web analytics

Author: C .T.

Categories
Literature William Shakespeare

Hamlet revisited

Before I continue commenting on the film where Reinhard Heydrich, the ‘iron-hearted man’, is our hero, I would like to clarify what I recently said about Johann Wolfgang von Goethe. Yesterday in the comments section, I said:

I put a painting of Goethe because I mentioned him in my previous post about Heydrich. But the abject slavery of the greatest writers to Christianity is more evident in Dante, for obvious reasons; and Cervantes, who considered his masterpiece not Don Quixote but Los trabajos de Persiles y Sigismunda, where Nordic princes travel around various places in the world to end up arriving in Rome, the seat of the Vatican, and get married.

I started the discussion about Goethe because he is mentioned in the film to the detriment of the SS. But if Nietzsche had respect for him, it is precisely because Goethe represents what I called ‘Bridges’ in January, in the context of Wagner’s musical dramas taking us away from Johann Sebastian Bach’s resounding Christianity. In other words, despite the mixture of his pagan The Ring of the Nibelung with the Christian Parsifal, Wagner takes a few steps towards our side of the psychological Rubicon, even if neither Goethe nor Wagner crossed it (indeed, even Nietzsche himself didn’t fully cross it, having failed to read Gobineau).

So I can be charitable with Goethe as long as we place him as a man of his time. He indeed took a few baby steps on the Rubicon although he had a long way to reach the other shore. From this angle, I have nothing against him or Wagner, and those who want to delve deeper into the subject could reread my article ‘Bridges’.

Goethe is considered the greatest figure of German letters, but what motivated me to write this entry is that, if I mentioned the most famous writer in the Spanish language, Cervantes, and the most influential in Italian Christendom, Dante, what could I say about the greatest figure of English letters, Shakespeare?

Just as on Saturday I mentioned Faust as Goethe’s most popular drama, Hamlet is Shakespeare’s most popular play, so I must say a few words about the latter.

In Crusade against the Cross I said that my purpose was to detect and expose the vestiges of Christianity that still inhabited figures considered stellar in the Western tradition, and I pointed out that there were even those residues in the metaphysics that Nietzsche himself had wanted to elaborate. If Nietzsche had followed the command of the Delphic oracle he would have understood these residues and, perhaps, wouldn’t have become psychotic by the end of his life.

Though fictional, Hamlet is a character who, asking himself a thousand questions as he wanders the vast halls of the Danish castle, he also struggles with mental illness. In my article ‘Hamlet’ last year, I implied that the Greek tragedians knew the human soul better than the great writers of Christendom for the simple reason that the latter have lived under the sky of the fourth commandment, honour our parents, and that this prevented them from seeing that some parents drive their children mad. This is so true that I commented in that article that even Voltaire hadn’t broken with that Christian commandment (it was not until the 20th and 21st centuries that a Swiss writer, Alice Miller, repudiated such a toxic commandment).

But in this entry I didn’t want to talk about the trauma model of mental disorders. I want to put Shakespeare on par with Goethe in the sense that their most famous works, Faust and Hamlet, contain strong Christian residues.

Like Goethe, Shakespeare needs to be contextualised.

What could a continental freethinker do in the mid-16th century during the wars between Catholics and Protestants? Become a recluse. A sceptic of Christianity, Montaigne, did exactly that: something that evokes that many contemporary racialists are now recluses because of social ostracism if they dare to come down from their towers. Montaigne impresses me because he was the true representative of the intellectual side of the Renaissance, in sharp contrast to Erasmus who still lived in the thickest medieval darkness (cf. what I wrote about Erasmus in Daybreak).

England was then freer than Montaigne’s France, and that is the background to understanding William Shakespeare. We know that Shakespeare read Florio’s translations of Montaigne and that he was very impressed by him. Kenneth Clark said that Shakespeare was the first great poet of Christendom without religious beliefs.

(Left, Hamlet by William Morris Hunt, a 19th century painter.) However, like Goethe with his Faust, this is not entirely accurate. Shakespeare’s Hamlet has to be placed within the matrix of Elizabethan England: a time when Christian doctrine was still taken very seriously, both in its Anglican and Papist versions. Hamlet suffered a schizogenic struggle. He struggled internally with the command of his father’s ghost, from purgatory, to avenge him; but Hamlet couldn’t condemn himself, should he commit the mortal sin of murdering his uncle if he was, after all, innocent: a dilemma with which he struggles internally throughout the play.

So despite being influenced by the free-thinking ideas of his time, like Goethe Shakespeare was playing with Christian post-mortem doctrine. Nonetheless, from the viewpoint of my autobiographical trilogy, which tries to fulfil Delphi’s mandate, Hamlet certainly represents a breakthrough in insight: it is the first foray into what we may call the true self (as opposed to the false self: the internal struggles we read in Augustine’s Confessions).

What gives Hamlet such evocative power is that the tragedy doesn’t take place on stage but within Hamlet’s soul. The whole play is a soliloquy, and since I have finished my trilogy these days with a postscript to my own tragedy with my father, I would like to quote a few words from Hamlet’s second scene:

Would I had met my dearest foe in heaven
Or ever I had seen that day, Horatio!
My father!—methinks I see my father.

A couple of minutes of the 1948 film interpretation from this point onwards portrays Hamlet’s inward-spiralling soliloquies very well. Incidentally, I saw that film with my father in 1975: time when he had already mistreated me.

Categories
Axiology Literature Might is right (book)

Might is right, 2

I stand forth to challenge the wisdom of the world; to interrogate the ‘laws’ of man and of ‘God.’ I request reasons for your Golden Rule and ask the why and wherefore of your Ten Commands. Before none of your printed idols do I bend in acquiescence and he who saith ‘thou shalt’ to me is my mortal foe.

I demand proof over all things, and accept (with reservations) even that which is true. I dip my forefinger in the watery blood of your impotent mad-redeemer (your Divine Democrat—your Hebrew Madman) and write over his thorn-torn brow, ‘The true prince of Evil—the king of the Slaves!’

No hoary falsehood shall be a truth to me—no cult or dogma shall encramp my pen. I break away from all conventions. Alone, untrammeled. I raise up in stern invasion the standard of Strong.

I gaze into the glassy eye of your fearsome Jehovah, and pluck him by the beard—I uplift a broad-axe and split open his worm-eaten skull. I blast out the ghastly contents of philosophic whited sepulchres and laugh with sardonic wrath. Then reaching up the festering and varnished facades of your haughtiest moral dogmas, I write thereon in letters of blazing scorn: —‘Lo and behold, all this is fraud!’

I deny all things! I question all things! And yet! And yet!—Gather around me O! ye death-defiant, and the earth itself shall be thine, to have and to hold.

What is your ‘civilisation and progress’ if its only outcome is hysteria and downgoing? What is ‘government and law’ if their ripened harvests are men without sap? What are ‘religions and literatures’ if their grandest productions are hordes of faithful slaves? What is ‘evolution and culture’ if their noxious blossoms are sterilized women? What is ‘education and enlightenment’ if their dead-sea-fruit is a caitiff race, with rottenness in its bones?

Categories
Film Goethe Schutzstaffel (SS)

Heydrich, 2

At this point, Rudolf Lange, an SS officer of the rank of Major (SS Sturmbannführer), complained to Heydrich that uniformed Germans treated them like scum ‘just because our work disturbs their peace of mind. They… gripe about our “barbarity” and “sadism”. They say that it is unworthy of the Germany of Kant and Goethe, that my men lust after executions!’

Heydrich simply replied to let them speak: that these uniformed non-SS guys belonged to the old German regime and weren’t accustomed to the new paradigm of morality. Although his response to Rudolf Lange was practical, as one would expect from SS bureaucrats, I would like to respond in greater depth that the SS ‘was unworthy of the Germany of Kant and Goethe’.

As we saw on page 30 of Crusade against the Cross, in a posthumous fragment from 1873 Nietzsche wrote: ‘The cultiphilistine ignores what culture-unity of style is. He agrees that there are classics (Schiller, Goethe, Lessing) and forgets that they wanted a culture, but that they are not a foundation on which to rest’.

As they say in America, bingo!

But what is a foundation on which to rest?

If there is one thing I like about Hans F. K. Günther’s 1927 The Racial Elements of European History, it is that Günther consistently credits Joseph Arthur, Count de Gobineau, as the pioneer of racial studies. I dare to say that true wisdom didn’t begin with the Greco-Roman philosophers, much less with the theologians and what I call secular neotheologians. True wisdom began with the Count of Gobineau.

Just as we were taught in school to despise the ‘pre-Socratics’ and to regard Plato and Aristotle as the cornerstone of Western wisdom, we must now begin to see the cornerstone from a very different angle: Gobineau’s Essai sur l’inégalité des races humaines.

We have already said on this site that Kant was the neotheologian par excellence; of whom Nietzsche said in a passage quoted in Crusade against the Cross: ‘That the Germans have been able to stand their philosophers at all, especially that most deformed concept-cripple of all time, the great Kant, provides not a bad notion of German grace’.

As for Goethe, educated like Kant and Nietzsche in Lutheranism, he is said to have been a pantheist. But Faust, Goethe’s most famous work and regarded as one of the great pieces of world literature, is neotheological in the sense that the drama plays with the idea of selling one’s soul to the devil. Like Kant and Nietzsche himself, Goethe never fully emancipated himself from the Christian legacy.

So fuck Kant and Goethe! The wisdom of the West begins with Gobineau (1816-1882) and would culminate in the movement that Hitler created, whose SS men finally transvalued the values that, for purposes of social control, had been inverted since the House of Constantine came to power.

It is a pity that the vast majority of racialists of our century haven’t yet realised what Heydrich, a true priest of sacred words, realised.

Categories
War!

Pepe

I began my previous article with the words: ‘In these unbelievably crazy times when Western elites are bringing us closer and closer to a nuclear apocalypse…’

As I have said, The West’s Darkest Hour is not a news site, unless important things are happening. I was dismayed recently that the mainstream racial forums remain silent on the subject, with the exception of The Unz Review such as this article by Pepe Escobar, ‘The West Is Hell-Bent on Provoking Russia Into Hot War’.

Categories
Film Final solution Reinhard Heydrich

Heydrich, 1

In these unbelievably crazy times when Western elites are bringing us closer and closer to a nuclear apocalypse, why not intersperse my re-readings of Little Lulu (see what I said yesterday in the comments section) with other fictional dialogues, but this time Reinhard Heydrich’s? Yes: nothing could be more opposite than the Lulu stories I read when I was ten, and Heydrich! But because of the crazy days, both characters now come together in my mind…

At the height of his career, Heydrich held the rank of SS-Obergruppenführer and General der Polizei. Heydrich was also Reichsprotektor of the Czech Republic. If many normie historians consider him the darkest figure of the Nazi elite, we must study him closely, as Christianity reversed all our values.

Hitler described Heydrich as ‘the man with the heart of iron’. As a consequence of his repressive actions, throughout his career Heydrich was known by various nicknames: ‘The Executioner’, ‘The Butcher of Prague’, and ‘The Blond Beast’. As the founding leader of the Sicherheitsdienst he investigated resistance to the National Socialist Party to combat it through arrests, deportations and executions.

Heydrich was also responsible for the Einsatzgruppen, the special commandos who accompanied the advancing German armies and carried out mass executions of communists, intellectuals and Jews by firing squad or gassing. In late 1941, after he arrived in Prague as Reichsprotektor, Heydrich sought to eliminate opposition to the German occupation by deporting and executing members of the Czech resistance.

Heydrich was attacked and seriously wounded near Prague on 27 May 1942 by a Czech commando as part of Operation Anthropoid. The commando had received special training from British ethno-traitors and was sent to the Czech capital by the government-in-exile to assassinate the Reichsprotektor. Heydrich died from his wounds a week later.
 

______ 卐 ______

 
The Wannsee Conference (German: Die Wannseekonferenz) is an Austro-German television film by Heinz Schirk, released in 1984. It portrays the Wannsee Conference in docu-fiction form, with Reinhard Heydrich as the main character.

The film describes in real time (over 90 minutes) the meeting in Wannsee of Third Reich executives and officials in charge of planning, under Heydrich’s direction, the final solution of the JP. As there is no verbatim transcript of the meeting, the dialogue was necessarily fictionalised. However, I find it so fascinating that I will be commenting on it in several posts.

‘Heydrich’ said:

The Führer is especially disappointed about England. He hoped they would acknowledge our legitimate requests: Living space in the East, appropriate status in Europe, solution to the Jewish question through emigration. We could have reached an agreement. We are of the same race. The Jews have taken over Downing Steet as well. The Führer has lost all patience. Why spare our Jews when we are obliged to settle accounts with world Jewry?

Yes: in Europe the English were (and are) the ethno-traitors par excellence. At 16:07 Heydrich acknowledges that Himmler himself fainted during an execution of the final solution programme, and adds:

Nothing dishonourable in that. It proves we Germans are humans. But it is dishonourable not to carry out what the future of our people demands [exterminationism], whether it is pleasant or not. It is dishonourable to be a weakling—which we in the SS are not.

Those who belong to the American racial right are dishonourable not only because they fail to embrace exterminationism as the way forward, but because these Christians and neochristians seek to ‘baptise’ Heydrich and the others involved in the final solution by denying the historicity of the ethnic cleansing that the Third Reich began to implement in the conquered territories to the East.

Let us be clear: the Russians wouldn’t now be empowered with nuclear weapons if the Anglo-Americans hadn’t committed the greatest blunder in recorded history! But even more serious is the Christian ethos that reigns in virtually all Westerners, including atheists.

I confess that I have recently felt very great respect for several rabbis who have been explaining why the genocide perpetrated by the Israelis in Gaza is an honourable enterprise. I would suggest that visitors to this site watch these videos, which have even made their way onto YouTube. Of course, the rabbis say these things from the point of view of what is good for the Jews in general and the Israelis in particular. It is the same logic as Heydrich’s but from the other side.

In other words: the genocidal passion of the Book of Joshua is the healthy thing. Pure social Darwinism! On the other hand, the universalist love that St Paul preaches to the gentiles is wicked, especially since this Jew knew fairly well that such love could only harm the Romans and benefit the Jewish people. But since the values have been reversed since Constantine and his successors, now whites see everything backwards. That’s why I recently wrote a psychobiography of Nietzsche: he was the first to detect this psychological trick.

Don’t get me wrong! I am not saying that we should go bananas like Argentine President Milei and go to a rabbi to have our foreskins cut off. What I am saying is that we should imitate the winners: the exterminationist rabbis but from Heydrich’s side. Can’t white nationalists see something so obvious, something that Nietzsche saw so clearly since 1886 in texts already quoted in my anthology The Fair Race’s Darkest Hour?

Heydrich is our ‘rabbi’ so to speak: the one we have to listen to even if the dialogue of the German-speaking film is as fictitious as the Lulu stories I keep re-reading….

Categories
Audios

After Carolyn…

In the penultimate podcast of the Manifest Destiny Series in Volkish site, ‘Show 101: She’s Back’ (I already said something about Show #100 and have yet to listen to #102) the participants talk, once again, about my favourite author: Savitri Devi. I was pleased that they mentioned Counter-Currents (CC) in a derogatory way because only Hitler saves, not the bourgeois racialists on this side of the Atlantic.

After Carolyn Yeager fell ill and discontinued her National Socialist sympathetic podcasts, Manifest Destiny is the only NS podcast I know of. It is curious that the bourgeois Greg Johnson, the editor-in-chief of CC who is also the custodian of the Savitri archive, has published Savitri Devi’s Gold in the Furnace. Curious, I say, because his ‘racialist’ ideology is at the very antipodes of Savitri’s.

In podcast 101, I was surprised that a few seconds before the 28th minute Jake (was it him?) mentioned my ‘four words’ in the sense of avoiding unnecessary suffering of the victims executed in the so-called holocaust. I didn’t expect that! (Himmler himself forbade unnecessary cruelty in his ethnic cleansing campaigns). Also, unlike Carolyn and the commenters who used to comment on her website, those at Manifest Destiny are aware of the Christian Problem and what we have called here the Christian inversion of Aryan values.

Incidentally, I just modified a couple of tags: Jewish Question (JQ) is now called Jewish Problem (JP), and Christian Question (CQ) is now called Christian Problem (CP).

There was something that pleased me after the first hour of discussion: the beautiful is the good and true, an idea that dates back to Socrates. Like David Lane, I cannot conceive of how to save the Aryan race without the cult of the beauty of their physiques, which is why I have insisted so much on images of English roses on this site.

At around 1:35 the participants spoke about something I consider fundamental. They used the word ‘duty’ as a quality of overmen. Savitri had already spoken of this in the first chapter of her Memoirs when she coined the phrase ‘the religion of the strong’. Duty is something that naturally radiates from a personality that, to use Jungian language, has already touched the ‘Self’ with its ego. There is hardly anyone like this in the world today, true National Socialists; it seems that in the Second World War they were all killed.

Before 1:40 one of the participants mentioned that Savitri said that National Socialism would eventually be reborn in Germany. When I see the resounding failure of American white nationalism, so incapable of breaking away from bourgeois and Christian values, it seems to me that this woman might be right.

We shall see what happens now that European leaders, including the German Chancellor, are beating the war drums to start a hotter war against Russia. To continue relentlessly with such strident rhetoric will only end with Berlin, Paris and London under well-deserved nuclear mushrooms. One thing is certain: with or without nuclear war it is a win-win situation for us! A territorial bite at eastern Ukraine when Russia wins, even without a nuclear exchange, will destroy NATO and the European Union…

Categories
Autobiography

Little Lulu

Macron, ‘le petit roi’, has been making pronouncements that make one think, along with equally stupid pronouncements by Polish, English and even Swedish leaders, that Europe will soon go to war with Russia.

As Gonzalo Lira used to say before the Ukrainian government assassinated him, during its death throes the Beast is kicking left and right. It is hard to know whether these death throes will trigger a nuclear war or whether the Beast will simply drop dead after the fuss it is making. But since it’s not clear that we’ll see the end of the world as the mortally wounded Beast drops dead, why not revisit the photo albums of our childhoods, or what we read as children? In times of urgency, it is refreshing to look back on our golden years…

A week ago I discovered that an American uploaded lots and lots of Little Lulu stories on his website. I’ve set out to remember my golden years by re-reading them, but before doing so since last week I re-read the thirty or so surviving issues that I still have at home. I started collecting them in the late 1960s and had a large collection, most of which was lost due to family trouble.

The first thing that struck me now that I reread is that there is a big difference between the various illustrators of the stories (more than three or maybe four I guess). Although signed by ‘Marge’, the author was actually an Aryan male, John Stanley (pic left). True, Lulu is based on a character created by Marge Buell in 1935, a woman who finished writing her bichromatic newspaper comic strips in 1947. But the Lulu that would become famous was the one created in full colour by Stanley. Marge’s strips were metamorphosed into a magazine, with very funny drawings in the 1950s by Stanley.

One of my surviving issues even lost the cover and is in a deteriorated but readable state. If I had known how to preserve them as a child, I would have put each comic in plastic bags. In one of the leafed-out stories I read recently, I was struck by the fact that all of Lulu’s schoolmates—dozens of them in one of the stories apparently drawn by Stanley—were white, and in the supermarket in the same leafed-out issue all the ladies were white.

The stories were ideal for children of the time: when the West was much saner than it is today. There is an interview on YouTube with Frank M. Young who, on being diagnosed with cancer, wanted to reminisce about his old days through an anthology published in 2019 of the early issues of Little Lulu. It was thanks to Young that I learned that Stanley worked on Little Lulu until the late 1950s when he burned out. Stanley had written thousands pages of stories of which he himself had illustrated about 700: fourteen years of constant work.

The fact that Stanley signed as ‘Marge’ when he was the sole author is symptomatic of the incipient feminism that would grow like a cancer in his country. But the 1950s didn’t seem treacherous. Many years ago I told one of the few racist friends I had in Mexico that the United States seemed to me ‘a big Germany’ in a territorial sense. Those were times when I hadn’t heard that white Americans had betrayed each other. When I was reading Little Lulu in the late 1960s and early 1970s, I didn’t perceive the betrayal, even though in one of the stories, at a costume party, Lulu dressed up as Abraham Lincoln because she admired him. But with all the characters being white, how could the child that I was harbour suspicions?

It would be interesting if other boomers like me would read this post and tell me that they too had been fans, as children, of Little Lulu… For the moment I would just like to share my inner experiences about a couple stories now that I reread several stories out of the hundreds I read as a child.

The first is a story I read, or rather was told by my dad as I seem to barely remember, when I was about seven years old. I was with my parents in the port of Veracruz and I remember my dad buying the magazine that contained the story in which poor Lulu loses her shadow.

For connoisseurs of the magazine, one of the curiosities of the comic was ‘the story within the story’. When Lulu’s very small neighbour Alvin misbehaved, Lulu would tell him a story to calm him down: a story that always featured a poor girl, who Stanley drew as Lulu herself, albeit in raggedy clothes. My seven-year-old memory is that in the story Lulu told Alvin, a shadow seller passed by in a carriage of shadows lost by their owners. It was an incredible feeling to read the whole story so many decades after reading it for the first time.

But the biggest shock came with what I had a feeling was my favourite story. In the story ‘The Shadow of a Man-eater’ from a special issue devoted to Lulu’s best friend Tubby, the memory I was left with was something of a teenage story, not a children’s story like the typical Lulu tales (as the story is).

The only thing I remembered with any clarity was the image below. But my—now I see wrong—memory was that Tubby had a sleepless night at Wilbur van Snobbe’s house and there he had seen the shadow of the lion. I didn’t remember that it had happened in his own house (it had been in the house of the rich van Snobbe where there had been a jewel robbery).

I didn’t remember any of the plot until yesterday when I reread the story so many decades after I first read it. The only thing I remembered was that the lions weren’t real and that Tubby was trying to solve a case because he liked to play detective. Yesterday when I reread the story I remembered some details, but in my memory those details weren’t associated with the lion story. It seems that the only thing that stuck in my memory was the image above: the moment of suspense that I experienced more than half a century ago was what registered in my mind!

I find it healthy to recreate the distant past of our lives: especially to evoke the times when everything seemed to be going well for the white race, when children’s comics seemed to be written in an ethnostate where not a single character of colour appeared.

Categories
Axiology Might is right (book) Racial right

Might is right, 1

by Ragnar Redbeard

Editor’s Note:

I don’t presume to have read all of Ragnar Redbeard’s book, but I might be adding some excerpts in a new series, such as the following passage from the preface.

It is interesting to compare this book published in 1896 with the lectures of those on the American racial right 128 years later (e.g., this recent one), who are still stuck in unwarlike Christian ethics.

The mysterious Redbeard (a pen name) wrote:

 

______ 卐 ______

 

Virtue is rewarded in this world, remember. Natural law makes no false judgments. Its decisions are true and just, even when dreadful. The victor gets the gold and the land every time. He also gets the fairest maidens, the glory tributes. And—why should it be otherwise? Why should the delights of life go to failures and cowards? Why should the spoils of battle belong to the unwarlike? That would be insanity, utterly unnatural and immoral.

Behold the crucifix, what does it symbolize?
Pallid incompetence hanging on a tree.

In the wars of the Great Cæsar, and Grim Hannibal, in the times of Belzchazzar, the Pharaohs and all; the days of Rienzi and Roland the Bold; all banners are waving for women and gold.
It is might against might, remember, by land and sea, man against man, money against money, brains against brains, and—everything to the winner.

Categories
Racial right

Cancer patients

The brief exchange between Will Williams, an anti-Christian racialist like us, and a Christian commenting on Counter-Currents, reminds me of my dilemma: I want to save Anglo-Germans from the ongoing extinction but most are like a cancerous patient who refuses to see that his cancer is due to smoking.

In other words: the rampant self-loathing from which today’s Aryan suffers is ultimately due to Christian ethics and guilt that grows every day like cancer. For example, the alluded Christian stated: ‘despite [William] Pierce’s brilliance, his agenda is seen as morally repugnant’ by racial right groups—not realising that to wipe out orcs is the only way to survive (remember: millions of them have already invaded the Aryan lands)!

Fortunately, Jared Taylor, the granddaddy of American race realism, is already realising that his country is a goner, as we can see in his latest video.

How long will it take my northern neighbours to appreciate what I say on page 73 of my recent psychobiography on Nietzsche?

Categories
Friedrich Nietzsche

Rosenberg

Editor’s Note: Below I quote excerpts from a speech by Alfred Rosenberg at a commemorative event on the occasion of the centenary of the birth of Friedrich Nietzsche on October 15, 1944, in Weimar (the full speech can be read here):

Nietzsche also knew this very well when he wrote: ‘The discipline of suffering, of great suffering, do you not know that only this discipline has created all enhancements of man so far?’ Only such common suffering heightens the tension of the soul, only the sight of a great and general fate strengthens the spirit of invention and bravery in the struggle. Only such suffering can call upon human beings, i.e., an entire community that feels suffering in common, to great achievements. And this prerequisite for the transformation of his prophecy into a people reflecting upon itself had to be denied to Friedrich Nietzsche…

That is in line with what we have recently been saying: that the white man must suffer once again to cleanse himself of all the mental infection he suffers from, even if that means the suffering resulting from a Third World War.

‘But may it [the German spirit] never believe’, Nietzsche added at that time, anticipating almost everything, ‘that it can fight similar battles without its household Gods, without its mythical homeland, without a “return” of all German things!’ ‘Let no one believe that the German spirit has forever lost its mythical homeland, for so clearly it still understands the birdsongs that tell tales of that homeland. One day it will awaken, in all the morning freshness of a monstrous sleep: then it will slay dragons, annihilate treacherous dwarves, and awaken Brünnhilde, and Wotan’s spear itself will not be able to bar its way!’

See what I said in January of last year about The Mastersingers of Nuremberg. With the honourable exception of Carolyn Yeager, who never played degenerate music on her podcasts, this is something that contemporary neo-Nazis will never understand.

Here a hope was expressed that literally went to everything, demanded not only a cleansing from all overgrowing foreign plants and their juices but confidently expected it, a true inner rebirth leading back to the ultimate roots from which it longed for the supply of power for a great future…

‘The time for small politics is past: the next century already brings the struggle for domination of the earth, the compulsion to great politics’.

Given this overall evaluation as well he still hopes once more for a rigorous German heart, for the German form of scepticism, for a ‘spiritualized Fridericianism’, and he expresses it more than once that today, where in Europe only the herd animal comes to honour and bestows honours, an entirely different human type would have to assume rule to reverse this destiny.

Thus a profound criticism of the entire social structure sets in, a criticism of the Marxist, even then already falsely termed socialist movement, as it cannot be thought out more consistently and annihilatingly even today. For him Marxism is the thoroughly thought-out tyranny of the lowliest and dumbest, that is of the superficial, envious and three-quarters actors; it is indeed the conclusion of ‘modern ideas’ and their latent anarchism. Nietzsche turns above all against the attempt to abolish the concept of property because abolishing this concept of property had to breed a destructive struggle for existence; for man has no providence or self-sacrifice towards anything that he possesses only temporarily; he deals with it exploitatively, as robber or as dissolute squanderer. And amidst this criticism already arises the indication of a way out:

Keep all paths to small fortunes open, but prevent effortless, sudden enrichment; withdraw all branches of transport and trade that favour the accumulation of large fortunes, which is to say, especially money trading, from the hands of private individuals and companies, and regard both those who own too much and those who own nothing as dangerous creatures to the community…

With that, the presentiment of the Marxist dictatorship which we see marching against us as a mortal enemy from Moscow is clearly predicted. It has allied itself with that force which Nietzsche presented as particularly dangerous, without our wanting to assert that he was then able to survey the whole structure and psychology of the East in every detail.

But Nietzsche knows that probably, despite all cognition, the development once initiated cannot be reversed in a short time, and therefore he predicts that from this mixture of liberalism, plutocracy and anarchy the great crisis of Germany and the whole European continent would have to emerge. He is profoundly convinced that from this hodgepodge initiated by the entire liberal movement, meanwhile expressing an untiring hatred against Rousseau as the intellectual originator of these currents, Europe would someday have to arrive at the most terrible all-encompassing confrontations, but then perhaps also at severe tyrannical phenomena. He writes: ‘The democratization of Europe is at the same time an involuntary event for breeding tyrants, understanding the word in every sense, including the most spiritual’…

He was looking for this voice of wanting to understand and friendship. He also made some friends, but gradually, with an ever-sharper realization of an impending spiritual and political fate, his former companions also stepped back. The companions of his scholarly years sink into the bourgeois world. Richard Wagner also does not seem to want to go the way forward, and in this painful yet to the end still distant reverence, the greatest inner crisis in Nietzsche’s life comes to light, when he declares that Wagner, as an artist, to whom he now believes he must spiritually oppose, also alienates those people in Germany who are worth working on…

While this or that of those prophets of our time may be particularly close to us in some areas, Friedrich Nietzsche was probably the greatest figure in the German and European intellectual world of his day as an overall personality and as an unswerving recognizer of an entire epoch that was about to perish! One thing must be considered with all his later confessions and criticisms: if in his remarks he only suffered wounds and therefore took a fighting stance against the immediate causes of these wounds, the same would have happened if he had lived in France or England or another state for a long time. Because everywhere the same phenomena of decline were at work to decompose old grown traditions without thereby creating new ties and setting up new ideals. The whole world paid homage to base values.

This evokes what I recently said about internal jihad: that one must repudiate one’s nation project to save the Aryan, referring to a ‘nation’ that has been founded on the worship of Mammon (and this even refers to post-WWII Germany).

The revaluation of the values of passing liberal humanity into an ideal of the noble, hard personality, making greatness possible, is essentially Nietzsche’s doctrine that runs through all his works. If in recent times his ‘will to power’ has been particularly emphasized, this core has been rightly highlighted as that character resistance centre from which both the well-founded treatises and the ecstatic proclamations of ‘Zarathustra’ and the harsh attacks of his last writings can be explained…

In truth, there have been no power institutions that have had as hyenas of life an effect like the heartless capitalists of the international stock exchanges, never such a chloroformization of entire peoples as has happened through the all-Jewish press, and never has a power attack on the great culture of a continent been prepared more insidiously than after these influences through the Marxist dictatorship movement. What Nietzsche prophesied, European anarchism, was on the way…

So the forces that are now struggling with each other have not newly emerged; they are prefigured by the liberal movements of the 19th century, by the over-technicization of a new era, by the unbridled rule of money and gold, by the monopolization of the entire news system in Europe by racially alien hands. The European cultural citizens, tired of the sedation of their resistance forces, are now overwhelmed by a long-dammed destructive passion from the East, which, in a strange alliance with Jewish-West-leaning Marxism, has shaken not only Germany but the whole European continent to its foundations. When we proudly declare that National Socialist Germany alone still defends this old Europe today, when we can perhaps say in a slightly different sense than Nietzsche in the 19th century, but still from an even greater depth, that we are the ‘good Europeans’ today, that is a historically honestly won right…

But despite this realization, we still feel in our experience the great train of a new era and know that what has carried us and gives the German nation the inner will to inflexible resistance today is also based on that deep shock of the lonely Nietzsche, which carried him through a painful life, which often led to despair and accusations in solitude, but was always at the same time driven forward by the unconditional necessity of such an avowal to the future…

This is how we, National Socialists, see the workings of those powers today which, coming from the past, began to become a dangerous force of disintegration in the 19th century and today lead to the most terrible disease of the European essence in a large, suppurating process, and at the same time we see some prophets demandingly raise their voices amidst this fateful currents to break these creation-hostile values to help realize a new order of life.

Among them, we honour the lonely Friedrich Nietzsche today. After stripping away all that is tied to the times and all too human, this figure stands spiritually beside us today, and we greet him across the times as a close relative, as a spiritual brother in the struggle for the rebirth of great German spirituality, for the shaping of generous and spacious thinking and as a proclaimer of European unity as a necessity for the creative life of our old continent, rejuvenating itself today in a great revolution.

If a new visitor is not familiar with our recent psychobiography on Nietzsche, he could do so now.