web analytics

Category: Ethnic cleansing

Categories
Axiology Ethnic cleansing Tom Holland

Brutal inertia

What I said to Jamie on Tuesday has got me thinking a bit.

At the end of Who We Are, William Pierce said that history has tremendous inertia: a phrase that made a big impression on the way I see the world. It is a phrase that should resonate with those who want to save the white race from extinction because it has great explanatory power for what is happening.

The present subtitle of this site says that the enemy to be identified is Christianity. But I actually mean the morality bequeathed to us by Christianity, which has reached truly psychotic levels of metastasis in the secular—and supposedly anti-Christian!—West with the Woke fad.

Ever since various Roman emperors introduced ‘spiritual terror’ into the Aryan psyche (Hitler’s phrase in one of his after-dinner talks during WW2), through parental introjects whites have been transmitting this malware to their progeny. This happened until, in the last century, Uncle Adolf tried to transvalue values. That’s why euthanising millions of retards, deporting the subversive tribe out of Germany, or even genocide of non-Aryans began to take place, in the first half of the 1940s, in Poland and the Soviet Union.

The inertia is apparent when we see that on this side of the Atlantic Pierce suggested the same thing but only at the novel level, in The Turner Diaries (published as a serial from 1975 to 1978). Dates are important here. In Who We Are (published as a serial from 1978 to 1982), which is non-fiction, we do see isolated phrases about the need for expulsion and extermination, but not as frankly and directly as the SS Master Plan East.

In the early 1940s, there was already, at least in Europe’s most powerful country, an effective transvaluation of all Christian values. After the catastrophic defeat and the triumph of the forces of Evil, a mind as extraordinarily lucid as Pierce’s had to speak in novel form, or say things between the lines if he spoke in a non-fiction format. But then historical inertia pulled the Aryan’s collective unconscious, once again, back into Christian morality! Today’s nationalists ‘know’ that genocide is iniquitous, especially if practised for racial or eugenic reasons. This is evident even in the mainstream forums of contemporary white nationalism, where it would be inconceivable to promote exterminationism even between the lines as Pierce did, let alone the overt exterminationism of the Nazis’ Master Plan East.

The historical backlash has been such that, in reaction to the Third Reich, the entire West has been regressing to a kind of 13th and 14th-century neo-Franciscanism (see my discussion of St Francis on pages 132-137 of Daybreak). In my previous posts, I talked about the relevance of studying cases of mental disorders of a specific subject, and in the comments section I linked videos of psychologists talking about how certain types of disturbed subjects suffer a regression in which they sometimes look like toddlers. We can already imagine the same phenomenon but on the scale of an entire civilisation (Western civilisation). And I don’t say at the level of an entire race because Latin Americans, who aren’t white, are also suffering from Wokism. This radically secularised phase of Christian values only affects nations that wholeheartedly embraced Catholicism and Protestantism.

I see no open rebellion against this inertia anywhere, whose pendulum has now reached its psychotic phase. I see no transvaluation even in the forums of the racial right. On the contrary: unlike the hardcore Nazis and Pierce, there is a clear attempt to distance oneself from any idea of eliminating the enemy by ethnic cleansing. The inexorable force in this era is the backlash due to the values bequeathed by the New Testament, as Tom Holland has seen in Dominion and his lectures and interviews. (Holland himself is infected with these inverted values, but his axiological analysis of the West is spot on.)

Categories
Ethnic cleansing Mauricio (commenter) Miscegenation

Basket case

by Mauricio

There would be little consequence for a racial awakening of the Hispanics.

For the Hispanic world to become racially conscious, it first needs to accept the fact that they are a conglomerate of inferior races. Hispanics (Latinos, or ‘Meds’) are all part-Whites mixed with Black, Semitic and Amerindian blood. Racial truth is a massive blow to their egos [bold emphasis by Editor], and they prefer to believe the blue pill of an ‘independent’ Latino Race.

And even if they accept the red pill of them being dirty Muds, and that the ultimate goal is to become White, how can they achieve it? How can they form racial brotherhoods, when they are so compromised and diversified? Are they going to unfriend their mulatto friends, and divorce their mulatto/Latina wives? Will they abstain from reproduction, and work to provide for White families? Are they even capable of that level of altruism?

In the end, miscegenation has taken root, and it would take many generations of proper breeding and dedicated effort to repair the genetic damage—which is ultimately a wasted effort, because it’s better to raise a White child to fight for its own race, than to raise a Latino child to fight for another.
 

______ 卐 ______

 

Editor’s note: This is precisely why I no longer blog in Spanish: Latin America is a basket case! It would be better to convince the Anglo-Americans of the North to transvalue their fucking values, think like Himmler and devise a ‘Master Plan South’ (cf. the book whose revised edition we have just published).

As Christian ethics is the barrier that prevents such a transvaluation of all their cherished (it’s better to use the F-word here) values, the next book I will put in the featured post is Deschner’s enlarged edition…

Categories
Ethnic cleansing

Mexico’s independence

Editor’s note: The war of Mexican independence from Spain began on 16 September 1810, when an ethnic Jew, Miguel Hidalgo y Costilla, uttered the so-called ‘Cry of Dolores’, stirring up the Indians against the Spaniards.

The Breve Historia de México, which José Vasconcelos wrote in 1936, runs on a premise: as long as a civilisation of Spanish, Criollo origin (ethnic Spaniards with no Indian blood born in the American continent), dominates in Mexico, there is prosperity; when native barbarism imposes itself, disasters befall inhabitants of that country. However, as Vasconcelos was a Catholic, he never realised that the ideas of equality weren’t only English ideas, whom he blames for what happened in the War of Independence, but Christian ideas mutated into secular ideology.

Without adding ellipses between unquoted paragraphs, in this post I translate a passage from Vasconcelos’ book. The brackets are mine:
 

______ 卐 ______

 

In Bustamante’s medal we can read: ‘Siempre Fieles – Siempre Unidos – 1838’. And Alamán narrates that in all of Mexico there was rejoicing, when the Argentines triumphed over the English, when Spain rose against the French. And there was an offer of resources or volunteers for war to the common enemy who later suggested to Hidalgo, to Morelos, the criminal war, the disloyal slaughter, precisely of the Spaniards, of our fathers, of our brothers. And there were still loose in our squares and streets, the demagogues with Criollo mezcal eloquence shouting in favour of abstractions: liberty, equality, fraternity.
 

The perverse doctrine

Father Mier, who is presented to us as the inspirer of the Independence movements, developed his propaganda in London, always in the pay of the British Admiralty. He claimed, in effect the English doctrine, that Mexico was separating from Spain because the pacts of the Conquest [of the Aztec Empire] had been violated. What were these pacts? Who thought they existed, and, if they did, how was it that the phenomenon of Latin American independence gained the most momentum in Argentina, where there were no Indians to enter into such pacts? Why was Mexico, the typically Indian country, precisely the one that showed the least enthusiasm for Independence?

Mier suspected none of this, and propagated the thesis of the traditional interventionists, the hypothesis of the indigenous claims that were then being asserted against the Spaniards and that were later wielded against the Criollos and today are used to dispossess, to persecute those who speak Spanish, with no exceptions for the Indians. Indeed, there is talk of indigenous claims as if at the time of Cortés’ arrival the Indians had been owners, as if property and the Christian concept of the rights of the human person had not appeared precisely with the conquest.

But the truth is that the independence of New Spain was promoted by the Criollos and the Spaniards of New Spain, Mexicans of the most recent generation, and not to recover usurped rights of any kind. On the contrary, the descendants of Moctezuma, as well as those of many other characters of Aztec times, lived in Spain as nobles and opposed the independence that would make them lose their titles and their advantages. But to speak of indigenous demands in the name of a nationalism that never existed is something that could not have been born in the heart of the Mexican people, but was inspired from outside, like a poison destined to poison their future.
 

Mexican loyalty

Alamán rightly observed that ‘it was ungenerous to pretend to turn away from a nation with which Mexico had been linked for three centuries’. Hidalgo himself evoked the name of Ferdinand the Seventh, perhaps thinking that once Spain had been freed from the French invasion, Independence would follow. They did not come to Mexico, as they did to Colombia, with Bolivar, with English battalions and foreign general staffs, no doubt because Spanish sentiment was stronger among us.

Independence—achieved without bastard advisors like those who led Hidalgo and Morelos astray—was already being achieved. But that was not what the British wanted. What they wanted was to drive the Spaniards out of their dominions in America, to dominate the natives at once as one dominates flocks without a shepherd… [The movement] was diverted, by iniquitous foreign pressure, into the ignorant and destructive caudillismo of the Morelos and Guerreros, whose programme in essence went no further than the demand to kill gachupines [Spaniards], the natural slogan of the English.

Independence in Mexico did not fight battles. There have never really been battles on our soil, but bloody hecatombs of civil war. And it has had to resort, as we shall see in another chapter, to the dangerous system of exalting defeats. For all our foreign warlords are, after all, defeated. But to be specific in the case of Independence, it is an auspicious fact that no great battles were fought, that there were no great armies, and that Calleja, as he constantly repeated with all loyalty, was waging war against the warlords of Independence exclusively with Mexican troops. We Mexicans wanted independence but we were loyal. We did not want independence for the benefit of the British, but the benefit of our homeland. That is why the nation, in its conscious sectors, did not follow Hidalgo, did not follow Morelos. Everyone must have been suspicious of that eagerness to kill gachupines and that insistence on recruiting pure Indians and blacks from the coast of Guerrero, to throw them on the populations to plunder, to destroy, which is the only thing that the improvised leader who has no plan and no vision achieves.

To realise the tactics of Hidalgo and Morelos, tactics of the forerunners of the American party, tactics which produced friendships in the United States and promises of aid, such as driving Hidalgo northward, such as moving Morelos to dispose of Texas, let us imagine a similar case in another nation. Suppose that the French who aided American independence, instead of meeting with superior men like Franklin, like Washington, like Hamilton, men who knew how to take advantage of foreign aid, but without submitting to its ends, turned it rather to their service, had had recourse in the United States to the mulatto population, ignorant and degraded, and, therefore, predisposed to treachery. To these half-breeds of black and white the French agent, the enemy of all things English, would have said, and rightly so:

‘You have been ruled for three centuries by an aristocracy of hypocritical Quakers who presume to be righteous, and here they are seizing all the land, all the wealth, keeping millions and millions of blacks in slavery. The battle cry must be “Death to the British”, and every time you occupy a village, shoot all the subjects of England you manage to capture’.

What would the leaders of American Independence have done in the face of such propaganda? They would have taken no more than five minutes to have those who listened to such propaganda shot! What would Washington himself have done if the overseer of the slaves on his farms went into rebellion to kill Englishmen? At that very moment, Washington, who was well-born, would have felt English and would have sought first to beat first the traitors of his blood and then the agents of the oppressive power that was England. Well, that explains why so many did not follow Hidalgo and Morelos but let them be executed, without prejudice to continue working for Independence, without prejudice to consummate independence, but no longer to the cannibalistic cry of ‘Death to the Gachupines!’

I ask the pure Indians of my country, and my compatriots already educated and clear of mind and heart: Was there or was there not oppression, abuse, or slavery of the blacks in the region of America colonised by the English? And yet, what would have happened if the warlords of American Independence, instead of fighting against the English troops, summoned the blacks, called them and told them: ‘Now to kill the British’? Is it true or not true that the United States would have become supper for blacks?

We have just said that the fate of Mexico would have been different if its national leaders at the time of Independence had had the cultural and human stature of the Franklin, the Hamiltons, and the Adamses. We had one or two in that period who can be compared with the best of any country. Bishop Abad y Queipo and the civilian Don Lucas Alamán. A character of constructive stature could perhaps have been developed with the figure of Licenciado Verdad, Mayor of Mexico. But there was a lack of intelligence in the wealthy, enlightened class.

The greatest crime in history is to dress up in tinsel events that have been the cause of the backwardness and decadence of nations. And this is what we have done with the legend of Independence: to erect as a cult and a religion what was a disastrous mistake and the beginning of all our misfortunes. It is better to have no idols than false ones.
 

The precursor movements

From the beginning, Pereyra notes, the purely Spanish Criollismo will carry the banner of Indianism against the Metropolis; it will be called Aztequismo in Mexico, Incaismo in South America, Mosquismo in New Granada, Caribdismo in Venezuela. Each country will find in a remote pre-Columbian glorification the starting point of its national aspirations.

But all this was not only artificial and absurd, it was part of the British programme which, together with wages, taught a lesson to the forerunners and actors of the great insurrectionary movements.

An obscure Indian rebellion aimed at suppressing the work tributes was magnified into a continental banner. It happened that the rebel cacique Condorcanqui was baptised by those who had sold their souls to England with the name of Tupac Amaru, the name of the Inca executed by the Spaniards. And he was presented as the would-be Emperor of all America, when, Pereyra rightly says, his ancestor, the real Tupac Amaru, never had any pretensions to conquer even as far as Bogota. All the new Tupac did before he was soundly defeated was to slit the throats of men, women and children. In Calca he wiped out all the whites. This indicates the trend of the insurrection. And so the question arises again: What would the Americans have done with an uprising which, under the pretext of national independence, would have launched the redskins of the Cañada against the outposts of the thirteen primitive colonies? They would have done what Calleja did when there was no more war cry and no more plan than to kill gachupines: beat them to death.

The documents drafted by the British were no more effective in achieving the purpose that would serve as the basis of the war: the spread of hatred between Criollos and Spaniards. This was the origin of the contemporary imperialist action that stirred up the hatred of the mestizos against the Criollos and of the Indians against the mestizos.

Rather than French egalitarian and liberal, the ideas of the forerunners of Independence were borrowed from the Intelligence Service of the English Admiralty; they were fabricated by the enemies of Spain who coveted our territories. They were ideas of social derangement, useful to produce what would soon define American imperialism, more practical and more outspoken than English imperialism: the extermination of the inferior mixed races that Spain had produced and the conquest of the land without the men, ‘the cage without the bird’. In other words, the tactic that the Americans applied in their territories, ‘A good Indian is a dead Indian’. In our countries, the Spaniard had to be wiped out first because the Spaniard had married the Indian, allied himself with the Indian and had come to form the powerful mestizo bloc. It is by attacking them in the head, by destroying their aristocracies, that the enemy races are best and soonest destroyed. That is why the war cry, a hypocritical and disloyal cry, was from one end of the continent to the other and even there where there were no Indians to claim a single right: ‘Up with the Indians, the Tupac Amaru of operetta and… let the gachupines die!’

Miranda dreamed, as Bolivar dreamed at first, that by simply establishing freedom, all the republics of America would live in peace. He did not see the American danger, added to the English danger. And if Bolivar did see it, it was when, already in decadence and exile, the lucidity of one who has failed in an enterprise he judged noble came to his spirit.

Miranda also fell into the childishness of wanting to give the government of a vast American state to the descendant of the Inca. So we can see how even the men of genius of the movement served the Anglo-Saxon plan to eliminate the Spanish from the territories they were preparing to conquer. And yet Miranda had not a drop of indigenous blood in him. He was merely a soul mediated by the influence of the English.

Where is the judgement of all these men we revere as fathers of the fatherland? If Miranda, a man of the world, enlightened, almost brilliant, offered the provinces, what is so strange that Morelos, lacking in enlightenment, spoke naturally of offering Texas to the United States in exchange for a few rifles?

Aaron Burr, too, an American character who later fell into disgrace, was preparing an expedition down the Mississippi. Its object, proclaimed by Jefferson, was the conquest of New Spain. It was not carried out because Spain was behind it. When we lacked Spain, the disaster of 1947 occurred.
 

The War of Independence

The Viceroy, in the meantime, organised a new army which he placed under the command of Don Félix María Calleja, a royalist general. On the plains of Aculco, northwest of the capital, Calleja waited with ten thousand men for Hidalgo’s one hundred thousand. They were a poorly armed rabble, composed mostly of Indians, and Calleja succeeded in destroying them.

The insurgent defeat was total. From that moment on Hidalgo’s only thought was flight. On his way north he was apprehended near Monclova. From there he was taken to Chihuahua, where he was executed after publicly recanting his entire enterprise.

On his passage through Michoacán, Hidalgo had received the support of the priest Don José María Morelos, his former pupil at the seminary of Valladolid. Morelos was not very enlightened. His ideas about his movement were those communicated to him by Hidalgo, who was confused about them. Hidalgo viewed the unmotivated slaughter of the Spaniards with distaste. Morelos, less educated, was more easily infected by the irritation of the mestizos and Indians against the Spanish. On Morelos’ side, American agents gained considerable influence. One of these agents, according to Alamán, was shot by Calleja. But not before he had witnessed with satisfaction the hecatombs of Spanish prisoners consummated by Morelos. The destruction of the Spaniards was necessary to destroy the country.

The lust for booty drove the multitudes against the Spaniard, for the dispossessed always hates he who has. The United States would have degenerated instead of prospering if, like us, they were engaged in persecuting Englishmen. On the contrary, Yankee policy has been to favour the immigration of English and Nordic people of all races related to their own. And the power of Argentina and Brazil is due to the fact that they continued to receive Spaniards and Portuguese respectively, at the same time that we were killing and expelling Spaniards. It was a drain on our ethnic aristocracy.

If on these and similar facts there is not the slightest doubt. If Morelos cannot be a model, neither as a military man nor as a patriot nor as a gentleman, why these unlimited glorifications? To raise to the highest summit of patriotic fame one who suffers from such scourges, takes away authority to demand from the officials and caudillos of the day, the elementary virtues of the man of honour. Because how can we ask from the common official what is not demanded of the hero? On the other hand, there is nothing sadder than a people whose history is not even clean. To keep it dirty is not the fault of the characters who appear in it, but the fault of the crowd of intelligentsia hired out to the vilest powers of the moment, who repeat legends and bestow thoughtless or perniciously motivated consecrations, often to cover up and justify the crimes of the present.

Categories
Axiology Ethnic cleansing Eugenics God Hitler's Religion (book) Miscegenation Racial right Richard Weikart

Hitler’s Religion: Chapter 10

On April 10, 1923, Hitler fulminated, “The liberation [of Germany] requires more than diligence; to become free requires pride, will, spite, hate, hate, and once again, hate.” A year earlier, he told a Munich crowd, “Christianity prescribes to us faith, hope and love. Love and hope cannot help us; only faith can, because it begets the will.” Hitler preached hate, spurned Christian love, and later ordered the murder of millions of innocent [sic] people, including Jews, Gypsies, Slavs, and people with disabilities.

 

______ 卐 ______

 

Note of the Editor: This is where we see the gulf between me and not only the author of Hitler’s Religion, but with white nationalists who don’t know how to hate to the point of becoming exterminationists.

 

______ 卐 ______

 

The notion that Hitler was a Nietzschean promoting an aristocratic morality and spurning the so-called slave morality of Christianity was a position already popularized in the 1930s and 1940s by Hermann Rauschning, a Nazi leader who jumped ship well before Hitler launched his war of aggression and genocide. Rauschning became a vociferous critic of Hitler from exile. On the basis of his personal contacts with Hitler, he claimed Hitler was an “Antichrist” waging a “deliberately planned battle against the dignified, immortal foundation of human society; the message from Mount Sinai.” Rauschning called this “Hitler’s Battle Against the Ten Commandments.” According to Rauschning, Hitler said he was fighting against “the curse of so-called morals, idolized to protect the weak from the strong in the face of the immortal law of battle, the great law of divine nature. Against the so-called ten commandments [sic], against them we are fighting.” Rauschning’s work is controversial and must be used cautiously, because he is not always accurate in his description of Hitler’s religious and philosophical stance. Nonetheless, it is interesting he intimated that Hitler’s religious position was either pantheistic or at least close to pantheism, since he put the words “divine nature” in Hitler’s mouth. He also testified that Hitler stated, “For our Volk it is decisive, whether they uphold the Jewish Christian faith with its morality of sympathy, or a strong heroic faith in God in nature, in God in one’s own Volk, in God in one’s own destiny, in one’s own blood.”

More recently, the German philosopher Gunnar Heinsohn has taken Rauschning’s position even further, arguing that the reason Hitler wanted to annihilate the Jews was to extinguish their moral teaching promoting the sanctity of life. No doubt Heinsohn is correct when he explains that Hitler embraced a social Darwinist position that was the polar opposite of Judaism’s ethics, which forbade murder and enjoined loving one’s neighbor. However, the problems with Heinsohn’s position are legion. First, most Christians believe in the Ten Commandments, too, and the prohibition against murder is just as pronounced in the Christian tradition as in Judaism, so why didn’t Hitler kill all Christians in his zeal to eliminate this ethical code?
 

______ 卐 ______

 

Note of the Editor: As Savitri Devi said, Hitler was one thing, Kalki will be another…

 

______ 卐 ______

 

When Hitler pursued policies that most of us consider evil, he was not, in his mind, abandoning moral considerations. On the contrary, he was convinced that what he was doing was not only morally justified, but morally praise-worthy.

I argued this point extensively in my previous book, Hitler’s Ethic: The Nazi Pursuit of Evolutionary Progress, where I identify Hitler’s ethical position as a racist form of evolutionary ethics. Hitler believed that whatever promoted evolutionary progress was morally good, and anything that hindered progress or led to biological degeneration was reprehensible. In his view, any moral system, code, or commandments must be judged according to how it contributes to the biological advancement (or regression) of humanity. His belief that the Aryan or Nordic race was superior to all other races led him to this corollary: Whatever benefits the Nordic race is moral. Wolfgang Bialas’s recent analysis of Nazi ethics agrees largely with this interpretation of Hitler’s thought. Bialas states, “The Nazi worldview clearly had an ethical dimension, rooted in notions of an evolutionary ethic that legitimized the struggle for existence.” Indeed, so many historians have argued that social Darwinism was a central tenet of Nazi ideology that this idea is considered commonplace.

Since Hitler based his ethical views on natural laws, especially evolutionary laws, this means that Christian ethics were not sacrosanct. Some elements of Christian morality might, in Hitler’s view, comport with the laws of nature and thus be valid. Other Christian commandments, however, needed to be discarded as relics of the benighted, prescientific past. Indeed, many historians have noted the fundamentally anti-Christian thrust of Hitler’s ethics. Alan Bullock, an early biographer of Hitler, explains, “In Hitler’s eyes Christianity was a religion fit only for slaves; he detested its ethics in particular. Its teaching, he declared, was a rebellion against the natural law of selection by struggle and the survival of the fittest.” Another biographer, Joachim Fest, notes that Hitler wanted to replace Judeo-Christian morality with the “indubitable will of Nature.” Claudia Koonz, in her insightful study titled The Nazi Conscience, argues that Nazism preached and practiced a coherent moral ideology that was an “absolutist secular faith” contrary to Christianity. The Holocaust historian Robert Wistrich also stresses the anti-Christian character of the Nazi moral vision, stating, “For at the heart of Nazism, despite its cunning pretense of ‘positive Christianity,’ there was a deep-seated rejection of the entire civilization that had been built on Judeo-Christian ethics.” Ulf Schmidt, who specializes in the history of medicine and medical ethics under Nazism, likewise interprets Nazi ideology as a departure from Christian moral teaching. He asserts, “Nazism reveals a fundamental break with Judeo-Christian ethics, an attack against a traditional belief system based on altruism and compassion”…

By the time he made this statement in October 1941, German physicians following his orders had murdered over 70,000 Germans with disabilities, and German killing squads operating in Soviet territories had massacred multitudes of Jews and communist officials…

Another way that Hitler’s morality diverged from Christian norms was that he ignored or reinterpreted what Jesus called the most important commandment: “You shall love the Lord your God with all your heart, with all your soul, and with all your strength.” Hitler did love nature, so perhaps in some sense he did love his pantheistic God. However, Jesus was quoting from the Old Testament, where the Lord specified was Yahweh. Hitler certainly did not love that God, whom he identified as the God of the Jews.

Further, Hitler continually insisted that God was inscrutable and unknowable, unlike in Christianity, where one could cultivate a personal, loving relationship with Him. One cannot communicate with the impersonal kind of God that Hitler believed in. (I do not give much weight to Hitler’s public invocations to God in his speeches, since they seem to have been intended for his audience, not as a sincere effort to communicate with God.) In any case, Hitler never encouraged people to love God and cultivate a relationship with Him, so whatever positions he took on other questions of ethics, he missed the central tenet of Christian morality…

What Hitler thought he discovered through reason was that nature was ruled by the struggle for existence, and humans could not escape this natural law. He believed that the struggle for existence had produced everything, including humanity, and would continue to lead to biological progress. Gilmer Blackburn expresses a view widely shared by historians when he explains the primacy of struggle in Hitler’s worldview: “If the Nazi dictator entertained convictions that could be termed ‘religious,’ his creed began and ended with the struggle for existence.” In Hitler’s view, then, morality consisted of submitting to the universal law of the struggle for existence by fighting one’s enemies and triumphing—or else perishing —in the contest. Only through this struggle could humanity thrive and progress. Trying to evade the struggle would only lead to decline and biological degeneration.
 

______ 卐 ______

 

Note of the Editor: What to make of the pacifism of Greg Johnson and other white nationalist pundits, for whom the concept of Holy Racial Wars is anathema?

 

______ 卐 ______

 

He then scoffed at those who thought they could contravene the laws of nature and extinguish the instinct for preservation: “For only then [if the self-preservation instinct could be eliminated] could one try to implement the statutes of a League of Nations or the Geneva Convention, in the place of the law of the all-powerful nature (Allgewalt Natur) that has been valid since the beginning of all life on this earth.” He then asserted that the “unbreakable laws of nature” will continue to hold sway over the struggle for existence between humans in the future. Hitler’s use of the term “all-powerful nature” (Allgewalt Natur) implies pantheism, since it ascribes to nature a characteristic—omnipotence— exclusive to deity. Further, he clearly invoked natural laws, especially the struggle for existence, as the arbiter of morality…“Whether man agrees to or rejects this harsh law makes absolutely no difference,” he said. “Man cannot change it; whoever tries to withdraw from this struggle for life does not erase the law but only the basis of his own existence”…

Hitler deduced two key principles from the need to wage the struggle for existence: the right to destroy those who are weaker and the right to take living space, i.e., land, from them. These themes reverberate through many of Hitler’s speeches and writings, and found their ultimate fulfillment in his genocidal policies during World War II…

In another passage in Mein Kampf which addresses the need to promote population expansion, he articulated the social Darwinist perspective that this process would result in the weak perishing in the competition for limited resources… He then spelled out the consequences of his pro-natalist policy more clearly: “A stronger race will drive out the weak, for the vital urge in its ultimate form will, time and again, burst all the absurd fetters of the so-called humanity of individuals, in order to replace it by the humanity of Nature which destroys the weak to give his place to the strong”…

In the struggle for existence in nature, many organisms are exterminated, so, Hitler queried, why should we suppose that this would be different for human races, some of which are not far separated from apes? Hitler warned against moralizing about this struggle or the destruction of the inferior creatures of the earth (such as other human races), stating, “On this earth the right of the stronger holds sway, the right of struggle and the right of victory; if you think that rights prevail, then you are deceiving yourself.” The struggle is good in itself, Hitler claimed, because it prevents degeneration, which would otherwise occur…

During World War II, Hitler continually justified his genocidal policies by appealing to the laws of nature, especially in “secret speeches” given to military cadets and officers. (Some of these “secret speeches” had thousands in attendance; in this respect, they were hardly secret. However, they are called “secret speeches” because they were not open to the general public and not published at the time, as many of Hitler’s speeches were.) In May 1944, Hitler lectured his military leadership about the reasons they needed to be relentlessly harsh in the war. Hitler insisted that nature knows nothing of tolerance, but rather eliminates the weak:

“There is no tolerance in nature. Nature is, if I take ‘tolerant’ as a human concept, the most intolerant thing that has ever existed. It destroys everything that is not capable of living, that will not or cannot defend itself; it eliminates them…”

Later in this speech, Hitler broached the topic of his harsh anti-Jewish policies, and though he did not specifically mention the mass extermination of the Jews, he certainly implied it. He insisted that his policy of “driving out” the Jews was “just as nature does it, not brutal, but rational, in order to preserve the better ones [i.e., the Germans].” He then answered those who might wonder if this could have been accomplished in a less cruel fashion: “We stand in a struggle for life and death.” Anything that helped the Aryans preserve their race in this struggle was morally right, Hitler informed them. Thus, cruelty, oppression, murder, and even genocide were morally justified, in his view, if they advanced the cause of the German people.

During his Nuremberg Party Congress address in 1929, Hitler indicated one of the corollaries to his view that the strong should prevail over the weak: infanticide for those deemed inferior. He hoped to take the “natural process of selection” into his own hands if he came to power by “acting deliberately according to racial laws.” He then praised Sparta for having practiced infanticide, and he criticized modern European societies for setting up institutions to care for the weak and sickly…

By killing approximately 200,000 disabled Germans during World War II, Hitler thought he was pleasing God.

When Hitler spoke about the triumph of the stronger in the struggle for existence, he was of course rooting for the home team: the German people, whom he believed to be racially superior, because they had substantial portions of so-called Aryan or Nordic racial elements in their blood. Though at times Hitler called the German Volk a creation of God and indeed “the highest image of the Lord,” on many other occasions he actually deified the German Volk. In his May Day speech in 1923, he told his audience that National Socialists needed to learn to love their Fatherland and Volk with a fanatical love that “allows no other idols beside it.” Seeing divinity in the German Volk is consistent with a pantheistic view, where God pervades everything.

Hitler’s devotion to the German Volk was in some ways even more pronounced than his devotion to the inscrutable God, because the German Volk was closer at hand. Hitler never quite figured out how to worship his unknowable Providence, but he did find ways to serve the German people (or, at least, he thought he was serving them). He often claimed that the German Volk was supreme on this earth and the object of his complete faith and commitment. In October 1935, he denied that he was subject to anyone except his own conscience. Then he continued, “And this conscience has but one single commander (Befehlsgeber): our Volk!” Two days earlier, he made a similar statement: “The Volk alone is our Lord (Herr), and we serve this Volk according to our best knowledge and conscience.” Both these statements would be blasphemous for anyone believing in a monotheistic god that transcends the German Volk. If Hitler had been a monotheist, he should have confessed God as the commander of his conscience, not the Volk. If he were a Christian, he should have confessed Jesus as his Lord.

 

______ 卐 ______

 

Note of the Editor: If white nationalists had their race as their God and not Jesus, they would celebrate Uncle Adolf’s birthday every April 20, not Jesus’ putative birthday. Think of Parrish’s Daybreak painting on this site to see what we mean by God: not just any kind of life but the most sublime, including majestic Nature.

 

______ 卐 ______

 

Just a few days after he came to power in February 1933, he preached to his fellow Germans that the Volk was the highest value they could pursue. They were engaged in a struggle in which the goal was “the preservation of this Volk and this soil, the preservation of this Volk for the future, in the realization that this alone can constitute our reason for being”…

Hitler served a God and cultivated a conscience that did not care if some people were exterminated in the global struggle for existence. His God only cared about the strongest, the ablest, and the most intelligent—and Hitler was convinced that the German people embodied these traits better than any other race.

 

______ 卐 ______

 

Editor’s note: If the Western traitors had not thrown so much manure on Hitler’s memory, his words and not those of David Lane would be our sacred words, as Adolf’s precede Dave’s.
 

______ 卐 ______

 

How did Hitler’s vision of the supremacy of the German Volk and his utter disregard for other peoples fit into the Christian command to love your neighbor as yourself, which Jesus called the second most important commandment?… Hitler’s insistence that Germans should hate or harm their racial enemies, rather than love them, demonstrates once again his opposition to Christian morality…

When Hans Frank asked Hitler what he read at the Western Front during World War I, Hitler replied that at first he read the Gospels. Later, he gladly set them aside, he said, in part because “the story about turning the other cheek, when one receives a blow, is not a good prescription for the Front.” In December 1941, Goebbels recorded in his diary that Hitler rejected Christianity because of its Sermon on the Mount morality.

Christianity, Hitler claimed, “is Jewish in its entire essence. A religion that proceeds from the principle that one should love his enemies, may not kill, and must offer the left cheek when struck on the right one, is not suitable for a manly doctrine of defending one’s Fatherland. Christianity is in fact a doctrine of decay. For a modern person it deserves only intellectual disdain.”

Hitler’s contempt for Christian morality, including some of the Ten Commandments (such as the prohibition on killing), was palpable. Certainly many versions of Christianity had interpreted loving one’s enemies and turning the other cheek in such a way that did not apply to many areas of life, such as warfare. However, no one committed to Christian morality would directly criticize a commandment of Jesus—or one of the Ten Commandments—as Hitler did.

Not only did Hitler not consider other races part of the same moral community with the German Volk, but he also construed them as competitors in the racial struggle for existence. Thus he held that destroying people of other races is not only morally permissible, but morally good and right…

In 1933, Hitler could not publicly spell out what suppressing other races meant, because he was still trying hard to deceive the world into thinking he was a man of peace so he could remilitarize without outside interference. However, after the genocidal war on the Eastern Front was in full swing, Hitler divulged his racial philosophy in all its brutality to his entourage. In a monologue in October 1941, Hitler expounded his philosophy of conquest and racial annihilation. He planned to sift through the people in the conquered territories of the East to find racially desirable elements that could be preserved. However, Russians living in the cities “must completely die off. We need not have any pangs of conscience about this,” because “we do not have any responsibility toward these people.” The Germans’ task, Hitler asserted, was to settle these territories with Germans and treat the natives as American Indians had been treated.

Hitler denied, however, that he had any hatred for these people. Rather, he was acting with cool deliberation. He remarked, “I am approaching this matter ice-cold. I feel that I am only the executor of a historical will [i.e., a will guiding historical development]”… Hitler asserted: “Heaven only recognizes power.” He then sarcastically dismissed the “principle that all humans should love one another”…

Hitler considered expansionist warfare a part of the God-ordained racial struggle. This was a constant theme in Mein Kampf and in many of his speeches, especially during World War II. It was also the primary message of his Second Book, where he claimed that the earth is not given once and for all to anyone, but rather is on loan from Providence to those courageous enough to take possession of it and strong enough to hold onto it. Once again, Hitler thought the stronger race had God on its side, even as it crushed the weaker. “Therefore,” he asserted, “every healthy native people sees nothing sinful in the acquisition of land, but rather something natural.” The “modern pacifist,” he continued, “who repudiates this most holy right” lives off past injustices.
 

______ 卐 ______

 

Editor’s note: Once more: Johnson et al…

 

______ 卐 ______

 
In a December 1940 speech, Hitler enunciated similar social Darwinist themes that virtually quoted from his Second Book and reiterated major points he made in Mein Kampf. People ignore these wise but harsh laws at their peril, according to Hitler, because those not strong enough to prevail in the struggle have forfeited their right to exist.

In a monologue in October 1941, Hitler contrasted his philosophy of expansionist warfare with Christianity. He presented war as essentially a struggle over land and resources, and, as he did so often in other venues, justified killing in warfare by appealing to the pitiless struggle in nature. War, he stated, “corresponds to the principle in nature, ever to bring about selection through struggle: The law of existence demands uninterrupted killing, so that the better will live. Christianity is rebellion against this fundamental principle, a protest against the creation; followed consistently, it would lead to the breeding of the inferior”…

Hitler’s belief that nature imposed a moral imperative to expand the population had profound implications for his views on sexual morality. His pro-natalist sexual morality had some points of contact with traditional Christian views, since the Catholic Church opposed contraception, abortion, prostitution, and homosexuality. However, Hitler’s opposition was based on entirely different premises. Hitler only opposed them to the extent that they interfered with increasing the number of healthy Nordic babies, which was the ultimate goal of his sexual morality. In the case of contraception and abortion, Hitler favored contraception and abortion for those deemed biologically inferior. In July 1933, Hitler passed a decree that resulted in the compulsory sterilization of about 350–400,000 Germans with disabilities. While prohibiting abortion for healthy Germans, abortions for Germans with disabilities were required, and Jews and other racial “undesirables” were allowed to practice abortion.

One of the most important commandments in Hitler’s sexual morality was thou shalt not mix your blood with other races. While the Catholic Church forbade intermarriage between Catholics and non-Catholics, Hitler forbade intermarriage and sexual relations between Germans and Jews, regardless of their religious convictions.
 

______ 卐 ______

 

Note of the Editor: As my ancestors were Spanish, I am fascinated by the origins of the tragedy of ancient Hispania. When the values were standing, the Visigoths burned at the stake those who interbred with the Iberian mudbloods. That all changed with what the Visigothic king Recceswinth did, who, being duped by the Christians, transvalued the most vital value: from trying to keep the bloodline pure to what would become in Spain the burning at the stake of heretics. The astronomic blunder of Recceswinth dates back to the 7th century. Weikart, as a good Christian, lives under the sky of the inverted values bequeathed to us by Christianity; so in this passage, and his book in general, he sees everything in a photographic negative (as does every Christian and neochristian in the West who condemns Hitlers’ eugenics).

 

______ 卐 ______

 

For Hitler, it was a sin— punishable by law after the Nuremberg Laws were promulgated in 1935— for a Catholic of Aryan descent to marry a Catholic with Jewish grandparents. Hitler also forbade intermarriage of Germans with Slavs but encouraged German intermarriage with the Norwegians or Dutch, because they were deemed fellow Nordic peoples…

Goebbels noted that Hitler was not prudish but viewed sexual morality from an entirely different perspective than Christians did. Hitler thought, “We must also view this question [sexual morality] from the standpoint of its utility for the Volk. That is our morality.” The main point, according to Hitler, was to get as many children as possible for the Volk.

Because he favored marriage and procreation, Hitler was incensed that the Catholic Church taught celibacy for priests and nuns. In his view, this robbed the German people of its potential and weakened it in its struggle with other races. In October 1941, Hitler lamented that Catholicism encouraged some women to forgo marriage. However, even more important than marriage, Hitler intoned, was that women bear children: “Nature doesn’t care at all, whether before-hand a declaration is made in the presence of witnesses! Nature wants the woman to have a child.” This demonstrates once again that, for Hitler, nature dictated morality. In this case, the morality it dictated was that extramarital sexual relations were perfectly fine, as long as they resulted in more healthy German babies.

Categories
Ethnic cleansing Final solution Holocaust Reinhard Heydrich Souvenirs et réflexions d'une aryenne (book) Third Reich

Reflections of an Aryan woman, 59

One can compare the action of the Einsatzgruppen against the Jews in Germany and in the countries occupied by the armies of the Third Reich with that of the Einsatzgruppen in the Eastern territories.

In both cases, according to the instructions given by Reinhard Heydrich in May 1941 to the leaders of the latter, the aim was to ‘mercilessly destroy all past, present and future opposition to National Socialism’[1] that is, to eliminate as many actual or potential enemies of the new Germanic faith and Empire as possible. In both cases, the action revealed a scale of values in complete opposition to all anthropocentrism or a scale of values completely devoid of hypocrisy. For war is in itself the negation of any anthropocentric faith or philosophy—especially war between men of different races and civilisations, some of whom regard the habitat of others as necessary, or favourable, to their development. Himmler remarked that the Anglo-Saxon pioneers in North America had ‘exterminated the Indians and only wanted to live on their native land’.[2]

And the fiercest anti-Hitlerites are forced to admit that he was right, and that there is no ‘respect for the human person’ in the attitude of the founders of the US towards the real Americans. It is all too easy, after the fact, when you have installed your democracy over the entire surface of a continent practically emptied of its inhabitants, whose race you have destroyed in the most cowardly way by alcohol, it is easy then, I say, to proclaim that the age of violence is over; to forbid others to carve out a ‘living space’ for themselves as you have carved out one for yourself and, should their effort end in failure, to bring them before a parody ‘International Tribunal’ as ‘criminals against humanity’.

This is easy. But it is an indictment of lies; of bad faith. It also accuses a secret and sordid envy: that of the dwarf towards the giant; that of the plutocrat in search of new markets, towards the warrior capable of frank and detached violence; that, too, of all the proud citizens of shaky colonial powers towards the conquering Third Reich, at the height of its glory.

In both actions—that of the Einsatzgruppen in Poland and Russia, and that against the Jews everywhere—the leaders of the Third Reich had men from conquered countries treated or allowed to be treated as the founders of the US had treated the Redskins, but with less tartuffery. They openly admitted that ‘the tragedy of greatness is to create new life by treading on corpses’:[3] corpses of which it doesn’t matter how many if the ‘new life’ is closer to its divine prototype; if it is more faithful to the supreme values than the life that is disappearing. And they sincerely believed it was, or would be (and indeed it would have been, if Germany had won the war).

______ 卐 ______

 
Editor’s Note: Some who come to comment on this site continue to do so without understanding that we are in a fight with the white nationalist POV. Here again is what we have said so many times:

This is a site for apprentices to fourteen-word priests (or a priestess, if a woman wants to become someone very similar to Savitri Devi, which I consider highly unlikely).

The gulf between the priest and the white nationalist is that the former has already transvalued Christian values to pre-Christian values, and regards the genocide of enemies as highly moral and laudable. The latter suffers from what we call ‘ogre of the superego’ inspired by Christianity, thus imagining the Nazis as if they weren’t killers but good Christians (like the Americans).

Those who want to know the real history of the Third Reich would do well to note that, among Reich sympathisers, the most knowledgeable don’t go around denying the genocides committed by the Nazis (e.g., Max Weber and David Irving). Or don’t they still notice these German words?

___________

[1] Quoted by André Brissaud in Hitler and the Black Order, 1969 edition, page 319.

[2] Confidences in Kersten (see Kersten’s book, Les mains du miracle, page 319).

[3] André Brissaud, Hitler and the Black Order, 1969 edition, page 309.

Categories
Ethnic cleansing Racial right Souvenirs et réflexions d'une aryenne (book)

Reflections of an Aryan woman, 58

In a talk of 15 January 1942, the Führer alluded to the alarming increase in the population of India: an increase of fifty-five million in ten years[1], all the more alarming, one might say, because in this remote and last bastion of a properly Aryan religious and metaphysical tradition, it is the low castes, the aborigines and Eurasians—the non-Aryans and half-breeds—who are multiplying at the most insane rate, while the few millions of Aryans who have succeeded for sixty centuries in surviving more or less purely in a vast multiracial atmosphere, represent a growing minority.
 

______ 卐 ______

 
Editor’s Note: Savitri lived there and was married to one of them. If she didn’t depend on them, she would have said that they are all mudbloods now.
 

______ 卐 ______

 
The few millions of Aryans who have managed to survive, more or less, for sixty centuries in a vast multiracial environment, represent an ever-smaller minority, and enjoy (and already enjoyed in 1942), thanks to the parliamentary system introduced by the British, less and less political influence. But this tragedy didn’t concern Germany at war. The Führer continued: ‘We are witnessing the same phenomenon in Russia: women there have a child every year. The main reason for this increase is the decrease in mortality due to the progress of hygiene. What are our doctors thinking about?’ [2]

Here we are dealing with the direct threat of indefinitely increased masses, which risk submerging and dissolving in their bosom the future German colonists of the Eastern Marches and, in the meantime, softening the combatants of the German army who are the least detached from the human-too-human; Aryan masses, no doubt but not Germanic, and which the fate of history has set against the Germans from the Middle Ages onwards, and later on, sometimes mixed with Mongolian blood. This is a danger for the German people and for the balance of the new world that the Führer dreamed of founding: the pan-European, if not pan-Aryan, Empire dominated by Germany.

Adolf Hitler wanted to avert this danger, and he was well aware that banning preventive hygiene measures wouldn’t be enough. Therefore, according to Rauschning’s report, he had envisaged more radical measures—still in the spirit of the immemorial Law of the Jungle, the ‘struggle for life’, which the superior man has to apply above all to other men of inferior quality because they are his real rivals on earth: they, and not the noble beasts, aristocrats of the forest, savannah or desert nor the trees, the ornament of the soil.

‘Nature is cruel’, declared the Fighter against Time, ‘so we have the right to be too. At the moment when I am going to throw into the hurricane of iron and fire the flower of Germanism, without feeling any regret for the precious blood that is going to flow in torrents, who could dispute with me the right to annihilate millions of men of inferior races who are multiplying like insects, and whom I shall not, moreover, exterminate, but whose growth I shall systematically prevent—for example by separating men from women for years’?[3]
 

______ 卐 ______

 
Editor’s Note: Wow and triple wow!

I have long fantasised that the Europeans who conquered the Americas should have taken all the Indian males to the Atlantic shores and all the Indian females to the Pacific shores (of course: interbreeding is forbid). I never imagined that the Führer had toyed with a similar idea…

But this is where it is seen that Christianity, a thousand times more than Judaism, is the Great Enemy of the white race. The church of Rome sent its friars to catechize the natives, to equalise them to the Iberian white through the sacred sacrament of marriage.

The rest is history. The West’s Darkest Hour is ignored by the racialist right for the simple fact that they don’t want to see something so obvious. Savitri continues:
 

______ 卐 ______

 
And again: ‘For so many centuries we have been talking about the protection of the poor and miserable. The time has perhaps come to preserve the strong, who are threatened by their inferiors’.[4]
 

______ 卐 ______

 
Editor’s Note: When the slogan of the American white nationalist reads ‘Umwertuung aller Werte’ in German, not in English, we will know that the movement will have reached its maturity.

______ 卐 ______

 
Finally, it is hardly necessary to recall that this ‘directed economy of population movements’[5] through which he hoped to be able, outside the Germanic world, to check the tendency to overpopulation characteristic of the Dark Ages, represented only one aspect of his activity against the trends of this Age. A parallel, more visible and more brutal action—such as the much-maligned and misunderstood Einsatzgruppen—was later to complement it.

While all the Führer’s wisdom must be presented as a return to the Eternal Principles, his methods are reminiscent of those of antiquity, in the total absence of ‘conscience’ and hence of remorse, both in him, who was responsible for them, and in the men who applied them.

The suppression of human waste among his people is reminiscent of the summary treatment in Sparta of unwelcome newborns, whom the ephors deemed unworthy of being raised. And the action of its Einsatzgruppen in Poland and Russia—among the plethora of enslaved populations always ready to revolt—is singularly reminiscent of that of the merciless Spartan krypteia among the Helots. Both were, above all, actions of preventive defence implemented against a swarming of defeated people that the mere awareness of their numbers incited to raise their heads, and that nothing could push them to set up a force against their conquerors.

An enthusiastic statement by the Führer shows, moreover, better than long comments, his eminently revolutionary attitude and his contempt for the modern world—which he knew, anyway, doomed and which he dreamed of destroying: ‘Well, yes, we are Barbarians, and we want to be Barbarians. It is a badge of honour. We are the ones who will rejuvenate the world. The present world is near its end. Our only task is to tear it down.[6] That is, to destroy it in order to build on its ruins a world in accordance with eternal values, with the original meaning of things. [7]
___________

[1] Libres propos sur la Guerre et la Paix (op. cit) page 203.

[2] Ibid.

[3] Hermann Rauschning, Hitler m’a dit, (op. cit), pp. 159-60.

[4] Ibid. p. 160.

[5] Ibid.

[6] Ibid.

[7] Mein Kampf, German edition 1935, page 440.

Categories
Ethnic cleansing Exterminationism Final solution Racial right

‘America delenda est’: A step in the right direction

Thomas Dalton’s article (‘America Must Die—So That the People Can Live’) published last week in The Occidental Observer potentially could be a stepping stone in the right direction to help white nationalists cross the psychological Rubicon into National Socialism:

Hence, early America prospered and flourished in spite of, not because of, Christianity; in spite of, not because of, Blacks and Jews; and in spite of, not because of, the principle of equality. Blacks, Jews, “equality,” and Christianity were millstones around the young nation’s neck.

Wow! We seldom read anything similar on Kevin MacDonald’s webzine. Dalton continues:

Therefore, it is time to accept reality and give up America for lost. Put away your flags, your pins, and all your red-white-and-blue paraphernalia. Toss out your MAGA hats; America will never be “great again.” Anyone who tells you otherwise is a liar or a fool. The country is rotting from above and below. Vermin are calling the shots from on high, and human detritus washes in over the borders. This was precisely how Ancient Rome fell. Such is the terminal stage of many an empire.

Indeed. But in the case of that melting pot called Imperial Rome, the nordish invaders were the good guys.

More specifically, my above analysis suggests the following steps: (a) Break up the existing United States into smaller, more cohesive, more homogenous, and more manageable units. (b) In these new units, encourage all non-Whites, and especially all Jews, to emigrate as soon as possible. (c) Discard the pernicious concept of human equality and replace it by a celebration of the higher, the nobler, and the best. (d) Replace industrial democracy with something like an aristocracy.

(c) and (d) sound like what we have been calling the transvaluation of values on this site.

Only full-blown secession can hope to get to the root of the problem… Native Americans were of course here before the White Europeans, and that precedence needs to be respected, such as via truly autonomous homelands. And since Blacks were forcibly brought here from Africa (with heavy Jewish involvement), I would have no issue with assisting their return to Africa with subsidized travel arrangements, a small one-time cash payment, or with the use of political leverage in Africa to aid their repatriation. We can ease the transition, but out they must go.

Amerind presence needs to be respected? In the comments section a commenter replied: ‘The idea that roughly 45 million blacks will return to Africa for a small cash payment is laughable and in my humble opinion that is the crux of America’s issues’.

True, and that’s because the measures proposed by Dalton are still confined to Christian ethics, not to an ethic that is genuinely transvalued (cf. my latest comment about The Turner Diaries).

A step in the right direction doesn’t mean that Dalton or those who read his piece have finished crossing the axiological river. It’s only a stepping stone. Compare the above quote with the methods used by The Organization in Pierce’s great novel.

America is dying a slow and painful death. Let us euthanize the long-suffering nation, redraw the boundaries, rethink the guiding principles, and begin again.

Although Dalton is author and editor of several texts with a special focus on German National Socialism, he didn’t dare to think like those who forged the Master Plan East: ethnic cleansing à la Himmler so that the Aryan race could flourish in peace. Fortunately, a couple of commenters said the obvious in the comments section of MacDonald’s webzine.

Last Tuesday, commenter Tito said: ‘Perhaps the very finest essay so far offered on this essential site. Our Aryan species has little time to rescue itself, a project demanding we disavow our irrational prejudice against genocide’. Angelicus responded: ‘Brilliant observation. Unfortunately, most of the so-called nationalists in the USA and Europe are infected with stupid and totally misplaced ideas of honour and decency, mostly thanks to that poisonous creed called Christianity…’

Those who want to go deeper into the subject can read On Exterminationism, linked on the sidebar.

Categories
Democracy Ethnic cleansing Monarchy

The North remembers

‘The North Remembers’ is the second season premiere episode of HBO’s fantasy television series Game of Thrones, first aired on April 1, 2012. Since I’m using the series as Rorschach images to project ideas of my own now that I see the series again, I confess that nothing new has come to mind except to reiterate what I’ve said.

(Jack Gleeson as Joffrey Baratheon.) The teenage King Joffrey begins to emerge as the villain of the first few seasons. Acting under his orders the king’s Guard, led by Commander Janos Slynt, tracks down and murders several of the late King Robert Baratheon’s bastard children, including babies under the screams of their mothers.

Still, if we assume a return to the monarchy in the 21st century, even a scoundrel like Joffrey could be infinitely better than any current democratic government. Without checks and balances but under the motto L’État c’est moi, a single king could expel the millions of non-whites from his lands. Under democracy, no current president could do something similar, even if he wanted.

Categories
Ethnic cleansing Eugenics Nordicism Racial right Third Reich

Lebensraum, 4

‘White’ to me just means ‘European’, which includes a whole range of skin tones, from the whitest white to brown.

–Greg Johnson

Abducting the future Sabine women

The image below says: ‘New Wolf’ [see first comments below] and below other letters seem to indicate that it is a text for the racial policies of the NSDAP.

To found Rome, on this site I have talked a lot about the abduction of the beautiful Sabine women, who belonged to an ethically related people of the Spartans. We have also talked about how the Spartan state nationalised small kids to garrison them.

But neither Sparta nor Republican Rome still suffered from the miscegenation that would fall on Europe centuries later. Since the extensive interbreeding with mudbloods was already well advanced in the last century, the Germans were forced to kidnap the most Nordish-like children from the conquered countries to educate them as god intended.

If the white race is to be saved, these kinds of measures will have to be retaken along with the repudiation of white nationalists who, following the egalitarian fashions of the darkest times in the West, reject Nordicism. Let’s just compare the above heading to the policies of the NSDAP and we will understand what the word quackery means in my mouth when I refer to white nationalists.

But let’s go back to the non-quacks who wanted to save the race.

Despite the successes, Himmler admitted that Lebensborn households couldn’t produce enough children to fulfil his dream. Even counting German-speakers in newer regions, such as the Sudetenland, the Third Reich’s population didn’t exceed seventy-nine million, well below the 120 million that had been proposed.

To increase the number of inhabitants, Himmler gave the order to the soldiers of the occupied countries to abduct Nordic-looking children. This strategy was carefully put into practice in some areas of the East, especially Poland. The children were divided into two groups: those with Slavic features were deported to the east or became labour; those with Aryan features could be Germans with all their privileges. The result was a real hunt of blond and blue-eyed children.

After this examination, they were classified into three different categories: desirable, acceptable or undesirable. Having gypsy features automatically made a child undesirable, which, in practice, carried a death sentence. Many of them were sent to the camps.

The past of the chosen children was painstakingly erased. Usually they were told that their parents had died and, after giving them a new name with Germanic resonances, they were sent to Germany. (At this point it’s necessary to recall the quote from Who We Are in the last article of Daybreak in which Pierce tears his garments when speaking of the ethno-suicidal American custom of bestowing Hebrew names on children.) There they entered a home where they strictly forbade them to speak Polish. Those who were unable to learn German or who didn’t adapt to their new nationality would be sent back to Catholic Poland.

This same fate happened to the children of many other parents, including Czechoslovakia, Slovenia, and parts of the Soviet Union. One of them was Alexander Litau, originally from Crimea, who was only twenty months old when, in 1942, Germany invaded the peninsula. With his blue eyes and blond hair, the little boy matched exactly what the Germans were looking for. One day, some SS officers saw him playing in front of his house and took him away.

Alexander was first sent to Poland, where German doctors made sure that he was healthy and met all the requirements. The examination was thorough and it was found that the child didn’t have any Jewish traits. He was then placed in a Lebensborn home, Sonnenwiese (Sunny Meadow) in Kohren-Sahlis, Saxony. Here, now under the name Folker, he was offered up for adoption along with others.

‘My first memory is being in a room with thirty other children. People would come in there and they would line us up as if we were puppies looking for a new home. Those people were going to be my parents. They left and came back the next day. Apparently my “mother” wanted a girl, but my “father” preferred a boy… I placed my head on his knee and this was enough: I would be his son’, Folker recalled.

Categories
Abortion Autobiography Ethnic cleansing Eugenics Heinrich Himmler Infanticide Nordicism Third Reich

Lebensraum, 2

Demographic crisis

Four years earlier, in December 1935, the entity that would be in charge of the project, Lebensborn—Source of Life—had been created: a social assistance organisation whose main purpose was to offer different types of facilities for single mothers and their babies.

The German population had been declining for decades, and the country was suffering a severe demographic crisis. The birth rate, which at the beginning of the century was 35.8 children per thousand inhabitants, had fallen to 14.7 in 1933, the year of Hitler’s rise to power. For the Führer’s ambition to populate the eastern regions with Aryans, it was essential to reverse this trend. Himmler estimated that 120 million people were needed.

Family life and motherhood were promoted in various ways, notably with special marriage loans and grants for each birth to encourage Germans to bring more children into the world. At the same time, any information on contraception was suppressed and contraceptives were banned. Abortion was also outlawed, which was labelled ‘sabotage against the future of Germany’.

The idea of increasing the population with a large number of children of the superior race was firmly rooted in the mentality of the party. ‘If Germany had a million children a year and eliminated between 700,000 and 800,000 of the weakest, the result would probably be an increase in its strength’, Hitler had affirmed with conviction at a party meeting in 1929.

Here it is worth interpolating vignettes from my own life.

Non-consanguineous relatives had a son who was born the same year I was born. But this guy is mentally retarded, so terribly retarded that he once bit off his sister’s finger. Another case: the only friend with whom I spoke disparagingly about the race of the country in which we were born had a Down syndrome sister whose retardation was so great that, if they left her a few meters outside her apartment, she wouldn’t know how to return home: a lower IQ than a dog.

These real-life cases show that one must be truly lobotomised through Christian ethics to avoid what the ancient Greeks and Romans did with their defective babies. It is more than obvious that Christianity has fried the brains of the white parents of these people I know, and millions of others like them.

Among my relatives, only Uncle Beto admired Hitler. He once said having in mind, I believe, one of my handicapped cousins: ‘I would kill such a daughter and then I would go to hell!’ He meant that he’d kill her if she was his daughter. Although I was not a witness of this anecdote I guess that his sisters, my great-aunts, were scandalised by these kinds of pronouncements.

But let’s continue with the Third Reich.

‘If we could establish the Nordic race from Germany and, from this seedbed, produce a race of 200 million, the world would be ours’, Himmler eloquently expressed. A few months after its founding, Lebensborn opened Heim Hochland, the first home for pregnant women. For this, the National Socialists took over the building of a Catholic orphanage located in the town of Munich.

Initially, the institution could host up to thirty mothers and fifty-five children, and applicants were carefully screened. Only women who had the characteristics of the dominant race were admitted. Candidates had their skull measured, and only those with the highly coveted elongated skull, typical of the Aryans, were eligible for admission. They also had to meet other requirements, such as being blonde, having blue or green eyes, and being in good health.

Those who passed the test received the best care in exquisite surroundings as a reward. Homes were often in stately homes that, as in the case of Heim Hochland, had often been taken from Hitler’s enemies, and other mansions from Jews. The organisation’s headquarters in Munich was in a house that had been owned by the writer Thomas Mann, (who had six children with his Jewish wife). All homes were equipped with modern medical equipment and cared for by specialised medical personnel.

These luxurious conditions had their effect. In 1939, Gregor Ebner, Lebensborn’s medical director, informed Himmler that a total of 1,300 women had applied. Of these, 635 had been considered suitable due to their racial characteristics and their state of health.

The births went very well. While in Germany the mortality of newborns was six percent, in the homes of the Lebensborn Organisation this figure was reduced by half. ‘Deliveries are easy, without major complications, which is attributable to the racial selection and quality of women we welcome’, Ebner wrote proudly. Logically, all this had a high cost: 400 marks per mother. ‘It is not a great sacrifice if we can save a million children with good blood’, Ebner concluded.