As we see in the highlighted posts ‘Myth’ and ‘Throne’ which appear in red letters at the top of this page, it is the story we have been telling ourselves for the last few decades that has produced the darkest hour for the white race. That is why it is so important to assimilate the meaning of the Shakespeare and Faulkner quotes in the post I uploaded a little after midnight today.
A pen pal overseas has informed me that someone, who surely hates me for what I write here, has been impersonating me in the comments section of Occidental Dissent (OD) writing nonsense and using my full name. I haven’t been able to locate the specific threads because the admin of that site has been unwilling to respond to my emails (I guess the admin also hates me for my criticism of his site!). Whoever the guy is who’s posting comments in my name without the OD admin banning him or her, the hatred and contempt that many feel for what I say here might be better understood if I confess that, before, I was exactly like them.
The books I devour, I underline copiously. If you visit my library, you will see that many of my books are marked not only with highlighter pens but with my hand-written footnotes. They are a real treat to open a window on the normie I was in the last century.
In 1999, when I was living in Manchester, I bought and devoured Laurence Rees’s The Nazis: A Warning from History, a BBC book. It is Allied propaganda at its worst, precisely the propaganda exposed in the aforementioned ‘Myth’ article. A couple of decades after I read the book I saw an internet image of Rees standing next to a Negress. Cuck Island Britons like him commit ethnosuicide precisely because they have been telling themselves stories like this one from BBC TV, and then passed on more formally to books.
When I lived on that island, propaganda had infected me about the Third Reich and the Second World War. The things I wrote in the blanks of that book represent a window into my biographical past that sheds light on those who now hate me because they still think as I did last century.
The climactic pages of The Nazis, obviously, are descriptions of the so-called Jewish holocaust. The César I was last century wrote, in the book, things like: ‘By now, there should have already been a plot to kill him [Hitler]’ (about a passage on page 107); ‘Here it is clear: even the British didn’t recognise the danger in Czechoslovakia after the atrocities in Kristallnacht and humiliation of the Austrian Jews’ (about a passage on page 116); ‘Wow: a decent German among monsters’ (about a passage on page 129); ‘This is why I bought the book: just as I think, let’s distribute guilt to all the German people’ (about the introductory passages on pages 10ff); ‘Clear-cut case of folie à nación, Austria’ (about a passage on page 110); ‘Close your heart to compassion. Act brutally, Hitler’ (about a passage on page 122), ‘Now I know why I unconsciously identified myself with Stauffenberg [the ringleader of the bombing of 20 July 1944]’ (about a passage on page 215); ‘One good thing really came out of this trip to England: discovering the BBC’ (when on 14 June 1999 I finished reading The Nazis).
Well, well… If I can have empathy, and even sympathy, for the brainwashed César of the last century, I must now have it for those who haven’t crossed the psychological Rubicon.
What would I say to the César of the last century if I could visit him through a time tunnel?
First of all, I hope that by now visitors have seen my post yesterday linking to a video by David Irving showing what I believe about the historical facts of the so-called holocaust from the viewpoint of what Irving calls ‘real history’. Let’s start from that, and also from what I responded to Jewish Enrique Krauze in The Occidental Observer on the subject. Krauze’s position is the same as the position of Rees in his BBC book, where on page 194 Rees picked up a quote: ‘Nobody can explain why the Germans did it’ when the explanation is so obvious that even the Jew Albert Lindemann laid it out in his scholarly Esau’s Tears.
But there is more to it than that.
The César of the last century had to cross the Rubicon. To move from identifying with Stauffenberg (!) to wanting history to be told before and after Hitler (!), which is what I want now, requires a great metamorphosis.
The first step, I have already confessed on this site, I owe to the fact that on 20 April 2010, Greg Johnson posted in the comments section of OD the full text of an article by Irmin Vinson, if I remember correctly this one, which Johnson then published in the webzine Counter-Currents and eventually in print along with other essays by Vinson.
That was the first stepping stone for me to start crossing the psychological Rubicon.
I don’t want to link here all the other stepping stones I had to step on before I reached the other side of the river because it would overwhelm the reader with countless links. But even the first stone gives an idea of the direction in which I was heading.
I want to say a final word about César in the last century.
There is something I underlined a quarter of a century ago in that book that I still believe, ‘Despite being widely bought [Mein Kampf] it was not widely read [in Germany]’ (page 90). That’s because, in my humble opinion, the Führer had to divide his message in twain: a message analogous to today’s American white nationalism for the masses, and a more anti-Christian one for his inner circle of friends. The problem wasn’t Hitler’s hypocrisy, but that the masses of Germans were unprepared to receive his full message (He didn’t say anything to them without using a parable; but when he was alone with his own disciples he explained everything…).
This bifurcation of the NS message is now unnecessary. Hitler’s after-dinner conversations, an anthology like The Fair Race or Savitri Devi’s memoirs linked in my featured post explain it so clearly that, unlike Mein Kampf in the 1930s, they would be devoured as highly entertaining novels once the American troops leave Europe and the Germans and Austrians reinstate the freedom of press eliminated since 1945 (again: see what Irving said in yesterday’s post).
Hitler’s position at this time was complicated. He was still virtually unknown in most of Germany. The main Berlin newspapers ignored him and his party. They didn’t even report on the riotous Deutscher Tag at Coburg, whose resonance was confined to south Germany. Hitler had very few funders outside of Bavaria, with the notable exception of the Ruhr industrial baron Fritz Thyssen, who contributed substantially in the course of 1923. That said, within the non-particularist Bavarian right wing nationalist milieu, Hitler now enjoyed a commanding position. He was well known in Munich, which Thomas Mann described in a 1923 letter to the American journal The Dial as ‘the city of Hitler’. His speeches drew large and ecstatic crowds. Karl Alexander von Müller, who heard him speak for the first time at the Löwenbräukeller in late January 1923, describes the ‘burning core of hypnotic mass excitement’ created by the flags, the relentless marching music and the short warm-up speeches by lesser party figures before the man himself appeared amid a flurry of salutes. Hitler would then be interrupted at almost every sentence by tempestuous applause, before departing for his next engagement.
