web analytics

Category: Final solution

Categories
Deranged altruism Final solution

TRS v. CC

It seems that the beheaded babies story, despite Biden’s regurgitation of it, is fake news. But I wanted to add something to what I said yesterday about Greg Johnson. In his latest article, he responds to The Right Stuff’s (TRS) criticism of Johnson for his lukewarm stance on Israel. This is taken from the comments section of Counter-Currents:

 

______ 卐 ______

 

Teutonic Path said:

In this article [i.e., Johnson’s article] you said the exterminationist position is indefensible, yet unless I am mistaken everything after that did not say why. It would seem to me that if an ethnos dies out then the challenge of getting it into a single state also goes away. Are you saying it’s indefensible because it’s practically unworkable (potentially leading to bigger problems), or is it for a theoretical reason (e.g. ethics) that you don’t mention here?

 
Greg Johnson responded:

Mass murder is ethically indefensible.

 
Sherman McCoy said:

Perhaps the existence of my people matters more than your ethics.

 
Greg Johnson responded:

Good luck defending your people as a genocidal maniac.

 
Sherman McCoy said:

I’m sure the people in South Africa being butchered by feral negroids egged on by Yiddish Communists have the consolation, as they breathe their final pained and blood-soaked breaths, that at least they didn’t do anything unethical. Because the truly important thing for the future of white people is to make sure that we appear nice. Remember, fellow white nationalists: we’re working for a future where all the races join hands to sing Kumbaya together, presumably with Rabbi Shekelberg acting as conductor.

 
Greg Johnson responded:

If you think morality is just a matter of appearing nice, you might be a sociopath.

 
Max said:

A huge number of Jews and their shabbos goyim are openly exterminationists about Palestinians, at least in Gaza. And more than a few of them are exterminationists about Europeans and their diasporas. So I’m not quite sure why it’s “immoral” for us to advocate such a policy towards Jews. Perhaps it’s optically unwise to do so openly but you seem to be taking an absurd moralfagging position here, Greg. Perhaps a Kumbaya future where Jews renounce their supremacist ideology en masse and forever is possible, but that seems like an unlikely bet, knowing what we do about their history and their present behavior.

 
Greg Johnson responded:

Two wrongs don’t make a right. It is idiotic to use words like “moralfagging” unironically.

 
Sej said:

Agreed. Notice that people cheerleading mass murder of Israelis are the same that defend Russians’ mass murder of Ukrainians in Donbas and Crimea.

 
Norm said:

Jews do not share your anti-exterminationist sentiment, Greg. Go on Twitter and look at all the Jews gloating about the firebombing of Dresden. What Jews are doing to Gaza is what they’d do to Europe, and what they have done to Europe. Do you think you can co-exist with a people like that? Jews follow an ideology that commands them to wipe out all European people. You cannot defeat hate with reason.

 
Greg Johnson responded:

Two wrongs don’t make a right. Maybe you’d be more comfortable commenting at Jesse Dunstan’s site.

 
My two cents for this site:

It’s quite refreshing to listen in The Right Stuff podcast that they call Johnson a ‘traitor’.

This said, the problem with TRS is that, at least the guy who speaks after minute 15, is a Judeo-reductionist. He believes that from that little piece in the desert Israel controls the West: typical monocausal paranoia that ignores that it is whites who have been empowering Jewry because of their Judeo-Christian values. For example, when in 1:26 another TRS member said ‘fuck them’ to the exterminationists, he himself is unknowingly subscribing to Judeo-Christian standards of morality (exactly what Johnson does).

I don’t recognise well the voices but I think it was Mike who said, a few seconds after the hour, what I believe about the conflicts in both Ukraine and Palestine: Mike welcomes them because they create chaos. Just contrasts it with Johnson’s stance, who, as a good neochristian, simply wants peace and happiness for every party involved, including Jews (as Linder once said, Johnson is a de facto conservative).

Categories
Bible Final solution Judaism Laurent Guyénot Philosophy of history Racial right Who We Are (book)

How Yahweh conquered Rome, 3

Jews in Rome before the Jewish Wars

Long before it was repackaged for the Gentiles, the Big Lie was a Jewish self-delusion. As I have detailed at the end of my long article ‘Zionism, Crypto-Judaism and the Biblical Hoax,’ in the sixth and the fifth century BC in Babylon, a priestly elite from Jerusalem decided that Yahweh, the national god of Israel, although apparently vanquished, was in fact the only real god, and, by way of consequence, the Creator of Heaven and Earth. A laughable claim, but when the Persians conquered Babylon, those Jews, who found themselves in a favourable position after helping the Persians, set out to pretend that their theoclastic monotheism, based on the exclusion of all other gods, was identical to the tolerant monotheism of the Persians; in other words, that their tribal god Yahweh was Ahura Mazda, the God of Heaven. I have shown that the deception is clearly apparent in the Books of Ezra and Nehemiah, where only Persians are portrayed as believing that Yahweh is ‘the God of Heaven,’ while for the Israelites he is just ‘the god of Israel.’

What the priestly Jews achieved in Babylon in the fifth century BC was a preliminary stage for what another generation of the same priestly cast would start planning in the first century AD in Rome, after having been brought there in similar conditions of captivity. While Yahweh seemed again vanquished, he set out to conquer his victor from within. The conspiracy of Babylon’s Jews to fool the Persians with their phony monotheism was the blueprint for the more sophisticated conspiracy of Rome’s Jews to fool the Romans with Christianity.

Between those two stages, Jews seem to have convinced a portion of the Roman aristocracy that they were the first true monotheists, the worshipers of the true God. For Greeks and Romans, the supreme Creator was a philosophical concept, while religious cults were polytheistic by definition. That’s why, around 315 BC, the Aristotelian Theophrastus of Eresus thought of the Jews as ‘philosophers by birth,’ although he was troubled by their primitive holocausts. Some Jewish writers (Aristobulus of Paneas, Artapanos of Alexandria, or even Philo of Alexandria) had even succeeded in bluffing some Greeks with the wild claim that Homer, Hesiod, Pythagoras, Socrates and Plato had been inspired by Moses.[8]

Jews are mentioned in Rome as early as the second century BC. It has been surmised that they were mostly converted Phoenicians. Martin Bernal defends that thesis in Jews and Phoenicians, with the argument that ‘there is no evidence of Jews in the West Mediterranean before the destruction of Carthage [146 BC],’ but ‘after that date, they were widely reported there,’ while Phoenicians faded from the pages of history.

Phoenicians and Jews’ languages and cultures were virtually identical.[9] Peter Myers brings additional light in his well-sourced article ‘Carthaginians, Phoenicians & Berbers became Jews’, arguing that, ‘After the destruction of Carthage by Rome, many Carthaginians and Phoenicians converted to Judaism, because Jerusalem was the only remaining centre of West Semitic civilization.’

The Encyclopedia Judaica’s article on Carthage, quoted by Myers, supports that hypothesis, adding that the Phoenicians, by converting to Judaism after their political decline, ‘preserved their Semitic identity and were not assimilated by the Roman-Hellenistic culture which they hated.’ This theory, which also explains the mysterious origin of the Sephardim in Spain—a Carthaginian colony—, is of obvious importance to comprehend the attitude of Jews towards the Roman Empire, destroyer of the Phoenician civilization.

(Left, Flavius Josephus highlights the ancient affinity between Phoenicians and Jews.) In 63 BC, Rome’s Jewish community was enlarged with thousands of captives brought back from Judea by Pompey, and progressively freed (Philo of Alexandria, Legatio ad Caium, 156). It is believed that Julius Cesar introduced legislation to guarantee their religious liberty, and that the law was confirmed by Augustus, who also exempted them from military service. Emperor Claudius (41-54 AD) is said to have expelled the Jews from Rome (Suetonius, Claudius xv, 4; Acts 18:2), or at least forbidden them to congregate (Cassius Dio lx, 6). But they seem to have known favourable times under Nero (54-68), whose wife Poppaea Sabina is regarded as an Esther-type secret Jewess in Jewish tradition, because Jewish historian Flavius Josephus calls her ‘a God-worshipper’ (Antiquities of the Jews, xx, 195) and mentions her support for the release of Jewish priests prosecuted in Rome (Vita 16).[10]
 

______ 卐 ______

 
Editor’s note: When Greg Johnson criticised William Pierce’s Who We Are years ago, he argued that Pierce, with his suggestion that the ancient Aryans should have exterminated the non-Aryans, was saying something monstrous. Johnson even called ‘whites’ those mudblood Cauacsoids whom we now assume had Semitic, though not Jewish, blood.

White nationalism would be greatly enriched by admitting that the Judean war against Rome has been in reality a psychological war of the Semites (including non-Jews, such as the Phoenicians and the Carthaginians who survived the Third Punic War) against the Aryans. It is a great pathology that infects even white nationalism not want to see the macro-dynamics of the clash between Semites and Aryans that has been going on for millennia.

I blame Christian ethics for that. (Recall, for example, that a dozen years ago Johnson delivered homilies at his church in San Francisco. He has since abandoned Christianity and is now a pious neochristian—just read his The White Nationalist Manifesto.) If Christian ethics is to blame, for transvaluing Semitic values Pierce’s book should be the textbook of American racialists. But I understand that the copyright holders, the National Alliance, haven’t yet published it.

Or am I wrong?

___________

[8] Joseph Mélèze Modrzejewski, The Jews of Egypt, From Rameses II to Emperor Hadrian, Princeton University Press, 1995, pp. 48-49, 66.

[9] Martin Bernal, Geography of a Life, chap. 45, ‘Jews and Phoenicians,’ pp. 386-394.

[10] Nahum Goldmann, Le Paradoxe juif. Conversations en français avec Léon Abramowicz, Stock, 1976, p. 36; Heinrich Graetz, Histoire des Juifs, A. Lévy, 1882 (on fr.wikisource.org), tome I, p. 413-428.

Categories
Ancient Rome Antiochus IV Epiphanes Final solution Hadrian Horace Jerusalem Judaism Old Testament Seneca The Jesus Hoax (book) Vespasian and Titus

The Jesus Hoax, 4

 
CHAPTER 4: ONE AGAINST ALL

If the Jews are chosen by God, then everyone else is, of necessity, not chosen. If Jews are first class humans in the eyes of God, everyone else is second-class at best. And indeed, Jews do view themselves as distinct, special, and superior to others. As Exodus states, “We are distinct from all other people that are upon the face of the earth” (33:16). Similarly, the Hebrew tribe is “a people dwelling alone, and not reckoning itself among the nations” (Numbers 23:9).

Moses adds that “you shall rule over many nations” (15:6)… you shall eat the wealth of the nations” (61:5-6).

Clearly, when other people began to encounter these ideas and the attitudes that derived from them, one would expect a backlash. And there was. Hence we find a consistent thread of opinions from non-Jewish observers, for centuries, who are repelled by such arrogance…

The earliest direct references come from Aristotle’s star pupil Theophrastus. He had a concern about one of their customs: “the Syrians, of whom the Jews (Ioudaioi) constitute a part, also now sacrifice live victims… They were the first to institute sacrifices both of other living beings and of themselves”. The Greeks, he added, would have “recoiled from the entire business.” The victims—animal and human —were not eaten, but burnt as “whole offerings” to their God, and were “quickly destroyed.” The philosopher was clearly repelled by this Jewish tradition.

Egyptian high priest Manetho (ca. 250 BC) tells of a group of “lepers and other polluted persons,” 80,000 in number, who were exiled from Egypt and found residence in Judea… When in power they treated the natives “impiously and savagely,” “setting towns and villages on fire, pillaging the temples and mutilating images of the gods without restraint,” and roasting the animals held sacred by the locals. This is a very different version than we read in the Jewish Bible…

The decline of the Seleucids coincided with Roman ascent. Rome was still technically a republic in the second century BC, but its power and influence were rapidly growing. Jews were attracted to the seat of power, and travelled to Rome in significant numbers. As before, they grew to be hated. By 139 BC, the Roman praetor Hispalus found it necessary to expel them from the city: “The same Hispalus banished the Jews from Rome, who were attempting to hand over their own rites to the Romans, and he cast down their private alters from public places”. In even this short passage, one senses a Roman Jewry who were disproportionately prominent, obtrusive, even ‘pushy.’

Perhaps in part because of this incident, and in light of the Maccabean revolt some 30 years earlier, the Seleucid king Antiochus VII Sidetes was advised in 134 BC to exterminate the Jews… Apollonius Molon wrote the first book to explicitly confront the Hebrew tribe, Against the Jews.

The rhetoric is clearly heating up. In 63 BC, as we know, Roman general Pompey took Palestine. In the year 59 BC Cicero gave a speech, now titled Pro Flacco. The Jewish religion is “at variance with the glory of our empire, the dignity of our name, the customs of our ancestors.” That the gods stand opposed to this tribe “is shown by the fact that it has been conquered, let out for taxes, made a slave.”

Ten years later Diodorus Siculus wrote his Historical Library. Among other things, it again recounts the Exodus: “The refugees had occupied the territory round about Jerusalem, and having organized the nation of Jews had made their hatred of mankind into a tradition” (34, 1).

Here, though, it is Antiochus Epiphanes, not his successor Sidetes, that was urged “to wipe out completely the race of Jews, since they alone of all nations avoided dealings with any other people and looked upon all men as their enemies”.

The great lyric poet Horace wrote his Satires in 35 BC, exploring Epicurean philosophy and the meaning of happiness. At one point, though, he makes a passing comment on the apparently notorious proselytizing ability of the Roman Jews—in particular their tenaciousness in winning over others. Horace is in the midst of attempting to persuade the reader of his point of view: “and if you do not wish to yield, then a great band of poets will come to my aid, and, just like the Jews, we will compel you to concede to our crowd” (I.4.143). Their power must have been legendary, or he would not have made such an allusion.

The last commentator of the pre-Christian era was Lysimachus. Writing circa 20 BC, he offers another variation on the Exodus story. The exiled ones, led by Moses, were instructed to “show goodwill to no man,” to offer “the worst advice” to others, and to overthrow any temples or sanctuaries they might come upon. Arriving in Judea, “they maltreated the population, and plundered and set fire to the local temples.” They then built a town called Hierosolyma (Jerusalem), and referred to themselves as Hierosolymites.

The charge of misanthropy, or hatred of mankind, is significant and merits further discussion, especially in light of the Christian story.

 

Romans of the Christian Era

Emperor Tiberius expelled them in the year 19 AD. The expulsion did not succeed. Eleven years later, as we recall from chapter two, Sejanus found reason to oppose them again.

Anti-Jewish actions continued. In 49, Claudius once again had to expel them. In a fascinating line from Suetonius circa the year 120, we find mention of one ‘Chrestus’ (Latin: Chresto) as the leader of the rabble; this would be perhaps the fourth non-Jewish references to Jesus. “Since the Jews constantly made disturbances at the instigation of Chrestus, [Claudius] expelled them from Rome”. This is an important observation that, even at that late date, the Romans still identified Christianity with the Jews.

Despite all this, the beleaguered tribe still earned no sympathy. The great philosopher Seneca commented on them in his work On Superstition, circa 60. He was appalled not only by their ‘superstitious’ religious beliefs, but more pragmatically with their astonishing influence in Rome and around the known world, despite repeated pogroms and banishments. Seneca adds: “The customs of this accursed race (sceleratissima gens) have gained such influence that they are now received throughout all the world. The vanquished have given laws to their victors.”

Seneca is clearly indignant at their reach. Then came the historic Jewish revolt in Judea, during the years 66 to 70. The Romans were surely gratified; to their mind, the Jews received their just deserts.

In besieging Jerusalem, and consequently the mighty Jewish temple, Titus had the Jews trapped. There was thought of sparing the temple, but Titus opposed this option. For him, “the destruction of this temple was a prime necessity in order to wipe out more completely the religion of the Jews and the Christians.” These two religions, “although hostile to each other, nevertheless sprang from the same sources; the Christians had grown out of the Jews: if the root were destroyed, the stock would easily perish”. The passage closes by noting that 600,000 Jews were killed in the war.

The third and final Jewish uprising occurred just a few years later, in 132. The reasons for this were many, but two stand out: the construction of a Roman city on the ruins of Jerusalem, and Emperor Hadrian’s banning of circumcision: “At this time the Jews began war, because they were forbidden to practice genital mutilation (mutilare genitalia)”. Dio describes the conflict in detail. “Jews everywhere were showing signs of hostility to the Romans, partly by secret and partly overt acts”. They were able to bribe others to join in the uprising: “many outside nations, too, were joining them through eagerness for gain, and the whole earth, one might almost say, was being stirred up over the matter.” For those today who argue that Jews were perennially the cause of wars, this would provide some early evidence. Hadrian sent one of his best generals, Severus, to put down the insurgency. Through a slow war of attrition, “he was able to crush, exhaust, and exterminate them. Very few of them in fact survived.”

Finally we have Celsus, a Greek philosopher who composed a text, The True Word, sometime around 178. The piece is striking as an extended and scathing critique of the increasingly prominent Christian sect.

 

Conclusions

So what can we conclude from this brief overview of some 600 years of the ancient world? To say that the Jews were disliked is an understatement. The critiques come from all around the Mediterranean region, and from a wide variety of cultural perspectives. And they are uniformly negative. I note here that it’s not a case of ‘cherry-picking’ the worst comments and ignoring the good ones. The remarks are all negative; there simply are no positive opinions on the Jews or early Christians. A reasonable conclusion is that there is something about the Jewish culture that inspires disgust and hatred.

In any case, it’s clear that the Jews had few if any friends in the ancient world. Their religion instructed them to despise others (Gentiles), and others in turn despised them. But the originating source was the Jews themselves: their religion, their worldview, their values. They were willing to use and exploit non-Jews for their own ends. They were willing to kill, and to die.

This situation feeds directly into the circumstances of the Roman occupation and Paul’s reaction. The preceding analysis suggests that Paul was interested in nothing other than saving ‘Israel,’ the Jewish people. We have seen a few textual clues indicating that he was willing even to commit murder in order to further his ends. Surely he hated the Romans with a vengeance, and yet he also could see the futility of confronting them directly.

Categories
Final solution Holocaust Reinhard Heydrich Third Reich Tischgespräche

The Führer’s monologues (vii)

In his Anmerkungen zu Hitler, Sebastian Haffner argued that the character of the National Socialist leader was determined early on and ‘astonishingly always remained the same’. This is especially true of the basic ideological positions.[1] The proof was provided by Eberhard Jäckel in his study on Hitler’s Weltanschauung.[2]

Here we will only briefly touch on the thoughts that Hitler developed in the monologues recorded by Heim. The defeat of 1918, he thought, and the harsh terms of the peace treaty so wounded the national pride and self-confidence of the German people that they exerted all their strength to get out of the distress. Without the uncompromising attitude of the victorious powers of the First World War, it would never have been possible to inflame the national passions to such an extent, to achieve the will tension to regain the former world status. Hitler, in contrast to many of his followers and voters, sought it, however, only as a prerequisite for the establishment of a larger Reich, which at the same time was to become the organising power of a new Europe. To achieve this goal, no state should be in a position to oppose these aspirations. Hitler was deeply convinced that the land ‘according to eternal natural law’ belonged to the one who conquered it, ‘because the old borders did not offer sufficient possibilities for the growth of the people’ (table talk #117).

According to Hitler’s worldview, the first and most important prerequisite for the expansion of Germany’s sphere of power was the strengthening of the people’s vital energies, and the mobilisation of their readiness to fight. Since Hitler could not imagine history without war, he considered it necessary to educate the people to affirm the struggle for existence. He therefore consistently wanted the German people to wage war every fifteen to twenty years (table talk #17). Only in this way would they be able to summon up the utmost strength and maintain the necessary toughness. To get young and old, poor and rich, citizens and workers to identify with the National Socialist regime, to get them to unreservedly link their private existence with that of the state privileges were abolished, discrimination ended, and educational and promotional opportunities improved. Above all, the entire population was to be given access to the nation’s cultural assets. However, the National Socialist leadership reserved the right to determine what art was, and which works of music, poetry and painting corresponded to the consciousness of the people. In addition, Hitler expected everyone to take advantage of their opportunities, to make full use of the possibilities offered to them. If he failed to do so, if he deliberately withdrew from the struggle for life as demanded by the state, all support and tolerance would be withdrawn. The same applied to the people as a whole. Hitler spoke of them with appreciation and respect, and praised their diligence, loyalty and many other positive qualities. But he demanded that they accept the struggle and prove themselves in it. If they did not fight resolutely and bravely, if they showed symptoms of weakness, there was no excuse: ‘If the German people are not prepared to stand up for their self-preservation, fine: then let them disappear!’ (table talk #114)

Hitler himself spared no effort and no means to increase the strength and readiness to fight, but above all the inner unity of the nation. This was served by the attempt to bring as many people of German nationality as possible into the Reich from the occupied areas of Europe and other states, to have ethnic Germans or volunteers from related nations fight in units of the Wehrmacht or the Waffen-SS, and to enlist minorities or individual members of foreign nations, as far as they were considered assimilable, for cooperation.

The declared enemies of the regime were fought with the same uncompromising zeal that was used to select those who were considered useful and qualified according to ideological principles. These included, among others, Czechs, Poles, Russians and, first and foremost, the Jews. Hitler repeatedly emphasised with emphasis that there was no leniency for ‘aliens from the community’. It has recently been claimed that the deportation and murder of the European Jews took place without the knowledge of the German head of state.[3] According to another view, the order to kill them was only given after the conflict between rival forces had become so disastrous that there was no longer any alternative.[4] In my opinion, both theses are untenable. The assumption that the decision to the ‘final solution to the Jewish question’ in Europe was taken by Hitler in the face of the realisation that the war could no longer be decided militarily[5] is not confirmed either in these records or in other sources.

Hitler was the undisputed leader, he made or approved all essential decisions, including the most momentous of the whole war. The ‘removal’ of the Jews from Europe corresponded to the consistency of his worldview, as all his statements on this subject show. And the consequence of his actions from 1939 to 1941 can also be seen in the orders and measures he gave. The Einsatzgruppen that followed the German armies into Russia had clear instructions. On 31 July 1941, Heydrich was instructed to develop a concept for the removal of the Jews from the entire German sphere of power and influence. The fact that expulsion was no longer on the agenda is shown by the impediment and, from October 1941, the ban on all emigration. On 15 October the systematic deportation of Jews from Germany and the Protectorate of Bohemia and Moravia began.

Ten days later, on 25 October, Hitler declared in the presence of Himmler and Heydrich at the Führer’s headquarters: ‘Before the Reichstag I prophesied to Jewry that the Jew would disappear from Europe if the war was not avoided. This criminal race has on its conscience the two million dead of the World War, now hundreds of thousands again. Don’t tell me: We can’t send them into the mire! Who cares about our people? It is good if we are preceded by the terror of eradicating Judaism. The attempt to found a Jewish state will be a failure’ (table talk #44). Without a doubt, all the fundamental decisions were made at this time. Heydrich then made the technical and organisational arrangements so that in November he could invite the state secretaries of all the ministries involved to the house on Wannsee for a meeting on 9 December 1941. The date for the conference had to be postponed given the events on the Eastern Front, but the ‘Final Solution’ was not. It began in December 1941.

________

[1] Sebastian Haffner, Anmerkungen zu Hitler. Munich 1978.

[2] Eberhard Jäckel, Hitler’s Weltanschauung. Entwurf einer Herrschaft. Tübingen 1969.

[3] David Irving believes that Bormann, Himmler, Goebbels and others ruled the Reich while Hitler waged his war (Hitler’s War, p. 251). However, he fails to provide any convincing evidence for this.

[4] Martin Broszat, Hitler und die Genesis der »Endlösung« (Hitler and the Genesis of the ‘Final Solution’). On the occasion of David Irving’s theses. Vierteljahrshefte für Zeitgeschichte 25, 1977, p. 746 ff.

[5] Haffner, Anmerkungen zu Hitler (op. cit.) p. 157.

Categories
Exterminationism Film Final solution Savitri Devi Souvenirs et réflexions d'une aryenne (book)

Reflections of an Aryan woman, 60

Moreover, they acted and made others act without hatred or sadism.

To the American prosecutor Walton, who questioned him during his trial after the disaster, the SS Gruppenführer Otto Ohlendorf, Commander-in-Chief of Einsatzgruppe D, declared that a man ‘who showed pleasure in these executions was fired’,[1] which means that these executions were considered in high places, as well as in the ranks of the SS, as an unpleasant necessity; as a task to be accomplished without hesitation, certainly, but without joy as without disgust, with serene indifference, in the interest of the German Reich and soon Pan-Aryan, which was also ‘the interest of the Universe’.[2] In the mind of the Supreme Leader, Adolf Hitler, the expansion and transformation of the Reich was to initiate a global ‘recovery’ in the traditional sense of the word.
 

______ 卐 ______

 
Editor’s note: Perhaps it is worth confessing that, in my fantasies, I imagine the ‘extermination of the Neanderthals’ without an atom of sadism, as in the 1979 James Bond film Moonraker. Of course: the film is Hollywood bullshit like all the others. The billionaire Hugo Drax transported several dozen ‘genetically perfect’ (lol!) young men and women of different races, including blacks (!) to a space station. They would live there until Earth was cleansed and their descendants would be the seed of a ‘new master race’.

(Above, Hugo Drax, Moonraker’s villain, playing the piano at his mansion.) Drax reveals his plan to destroy human life by launching 50 giant balloons that would disperse a nerve gas into Earth’s atmosphere that kills humans instantly (animal species are unaffected). But Bond uses a laser-armed device to destroy some of the launched balloons.

I use the plot of that silly movie just to show that my hatred of Neanderthals is as cold and intellectual as Drax’s. Even with my exterminationist hatreds I would fulfil the 4 words, ‘avoid all unnecessary suffering’ when implementing final solutions to the human (or rather, Neanderthal) problem.

Savitri continues:

______ 卐 ______

 
But if, in practice, a ‘People’s Commissar’, a Slavic Communist,[3] was killed as an ‘enemy of the Reich’, as well as a Jew, it remains true that there was a nuance or difference in meaning between these two actions. The Slavic Communist was—just like any Communist as well as many non-Communists such as those nationalists of the Polish intelligentsia who were also shot by Einsatzgruppen commandos—considered personally dangerous. By killing him we eliminated an enemy, real or supposed. (There was no time to examine each individual case and to see whether, perhaps, some valuable individuals might not, in the long run, have been led to join the new German-dominated Europe.)

The Jew, in addition to the danger he could represent, and often did represent, personally, was considered dangerous in his very essence: because he belonged to the people whose historical role was to spread untruths and counter-values in the world: a source of subversion, a source of ‘anti-nature’; the ‘chosen’ people of the Powers Below (the exact antithesis of the Aryan and especially of the German), without whom neither Marxism, nor Jacobinism, nor Christianity—that ‘Bolshevism of Ancient World’, as the Führer so aptly put it—nor any of the forms of the superstition of ‘man’ and his ‘happiness’ at any price, would have come into being.

He symbolised the victory of the Dark Age, which the initiates know is inevitable, but which they strive to postpone as long as possible, if they have a fighting soul. His elimination was, even more than that of the people of all races who had believed his lies, a challenge to the Forces of Disintegration. For he was the ‘unclean’ element. In more than one speech, Himmler likened it to the parasitic insects whose presence degrades the most beautiful hair, the most robust body. And he saw its suppression ‘not as a matter of ideology, but as a matter of cleanliness’.

And yet… If there is an order to the leaders of the Einsatzgruppen to mercilessly eliminate ‘the enemies of National Socialism’ (including the Jews, of course), there is no German document proving that the ‘final solution of the Jewish problem’ meant the ‘total physical liquidation of the Jews’.

Consider the famous Protocol of the Wannsee Conference of January 18, 1942 (whose authenticity is questioned by an author as impartial as André Brissaud[4]) in the course of the trials set up after the war. With bad faith concerning the SS, the SD (Sicherheitsdienst), the Gestapo, etc., they translated as ‘extermination of the Jews in the German living space’ the sentence which actually means ‘repression of the Jews outside of German living space’ (Zurückdrängung der Juden aus dem Lebensraum des deutschen Volkes).[5]

It seems that, at first, it was only a question of ‘repression’ and not of indiscriminate extermination—and this, despite the anger of the Jews of the whole world, despite the resounding ‘declaration of war against the German Reich’ launched from New York at the beginning of August 1933 by Samuel Untermeyer, president of the ‘International Jewish Economic Federation to combat the Hitlerite oppression of Jews’ when there was still no oppression or persecution in Germany despite the call by Wladimir Jabotinsky, future head of the Jewish terrorist organisation Irgun Zwi Leumi, in the Jewish magazine Masha Rietsch of January 1934, for the ‘extermination of all Germans’.

_________

[1] Quoted in André Brissaud, Hitler and the Black Order, 1960 edition, p. 324.

[2] Bhagawad-Gîta, III, verse 25.

[3] Many of the People’s Commissars in Soviet Russia were Jews, but not all of them.

[4] Brissaud: Hitler and the Black Order (op cit.), p. 309.

[5] Quoted in full by Hans Grimm,Warum? Woher? Aber Wohin? 1954 edition, page 187.

Categories
Ethnic cleansing Final solution Holocaust Reinhard Heydrich Savitri Devi 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 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
Arthur de Gobineau Arthur Schopenhauer Aryan beauty Evropa Soberana (webzine) Final solution Nordicism

Nordicism and National Socialism, 1

Editor’s note:Left, a drawing by Wolfgang Willrich, ‘This is what the German soldier is fighting for’.

‘We cannot forget the predilection that the Hellenes felt for this colour [blond]: they could not conceive their noblest deities in another form’ wrote Joseph Arthur de Gobineau 165 years ago in a quote reproduced below. You can imagine what happened to the Aryan psyche after the Judeo-Christians destroyed the statues and temples of the Greco-Roman gods and replaced them with churches and iconography of a Semitic god (which is why we believe that Aryan liberation will only come after we burn down worldwide all Christian churches to the ground).

Here I translate and adapt for this site the first instalment of ‘Nordicismo y Nazismo’, an essay originally published by Evropa Soberanain 2013.

______ 卐 ______

Nordicism was not born with European colonialism or with the rise of Nazi ideas in the interwar period. It is a trend that comes from classical antiquity, which is closely related to art and the human model to which art must aspire. Nordicism tries to answer the question of what is the source of the Indo-European tradition and which is the human race that laid the main foundations of Europe since prehistoric times.

However, the Nordic wave that is closest to us is the one that flourished under the Third Reich. To understand the ideas that underlie National Socialist Nordicism, the content of this piece, we will provide a selection of written fragments from:

• Adolf Hitler

• the SS doctrine

• Nazi ideologues such as Alfred Rosenberg

• Scholars who, without being Nazis, are considered avant-garde precursors of a mentality that culminated in Nazism, like Nietzsche. (H.S. Chamberlain has been omitted since he designates as ‘Teutonic’ what has finally been called ‘Nordic’.)

• Other authors that have nothing to do with National Socialism (they even ended up opposing it!) but that deal with the Nordic race, like Madison Grant.

• I also include images of National Socialist characters as well as propaganda and works of art from Nazi Germany, in which the Nordic type is represented as a reference, ideal and goal to pursue.

Arthur Schopenhauer (1788-1860) was a German philosopher who influenced, among others, Nietzsche and Hitler. During the First World War, Hitler always carried with him the book The World as Will and Representation. Schopenhauer wrote:

The highest civilisation and culture, apart from the ancient Hindus and Egyptians, are found exclusively among the white races; and even with many dark peoples, the ruling caste, or race, is fairer than the rest, and has, therefore, evidently immigrated, for example, the Brahmins, the Inca, and the rulers of the South Sea Islands. All this is due to the fact that necessity is the mother of invention, because those tribes that emigrated early to the north, and there gradually became white, had to develop all their intellectual powers, and invent and perfect all the arts in their struggle with need, want and misery, which in their many forms, were brought about by the climate. This they had to do in order to make up for the parsimony of nature, and out of it came their high civilisation. (Parerga and Paralipomena, 1851, Volume II, Section 92). 

Arthur de Gobineau(1816-1882) was a French ambassador, historian and philosopher with a vast culture and a great intuition. His innovative and monumental work Essay on the Inequality of the Human Racesis well-known, but few venture to say that Gobineau was a ‘Nordicist’ in the sense that he identified the original Aryans with the ‘Nordic’ human type.

The colour of the Aryans was white and rosy: so were the Greeks and the oldest Persians; so were the primitive Hindus also. Among the colours of the hair and the beard dominated the blond, and we cannot forget the predilection that the Hellenes felt for this colour: they could not conceive their noblest deities in another form.

Essay on the Inequality of the Human Races, 1853 and 1855, Book Three, Chapter I.

In that very remote epoch, the civilising force did not reside in the South: it emanated from the North. It came from Thrace with Orpheus, with Mousaios, with Linos. The Greek warriors appeared tall, white and blond. Their eyes looked arrogantly at the sky, and this memory so dominated the thinking of successive generations, that when a darker polytheism invaded with the growing influx of Semitic immigrants all regions and all consciousnesses, and replaced it with their sanctuaries, for the Olympians the highest expression of beauty, of majestic power, was no other than the reproduction of the Aryan type: blue eyes, blond hair, white complexion, high stature and slender complexion. 

Essay on the Inequality of the Human Races, 1853 and 1855, Third Book, Chapter III, on Ancient Greece.

What was, in the physical and moral realms, a Roman of the 3rd, 4th or 5th centuries? A man of medium height, of frail constitution and appearance, usually dark, running in his veins a little blood of all imaginable races; believing himself as the first man of the universe and, to prove it, he was insolent, creeping, ignorant, thief, depraved, ready to sell his sister, his daughter, his wife, his country and his sovereign; and endowed with an insurmountable fear of poverty, suffering, fatigue and death. Apart from that, he had no doubt that the Earth and its courtship of planets had been created for him only. 

Faced with that despicable being, what was the barbarian? A man with blond hair, white and rosy complexion, broad on his back, tall in stature, vigorous as Alcides, reckless as Theseus, skillful, agile, feeling no fear of anything, let alone of death.

That Leviathan possessed above all, righteous or false ideas but reasoned, intelligent ideas that he struggled to be spread. Within his nationality, he had nourished the spirit of a severe and refined religion, of a shrewd politics, of a glorious history. 

Able to meditate, he understood that the Roman civilisation was richer than his, and sought the reason for it. He was in no way that turbulent creature that we ordinarily imagine, but a very attentive adolescent with positive interests, who knew how to arrange himself to feel, see, compare, judge, prefer. 

When the vain and miserable Roman opposed his tricks to the vital cunning of the barbarian, who decided the victory? The fist of the latter. Falling like a mass of iron on the skull of the poor grandson of Remus, that muscular fist showed him on which side the force was then. And in what way was the Roman humiliation then avenged? He cried, and he asked the centuries to come to take revenge for his oppressed civilisation. Poor little bugger! He resembled the contemporary of Virgil and Augustus as well as Shylock to King Solomon. 

Essay on the Inequality of the Human Races, 1853 and 1855, Book Three, Chapter VII, On the Decline of Rome.

Categories
Exterminationism Feminized western males Final solution Miscegenation Stefan Zweig William Pierce

What’s wrong with exterminationism?

In this blog I have cited two Jews, Marcus Eli Savage and Mitchell Heisman, who admitted that Christianity was nothing but a psyop devised by their tribe to control the blond beast.

Before I woke up to the Jewish question I used to read the books of another Jew, Stefan Zweig (perhaps the only Jew whose libretto for an opera by Richard Strauss was accepted at the time of the Third Reich). Zweig begins his biography of Mary Baker Eddy with a very deep idea, ‘The most mysterious moment of a man is when he becomes aware of his intimate personality; the most mysterious moment in the history of mankind is the birth of their religions’. That is why I have placed so much emphasis on this site when analysing Paul and Mark the Evangelist: the literary authors (Jesus did not exist) of a religion that would eventually castrate all Aryans around the globe.

So castrated actually that, recently, in the comments section of a well-known blog of southern nationalists in the US, a commenter who detests me explained his reasons for why he hates me: because I criticise Christianity almost full time in this blog and also, because I promote an exterminationist ideology.

Only modern emasculated whites, what I call Jew-obeyers, can complain about that. We can already imagine the ancient Greeks or the Romans being frightened of a fellow citizen who criticised a Jewish sect called Christianity (remember the quotations of ancient Greeks and Romans about Jews and Christians in the ‘masthead’ of this site). If during the siege of Jerusalem in the year 70—when Mark wrote his gospel!—a Roman would tell Titus that an exterminationist ideology would have to be implemented, no one would have been frightened. At most, they would have told the exterminationist that it was better to enslave the survivors and sell them in the Mediterranean market for economic gain, what they actually did.

Had the ancient Romans benefited from the hindsight of the modern era—that the miscegenation that they were already beginning to practice in the 1st century would result in the collapse of the Empire—, they would have accepted the arguments of the exterminationist philosopher.

So what’s wrong with exterminationism? Not for nothing in this site have I called miscegenation ‘the sin against the holy spirit’, in the sense that it is so unforgivable sin that, once consummated, only the gradual decline and the eventual fall of an Aryan empire can take place. Those white nationalists or Southerners who have not yet learned the role that miscegenation played in ancient Rome would do well to read ‘The Race Problem of the Roman Empire’ by the Swedish philologist Martin P. Nilsson. Only after that it will be somewhat more digestible to understand what William Pierce wanted to tell us in a chapter, ‘Extermination or Expulsion’, from his only non-fiction book.

Food for thought:
• Martin P. Nilsson’s text.
• William L. Pierce’s text.

Categories
Bible Final solution

Tough question

Let us put it simply this way:
If the entire destruction of the Jew involves the destruction of the Bible—will you people be able to do it? From all I can see, all Bible believers are unable to do so. They don’t even care about the Jew behind it. They love the Bible more than they hate the Jew who made it.
And that is our greatest weakness.

—Axe of Perun