of an Aryan woman, 54

I mentioned above Adolf Hitler’s interest in modern technology—especially, and for good reason, war tec! This is not to say that the dangers of the mechanisation of life, and especially of excessive specialisation, escaped him. Even in this particular field of strategy where he, the former corporal, moved with an ease that even geniuses can hardly explain, he was sceptical of specialists and their inventions, and, in the final analysis, relied only on the supra-rational vision of the true leader without, of course, rejecting the use of any invention as it represented an effective means to victory.

‘What is’, he said to Rauschning, ‘the invention that has so far been able to revolutionise the laws of warfare in a lasting way? Each invention is itself followed, almost immediately, by another which neutralises the effects of the previous one’. And he concluded that all this conferred ‘only a momentary superiority, and the decision to go to war always depends on men’ rather than on material, however important the latter may be.[1]

It was not, therefore, the technique itself that put him off. A universal spirit, he was at ease in this field as in so many others, and he recognised its place in modern combat. What irritated him to the point of revolt was the effect that technical training and the handling of precision equipment and statistical data can have, and almost always do have, on man, even the ‘well-trained’ one who specialises in them. It is the observation that they kill, in him, the flexibility of mind, the creative imagination, the initiative, the clear vision amid a labyrinth of unforeseen difficulties; the faculty of grasping, and of grasping in time—immediately, if possible—the relationship between a new situation and the effective action which must be taken to deal with it; in a word, the exact intuition: according to him, the superior form of the intelligence. ‘It is always outside of technical circles that one meets creative genius’, he said. [2]

And he advised his collaborators—and this all the more strongly as they occupied positions of greater responsibility—to take their decisions ‘by pure intuition’ relying ‘on their instinct’, never on bookish knowledge or on a routine which, in difficult cases, often lags behind the requirements of action. He advised them to ‘simplify the problems’ as he himself simplified them; to ‘make light of everything that is complicated and doctrinaire’.[3] And he kept saying that ‘technicians never have an instinct’, entangled as they are in their theories ‘like spiders in their webs’ and ‘incapable of weaving anything else’.[4] And Hermann Rauschning himself, whose malice towards him is obvious, is forced to agree that ‘this gift of simplification was the characteristic power that ensured Adolf Hitler’s superiority over those around him’.[5]

To prove it, it would be enough to reread, in Léon Degrelle’s Hitler for a Thousand Years, the luminous pages which relate to the French and Russian campaigns, in particular to the latter, about which so many people, and not even those whose job it is to fight wars, reproach the Führer for having stubbornly refused to listen to the technicians of strategy.

The great soldier who was the leader of the Waffen S.S. Wallon Legion brilliantly shows that Adolf Hitler’s refusal to be convinced by these famous specialists who, in the winter of 1941-1942, called for a withdrawal of one or two hundred kilometres, ‘saved the army’ because ‘a general retreat through these endless white and devouring deserts would have been a suicide’.[6] ‘Against his generals, Hitler was right’, he insists, and not only during the seven months of the dreadful Russian winter of 1941-42, but also in January 1943, when he insisted that von Paulus, surrounded at Stalingrad, should try, as best he could, to throw himself towards the armoured troops of General Hoth, under Field Marshal von Manstein, whom he had sent to his rescue and who were only a few kilometres away.

According to Degrelle, von Paulus ‘could have saved his men in forty-eight hours’[7] but ‘a theoretician incapable of working in the field confused by his meticulous mania for paper-based groupings’[8] didn’t do so preferring to capitulate, even though ‘salvation was under his nose, forty-eight kilometres away’.[9] He didn’t do it because, in him, a meticulous study had taken the place of instinct; because he lacked the gift of simplifying problems and of going intuitively to the essential. It was undoubtedly his nature. But these deficiencies must have been singularly reinforced by the fact that ‘almost all his life von Paulus had spent it among the bureaucracy of the general staff’[10] in front of his maps, within the narrow confines of his speciality.

Of course, specialists are needed—in their place. Unfortunately, in certain exceptional circumstances, one is sometimes forced to call on them outside the realm of their routine, and ask them for more than they can give.

And the more life, in all its aspects, becomes mechanised thanks to the applications of science, the more there are and the more there will be from the top to the bottom of the social scale specialised technicians. And fewer and fewer of them will be those who, while having in their particular capacity the maximum of knowledge, will be able to dominate it retaining the vision and inspiration and the invaluable qualities of character, which make the superior man.

The Third Reich had such men: ‘modern’ men in material terms (military or civilian); on the other hand, equal to the greatest figures of the past, like a Guderian, a Skorzeny; a Hans-Ulrich Rudel, a Hanna Reitsch or a Doctor Todt: people strong enough to think and act big while using the machines of our time and subjecting themselves to the precise manipulations they require; the Western counterpart of those Japanese warriors of the same Second World War who combined the intelligent handling of the most modern weapons with fidelity to the code of bushido and, more often than one thinks, the practice of some immemorial spiritual discipline.

The Führer would have liked the best of his Germans to become, more or less, these new ‘masters of fire’ capable of dominating our end of the cycle where technology is, with all its drawbacks, essential to whoever wants to survive in an overpopulated world. He knew that this role could and will only ever be played by a minority. And it is this minority, tested in combat, which was to constitute the warrior aristocracy of the new world: a world against the tide of universal decadence which he dreamed of building and in which, moreover, ‘after victory’ (once the urgency of total war had disappeared) the mechanisation of life would gradually cease and in which the traditional spirit, in the esoteric sense of the word, would take root more and more.

____________

[1] Rauschning, Hitler m’a dit (op. cit.), page 21.

[2] Ibid, page 22.

[3] Ibid, page 209.

[4] Ibid, page 210.

[5] Ibid.

[6] Léon Degrelle, Hitler pour 1000 ans, published by Editions de la Table Ronde in 1969, page 129.

[7] Ibid., page 130.

[8] Ibid., page 174-175.

[10] Ibid., page 170.

Categories
Catholic Church Music NS booklets Racial right Reformation Renaissance Schutzstaffel (SS)

National Socialist booklets, 2

On the sidebar, yesterday I replaced Savitri’s photo with a video showing a beautiful parade in Munich in 1939. If there is one thing white nationalists still don’t understand, it is that before a Semitic cult took over their culture, for the Aryan mind the visual and plastic arts, including architecture, took precedence over the written word. Even Homer was recited in special houses orally, with speakers memorising the Iliad.

The sites of white nationalism are children of the Reformation, which, unlike the Renaissance, emphasised the written word following the theologians who rebelled against the revival in Italy: a light on a potential revival of the Aryan spirit.

Judeo-Christianity, with its emphasis on the written word, eclipsed the Renaissance in the subsequent centuries as the Reformation imposed, once again, the cult of holy writ, and this time introducing the Old Testament into the psyche of Aryan man.

Having once again inverted the values, centuries later National Socialism attempted to reverse the process using public arts—just as it was done in ancient Rome and even in Greece. That’s why what happened in Munich and elsewhere in Germany is so important.

Why do I say all this in an entry devoted to the second booklet that came to me among those booklets that portrayed the spirit, now in the written word, during the most glorious times of the Third Reich? Because since the American publishers of those booklets were deprived of almost all forms of payment, the presentation of their translated booklets is too rustic. What better than to quote what on 22 July this year I wrote, in the form of a soliloquy, on the white pages of the booklet The SS Calls You! (translated from the SS original, Dich ruft die SS!):

These translations are not made with love. Just compare them with Casanova’s small book [a superb edition of a biography of an Austrian author I acquired in Manchester]: just the font and book size that the translated German booklet would deserve. It is unfortunate that there are no artists like me in the publishing industry of racialists. Therefore, I will just skim through it (the tiny font size is very uncomfortable to read…).

That said, just looking at the first page [actually page 7, after the opening credits] I can’t help but think that I shouldn’t revisit the WN sites, which are rubbish compared to this fighting spirit.

It is precisely because the US relies on that materialistic phrase containing the misleading word ‘happiness’ that makes Americans the antithesis of the Aryan hero. But there is a problem, page 10 mentions the word ‘God’.

Page 64 announces the career ‘SS music officer’ at the Berlin Conservatory, and continues the information about that SS career on the next page.

Non-degenerate music, obviously. Then, on page 66, comes a phrase I have already spoken about a couple of times on this site addressing German parents: ‘Sooner or later your son will become a soldier’.

Perhaps it is worth closing this post with an image of how the Roman church bewitches its faithful precisely with super-aesthetic editions of its liturgy: the most aesthetic editions I have ever seen in a publishing house! If with money it is possible to publish this kind of little books to instil evil, won’t it be possible to found a new publishing house that collects all these little jewels of the Third Reich in editions as elegant as those of Ediciones Cristiandad, whose publishing house resides in Madrid?

Categories
Indo-European heritage Savitri Devi Souvenirs et réflexions d'une aryenne (book)

Reflections of an Aryan woman, 53

What he reproached most of all, it seems, was the fact that Christianity alienated his followers from Nature; that it inculcated in them a contempt for the body and, above all, presented itself to them as the ‘consoling’ religion par excellence: the religion of the afflicted; of those who are ‘toiled over and burdened’ and don’t have the strength to bear their burden courageously; of those who cannot come to terms with the idea of not seeing their beloved ones again in a naïvely human Hereafter. Like Nietzsche, he found it to have a whining, servile rotundity about it, and considered Christianity inferior to even the most primitive mythologies, which at least integrate man into the cosmos—all the more inferior to a religion of Nature, ancestors, heroes and of the national State such as this Shintoism, whose origin is lost in the night of prehistory, and which his allies, the Japanese, had had the intelligence to preserve, by adapting it to their modern life.[1]

And in contrast, he liked to evoke the beauty of the attitude of his followers who, free of hope as well as fear, carried out the most dangerous tasks with detachment. ‘I have’, he said on December 13, 1941 in the presence of Dr Goebbels, Alfred Rosenberg, Terboven and others, ‘six SS divisions composed of men who are absolutely indifferent in matters of religion. This doesn’t prevent them from going to their deaths with a serene soul’.[2]

Here, ‘indifference in matters of religion’ just means indifference to Christianity and, perhaps, to all religious exotericism; certainly not indifference to the sacred. Quite the contrary! Because what the Führer reproached Christianity, and no doubt any religion or philosophy centred on the ‘too human’, was precisely the absence in it of that true piety which consists in feeling and adoring ‘God’—the Principle of all being or non-being, the Essence of light and also of Shadow—through the splendour of the visible and tangible world; through Order and Rhythm and the unchanging Law which is its expression: the Law which melts opposites into the same unity, a reflection of unity in itself. What he reproached them for was their inability to make the sacred penetrate life, all life, as in traditional societies.

And what he wanted—and, as I shall soon try to show, the SS must have had a great role to play here—was a gradual return of the consciousness of the sacred, at various levels, in all strata of the population. Not a more or less artificial resurgence of the cult of Wotan and Thor (the Divine never assumes again, in the eyes of men, the forms it once abandoned) but a return of Germany and the Germanic world in general, to Tradition, grasped in the Nordic manner, in the spirit of the old sagas including those which, like the legend of Parsifal preserved, under Christian outward appearances, the unchanged values of the race; the imprint of eternal values in the collective soul of the race.
 

______ 卐 ______

 
Editor’s note: Last year I wrote: ‘Musically, I think Parsifal is Wagner’s most accomplished work. The overtures of each of the three acts, as well as the magnificent music when Gurnemanz takes Parsifal into the castle in the first act; the background music and the voices by the end of the discussion between Parsifal and Kundry in the second act, and let’s not talk about the Good Friday music in the third act, are the most glorious and spiritual I have ever listened. No wonder why Max Reger (1873-1916) confessed: “When I first heard Parsifal at Bayreuth I was fifteen. I cried for two weeks and then became a musician”.’
 

______ 卐 ______

 
He wanted to restore to the German peasant ‘the direct and mysterious apprehension of Nature, the instinctive contact, the communion with the Spirit of the Earth’. He wanted to scrape off ‘the Christian varnish’ and restore to him ‘the religion of the race’ [3] and, little by little, especially in the immense new ‘living space’ which he dreamed of conquering in the East, to remake from the mass of his people a free peasant-warrior people, as in the old days when the immemorial Odalrecht, the oldest Germanic customary law, regulated the relations of men with each other and with their chiefs.

It was from the countryside, which, he knew, still lived on, behind a vain set of Christian names and gestures, pagan beliefs from which he intended one day to evangelise those masses in the big cities: the first victims of modern life in whom, in his own words, ‘everything was dead’. (This ‘everything’ meant for him ‘the essential’: the capacity of man, and especially of the pure-blooded Aryan, to feel both his nothingness as an isolated individual and his immortality as the repository of the virtues of his race, his awareness of the sacred in everyday life.)

He wanted to restore this sense of the sacred to every German—to every Aryan—in whom it had faded or been lost over the generations through the superstitions spread by the churches as well as by an increasingly popularised false ‘science’. He knew that this was an arduous and long-term task from which one could not expect spectacular success, but whose preservation of pure blood was the sine qua non of accomplishment—because, beyond a certain degree of miscegenation (which is very quickly reached) a people is no longer the same people.

___________

[1] Ibid., p. 141

[2] Libres propos sur la Guerre et la Paix, translation, p. 140.

[3] H. Rauschning, Hitler m’a dit, treizième édition française, p. 71.

Categories
Correspondence

A note to trolls

A recent comment from a European commenter who likes the American movie Fight Club makes me think: hasn’t he grasped the spirit of this site, or what a priest of the new religion is?

If I have been saying for over a decade now that Hollywood, pop music and the media are absolute excrement that is what I believe. Some people come here to comment without realising that I mean it!

Anyone who likes any manifestation of pop culture isn’t, by definition, a novice to the priesthood of the 14 words, and shouldn’t try to comment here.

There are no good messages in almost any film of the last few decades, although I have said that a couple of interpretations of Jane Austen’s novels could do the apprentice priest a lot of good. Almost everything else is utter excrement: and it’s bothering that some who comment think my stance is disingenuous: that I actually like, or tolerate, some pop culture.

Not only does it make me absolutely nauseous, but my intolerance is absolute. Recall a recent post in which Savitri said that television should be aired for only half an hour a day, and then only for the propaganda purposes of something like a Fourth Reich.

(Lot and his Daughters escaping from the destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah, a painting by Juan de la Corte: 1585-1662.) Anyone who likes even a single degenerate film shouldn’t dare to comment here. My purism is more than extreme: it is exterminationist hatred and trying to engage with trolls only wastes my time translating the priestess’ book.

Update of November 27:

As this post continues, in a way, in the comments section, I have included this screenshot of it where they can be seen in case WP takes down this site and only the PDFs can be seen in the backup (blank spaces mean that the converter could not convert the images of YouTube clips).

Categories
Neanderthalism Savitri Devi Souvenirs et réflexions d'une aryenne (book)

Reflections of an Aryan woman, 52

It is certain that the decision of the young corporal Hitler, of the 16th Bavarian infantry regiment, to ‘become a politician’ [1] —a decision taken at the announcement of the capitulation of November 1918 in the tragic circumstances of which everyone knows[2]—isn’t enough to explain the extraordinary career of the man who was one day to become the master of Germany, if not of Europe.

Moreover ‘politics’, paradoxical as it may seem, had never been for the Führer the main issue. In a talk on the night of 25 to 26 January 1942, he confessed that he had devoted himself to it ‘against his will’ and saw it as ‘only a means to an end’.[3] This ‘end’ was the mission to which I referred above. Adolf Hitler spoke of it in Mein Kampf and in many speeches, such as the one he gave on 12 March 1938 in Linz where he said, among other things: ‘If Providence once called me out of this city to lead the Reich, it was because it had a mission for me in which I believed, and for which I lived and fought’.

His confidence to act, driven by an impersonal Will, both transcendent and immanent, of which his individual will was only the expression, was pointed out by all those who approached him from near or from afar. Robert Brasillach mentioned the ‘divine mission’ with which the Führer felt invested. And Hermann Rauschning said that he ‘saw himself as a prophet whose role exceeded that of a statesman by a hundred cubits’. ‘No doubt’, he adds, ‘he takes himself quite seriously as the herald of a new humanity’.[4] This is in line with the statement of Adolf Hitler himself, also reported by Rauschning: ‘He who understands National Socialism only as a political movement knows little about it. National Socialism is more than a religion: it is the will to create the overman’.

Moreover, despite his political alliance with Mussolini’s Italy, the Führer was perfectly aware of the abyss separating his biologically based Weltanschauung from Fascism, which remained alien to the ‘stakes of the colossal struggle’ that was about to begin, that is, the meaning of his mission. ‘It is only we National Socialists and we alone’, he said, ‘who have penetrated the secret of the gigantic revolutions that are coming’.
 

______ 卐 ______

 
Editor’s note: This is so true that it reminds me of yesterday’s post on this site, in which we saw how a scholar well versed in NS fails to cross the axiological river. The greatness of the NS men is noticeable in that in the last century Himmler’s select group had already crossed it. And the main shortcoming of white nationalism on the other side of the Atlantic, eighty years later, is that they continue to resist crossing it because of Christian ethics.
 

______ 卐 ______

 

‘And that is why we are the only people, chosen by Providence, to make our mark on the coming century’.[5] In fact, few German National Socialists had penetrated this secret. But it was enough that he, Adolf Hitler, the leader and soul of Germany, had penetrated it to justify the ‘choice’ of the forces of life, for a people is in solidarity with its leader, at least when he is racially one of its sons. In other words, Germany’s priority was, in this case, a consequence of the lucidity of its Leader, of the ‘magic vision’—of the consciousness of the initiate living in the eternal Present—which, alone of all the politicians and generals of his time, he possessed.

It is in this vision that we must seek the source of the Führer’s hostility towards the modern world—both capitalist and Marxist—and its institutions. There is no need to return to the process of the superstition of equality, parliamentarianism, democracy, etc., which is nothing more than the superstition of ‘man’ applied to politics: a trial which the founder of the Third Reich made again and again, in Mein Kampf as in all his speeches, before the multitudes, as well as before the few. Adolf Hitler also attacks features of our time which, while not at the root of this superstition (which is infinitely older) nevertheless reinforces its tragic character. These are, in particular, the rapid disappearance of the sense of the sacred, the resurgence of the ‘technical spirit’, and above all perhaps the disordered proliferation of man in inverse proportion to his quality.

While knowing that they could only be, in the name of Christian anthropocentrism, his worst adversaries, Adolf Hitler was careful not to attack the churches openly, let alone ‘persecute’ them. He did so out of political skill, and also out of fear of depriving the people of an existing faith before another had penetrated deeply enough into their souls to replace it advantageously.

This didn’t prevent him from observing that the time of living Christianity was over; that the Churches represented nothing more than a ‘hollow, fragile and deceptive religious apparatus’[6] which was not even worth demolishing from the outside, since from the inside it was already crumbling of its own accord, and cracking on all sides. He didn’t believe in a resurrection of the Christian faith. In the German countryside it had always been a ‘veneer’, a ‘shell’ which had kept intact the old piety under it. And it was now a question of reviving and directing it. In the urban masses he saw nothing that revealed any awareness of the sacred. He realised that ‘where everything is dead, nothing can be relighted’.[7]

In any case, Christianity was, in his eyes as in ours, nothing but a foreign religion imposed on the Germanic peoples, and fundamentally opposed to their genius. Adolf Hitler despised those responsible men who had been able for so long to content themselves with such childishness as those that the Churches taught the masses. And he was never short of sarcasm when, before those few to whom he knew he could confess the least popular aspect of his thinking, he spoke of Christianity as ‘an invention of sick brains’.[8]

___________

[1] ‘Ich aber beschloss, Politiker zu werden’, Mein Kampf, ed. 1935, p. 225.

[2] Adolf Hitler, gas-gnawed, threatened with blindness, learned the news at Pasewalk Military Hospital where he had been evacuated.

[3] In the presence of Himmler, Lammers, Zeitzler—Libres Propos, (op. cit.) p. 244.

[4] Hermann Rauschning, Hitler m’a dit, 13th French edition, 1939.

[5] Ibid., p. 147.

[6] Ibid., p. 69.

[7] Ibid. p. 71.

[8] Free Remarks on War and Peace (op. cit.), p. 141.