web analytics
'Hitler' (book by Brendan Simms) Judeo-reductionism

Hitler, 9

Brendan Simms, professor of history, University of Cambridge.

Note that Simms’ volume—the hard copy in the hardcover edition I own is over 900 pages long—is replete with endnotes, so every biographical claim about Adolf Hitler’s intellectual odyssey that we see in this volume is backed up by primary sources. Although in years past I have browsed through other voluminous biographies of Hitler that have been selling in mainstream bookstores, I didn’t buy them because I wasn’t motivated by the POV of the biographer in question (e.g., Ian Kershaw’s volumes). The revisionism of another normie on the other hand, Simms, really caught my attention. Let’s continue quoting what Simms wrote in chapter 3 of Hitler: Only the World Was Enough.

Hitler put the inquest into the defeat at the heart of his world view. The alleged fractures in German society played an important role here, the ‘inner internationalism’ to which he had referred during the war itself. By this Hitler primarily meant the Social Democrats and Independent Socialists (USPD), who allegedly put loyalty to their class comrades over that to the nation; it was their internationalism, not their socialism, that he objected to. It was the same anxiety as over capitalism, which Hitler rejected in its global, but, as we shall see, not necessarily in its local ‘national’ form. He also took aim at German particularism, especially in Bavaria, which threatened the integrity of the Reich.

The principal internal enemy, however, was the Jews, who had ‘stabbed Germany in the back’, although Hitler rarely used this precise phrase. All this has given the impression that Hitler, like so many other Germans, sought to blame the defeat primarily on internal scapegoats rather than facing up to the strength of the Entente. In fact, Hitler never subscribed to a monocausal [bold & red added by Ed.!] domestic explanation for the disaster and much of his thinking, especially the later quest for Lebensraum, would be inexplicable if he had. Eliminating the Jews and healing the domestic rifts inside Germany were necessary conditions for the revival of the Reich, but not sufficient ones.

I bolded the above because I was unaware that a renowned historian had used the word I have used on this site in my dispute with white nationalists, whom I have branded as ‘monocausalists’ in the sense that they have refused to see other factors, besides Jewish subversion, that have been contributing to Aryan decline. Now it turns out that an academic, Simms, says the same thing I say about Hitler even though his POV is altogether different.

The point is to find out whether Simms is right about Hitler. And if he is, one can use his information simply from the POV of the 14 words.

Conservatism Judeo-reductionism Michael O'Meara Racial right

Deep, deep within

Judeo-centric white nationalism is just another variant of the prevailing country-club conservatism.

—Michael O’Meara

The O’Meara article linked in my post yesterday is basic, I said, to understand our point of view. In case something happens to Counter-Currents, where the article is hosted, I copied it for this site. Although C-C’s images are absent from our copy, you can read the 2011 comments in that copy’s thread.

If one reads the article carefully one will notice that, with his critique of Anglo-American capitalism, O’Meara unwittingly placed himself close to the young Hitler we were talking about yesterday in the context of Brendan Simms’ book. O’Meara even presents us with a competing paradigm to Kevin MacDonald’s: the paradigm that currently represents, shall we say, orthodoxy in American white nationalism. O’Meara said:

…anti-Semites prefer to indulge in fairy tales about “cultural Marxism” and the Frankfurter bogey man—unconscious of or uninterested in the larger subversion.

The larger subversion! (this smells like the content of The West’s Darkest Hour). Too bad that, because of his Irish Catholicism, O’Meara didn’t admire Hitler. Several years ago I asked in a thread on this site why Solzhenitsyn didn’t espouse Hitler’s cause if both Solzhenitsyn and Hitler wanted to destroy the Soviet Union. An English commenter replied that, for axiological reasons, Solzhenitsyn’s Christianity prevented him from doing so. I think that although Solzhenitsyn was an Orthodox Christian and O’Meara a Catholic Christian, the commenter’s response is accurate. In the 2011 thread on C-C, O’Meara continued:

Kevin MacDonald, unlike his epigones, knows how to make an argument and support it with substantiating evidence. Nevertheless, his argument proves NOTHING (except his own intelligence), for with the same methods but in reference to different facts, I could make an equally convincing argument to “prove” that corporate capitalism (or the Cold War state, Catholicism, Protestantism, or a half-dozen other factors) were far more influential in legalizing the formal de- Europeanization of the American people.

We have focused on the Christian Question on this site because it is a taboo subject among many on the American racial right. But O’Meara, like Hitler, was absolutely right to mention other factors. For example, when I read MacDonald’s entire trilogy on Jewry, after finishing the third one I was left with the impression that his analysis—basically blaming the Jews for the West’s dark hour—fell short. Those were times when I considered myself a white nationalist, before I began to harbour some doubts about that simplistic explanation. O’Meara was one of the intellectuals who began to broaden my perspective.

I think the discussion thread in that relatively old C-C article is paradigmatic in terms of how, unlike O’Meara, white nationalists don’t want to look in the mirror. O’Meara stopped being active on racial right forums when he realised that American racialists weren’t going to abandon their monocausal dogma. Something similar happened with the retired blogger Sebastian Ronin, whom I mentioned in my recent entry on the 42 films I will no longer review individually. The following year of the discussion in C-C, Ronin wrote: ‘The betrayal of the White European race stems from deep, deep within, so deep that it is not visible or obvious for most’, and then added:

The first step of the revolution does not begin with the expedient and safe blurting of Jew, Jew, Jew; that is after the fact. The first step of the revolution begins upon the surface of a mirror to identify the source of weakness that has allowed the penetration of an alien and poisonous spirit.

Looking in the mirror is precisely what I try to do with my autobiographical books. Hopefully, the lengthy review I will be doing of Simms’ book will do something to broaden the POV of the common racialist, insofar as Hitler’s meta-perspective was certainly broader than the short-sighted perspective of those who criticised O’Meara in C-C, including Johnson.

Judeo-reductionism Mein Kampf (book)

Esoteric v. exoteric

Did it bother the host of The West’s Darkest Hour that I was quoting the Führer (the last time I did so was this one)? Jamie’s last comment got me thinking a bit. If it is true that they are playing mind games with me, I am forced not to publish the rest of the twelve entries I had planned quoting Mein Kampf (which can be read, anyway, on this other website). However, about what was to be the eighth entry in that Mein Kampf series, ‘The Enemy’ referring to Jewry, I would like to say something.

As I have said countless times, Hitler’s worldview had both an exoteric side—prolefeed for the Christian Germans, exemplified in Mein Kampf and his public speeches—and an esoteric side—anti-Christian statements to a select group of friends—. What was to be the eighth entry, ‘The Enemy’, is indistinguishable from the worldview currently held by white nationalists!

For new visitors to this site, my post from the day before yesterday, ‘Christian Cup’ is so compact and didactic that yesterday I edited it slightly and promoted it to what is known in WordPress as a ‘page’ to distinguish it from ordinary ‘posts’. I’m referring to the articles that appear in red letters at the top of this page by clicking ‘Menu’. As can be seen, there is a new entry with a long title, ‘My difference with white nationalism in a nutshell’, which applies both to American white nationalism in this century and to the exoteric facet of German NS in the last century.

It is curious that none of the white nationalist Americans who have devoted themselves to studying NS, such as Mark Weber and Carolyn Yeager, are well-versed in the esoteric side of NS. I guess that they still have ties to many Christians in the movement and that they don’t want to rock the boat with these disturbing revelations. And to be completely honest, even compared to the esoteric part of the NS we have taken a step further than Uncle Adolf did in the previous century, as can be seen from what I say on pages 159-160 of this PDF.

Harold Covington Judeo-reductionism Martin Kerr

2021 thread

Harold A. Covington

Noting that the longest article in the PDF American Racialism we recently published is by Martin Kerr, yesterday I discovered some words by Kerr about Harold Covington, published in the comments section of The Occidental Observer, which are worth quoting:

It is disturbing to see that an attempt is being made to rehabilitate the deservedly poor reputation of Harold Covington. I had hoped that after his long-awaited death in 2018, the memory of him would quickly and mercifully fade away. Sadly, I can see that my hopes were in vain.

No one did more to harm the cause of pro-White advocacy than Covington. From the mid-1970s until his death, he did everything he could to weaken, harm and destroy that cause. Earlier on in his benighted career he devised a two-part modus operandi.

He attacked whatever pro-White leader who was receiving the most public recognition at any given time. He only attacked those who were trying to do something. Those who limited themselves to writing books or articles he left alone. But those who were in the public arena, actively trying to build a pro-White movement, he attacked relentlessly and ferociously. Among those he sought to undermine and destroy were Dr. William Pierce, David Duke, Matt Koehl, Ben Klassen, Kevin Alfred Strom, Dr. Edward Fields, Will Williams and—towards the end of his life—Richard Spencer. I am sure that there are others whom I have forgotten about.

The rustic Covington wanted to become the alpha male of the tribe, but instead of earning that position the hard way he resorted to very dirty tactics, inconceivable in a true Aryan.

Covington was a pathological liar, as anyone who knew him personally can attest. He would lie simply for the sake of lying, even when there was no advantage to it. But in his efforts to sabotage White leaders and their organizations, there is no falsehood or calumny, no matter how despicable or outlandish, from which he would shrink. Typically, he would accuse White leaders of murder, homosexuality, alcoholism, race-mixing, theft, corruption, collaboration with the FBI and/or ADL and Jewish or other non-Aryan ancestry. He never provided an iota or proof for any of his accusations: how could he, since they were completely imaginary in the first place? Instead, he would issue new and similar attacks against anyone who sought to challenge his lies.

I am ashamed to say that when I read Covington’s tetralogy and got excited about this revolutionary scenario, I was unaware of the novelist’s terrible flaws. But from that discussion thread I would like to respond to what Edmund Connelly said:

C.T., thank you for taking the time to write a thoughtful reply. I would, however, like to take exception to this claim: “[I]n the West there are more traitorous whites than subversive Jews.”

Numerically, you may well be right, but the equation ends up wrong because you cannot equate one White with one Jew. All the evidence shows that a tiny number of Jews can sway whole gentile societies, so you have to weigh specifically what each subversion Jew (redundant, I know) accomplishes. How many goys would it take, say, to equal one Sigmund Freud? Or a Norman Lear? Jewish gurus wreck havoc among gentile nations in untold millions of lives. That’s what makes them so destructive. While there are far too many White useful idiots, it is, I would maintain, their manipulation by Jews that starts the train wreck in motion.

In 2021 I had already responded to what Connelly said in his article, but now I would like to respond to what he said directly to me, quoted above. First of all, it should be noted that, as a good white nationalist, Connelly lives under the assumption that the Jews are the primary cause of our misfortunes. I believe it is us.

Connelly’s argument would make sense if the Jews were capable of subverting the Islamic world—even though in Israel they are surrounded by them—which they obviously can’t. Nor are they capable of subverting India or China. They weren’t even capable of subverting Whites before the advent of Judeo-Christianity. We can imagine what would have happened if a Jew wanted to subvert Sparta, Republican Rome before the Punic Wars or the Viking peoples! They only managed to get their Trojan horse in when Constantine handed over the Empire to his bishops, many of Semitic origin. All this I have said many times before, but it bears repeating because here lies the huge difference between the POV of this site and the Judeo-reductionism of white nationalism.

Connelly assigns, in the quote above, superhuman powers to the Jews, but what happens to the Aryan could be analogised to a physical accident.

Let’s imagine we fall off a motorbike and terribly scrape our arm. Without proper care, the arm becomes infected with microbes. Judeo-reductionism would be analogous to saying that microbes are the primary aetiology of our infection. I say that the primary aetiology is the accident. Without the accident and poor care of the arm, there would have been no opportunistic infection. The microbes are secondary or even irrelevant.

Likewise, without the treachery of Constantine and other Aryan emperors who followed him (see Deschner’s first volume on the history of Christianity in the featured post), Jewish ideology wouldn’t have infected the West for 1,700 years. The West would be as immune to subversive Jewish ideas as China, India or the Islamic world. But the worst thing is that through Christianity and ‘neo-Christianity’ (see again the featured post), each generation of whites recreates the biker crash, so to speak. They aren’t allowing the body to heal!

Worse still is that white nationalists themselves are party to this ill-treatment of the infected body as they are incapable of repudiating Judeo-Christian morality. This too, I have spoken at length on this site and it isn’t worth repeating except to invite new visitors to read the books and/or PDFs in the featured post.



José María Morelos (1765-1815) used to wear a bandana to hide his frizzy hair, a legacy of black heritage in Chilpancingo (present-day Guerrero State in Mexico).

I have written about the Mexican-Jewish intellectual Enrique Krauze both in The Occidental Observer and on this site. But I have never quoted him at length and would like to do so now, although I will have to translate one of his articles into English (the article in Spanish can be read here). Originally published in the newspaper Reforma on 25 September 2016, the following text is an excerpt from Krauze’s speech delivered that same month when he received an award from the Congress of the state of Guerrero:

The good shadow of Morelos

Guerrero is an open wound in the feelings of our nation.

Already in the first sentence, Krauze omits to talk about the Afro-mestizo population on the Mexican coast of Guerrero: the ethnic reality behind the violence that has afflicted that state for a long time. As a topic, race and IQ is as taboo in Latin America as it is in the United States, Canada, Europe and Australia (see the latest article by Ron Unz and Mike Whitney on the ferocity of this taboo). Krauze continues:

The incuriousness of the governments condemned this state to a condition that only now, in the 21st century, can we see in all its drama. Guerrero shows the cruel face of abandonment: crime, drugs, poverty, malnutrition, emigration, social disintegration, discord. How to reverse the situation?

I do not, of course, have the magic wand, nor do I believe it exists. And I am not naïve. I know the numbers and I have seen the Dantesque crime scenes in Guerrero. I know that blood calls for blood. Nor am I unaware that today’s violence is not linked to ideas or ideals (as in Independence and the revolution) but to vast, dark, despicable economic interests, and that it is expressed day after day, with unprecedented cruelty, in the streets, the squares, the roads, the beaches of Guerrero.

But we cannot be satisfied with this terrible reality being permanent. If the country turns southwards to reach out to the wagon left behind, it may not be too late to move closer to the essential fraternity envisioned by Morelos in the ‘Sentimientos de la Nación’ (Sentiments of the Nation). Luis González y González called that document ‘the moral primer of Mexico.’ It was read here, in this church in Chilpancingo, 203 years ago. Let us listen to his words, each one, in all their gravity: ‘I want us to make the declaration that there is no other nobility than that of virtue, knowledge, patriotism and charity; that we are all equal…’

The emphasis in bold above and below is mine. It is at this point that the strength of The West’s Darkest Hour comes into full view, especially if we consider a PDF abridgement of Tom Holland’s book on how Christian morality infected, to the marrow, the soul of the West. Krauze’s hero, Morelos, waged the war of independence against Spain. He is considered the most important leader of the second stage of the Mexican War of Independence. Morelos’ ideas of equality were rooted in liberal ideas which are ultimately Christian-inspired (those who haven’t read the excerpts from Holland’s book should read them now). Let’s continue reading Krauze’s quote from the document by Morelos:

‘…for from the same origin we come; that there be no privileges or ancient lineages, that it is not rational, nor humane that there should be slaves, for the colour of the face does not change that of the heart nor that of the thought; that the children of the husbandman and the sweeper be educated as those of the richest landowner; that all who complain for justice have a court to hear them, protect them and defend them against the strong and the arbitrary… let it be declared that what is ours is already ours and for our children, let them have a faith, a cause and a flag, under which we all swear to die, rather than see it oppressed, as it is now, and when it is free, let us be ready to defend it.’ [end of Morelos’ quote]

Morelos—let it be noted—was not moved by hatred. Nor was he driven by intolerance, ideological fanaticism or a thirst for revenge.

This is false. Morelos killed many Iberian white civilians, even entire families, during his war of independence. The American equivalent would have been for a mulatto to order the killing of a good many English families during the American Revolutionary War: something that didn’t happen. Krauze’s eulogy follows:

Morelos was driven by love, but not romantic, mystical or abstract love. He was moved by fraternal, egalitarian, free love, and love that is reflected in practical works. In the middle of Tierra Caliente (one of the scenes of today’s horror) that modest parish priest built the church of his parish with his own hands, helped the needy and even recreated, in his letters, the dreams and fantasies of his parishioners. But that same priest (merciful, active, humble, sympathetic) conceived, organised and sheltered—in times of war and in that same area—the promulgation of a Constitution that would be the mould of Mexico that never quite came to fruition: a liberal and democratic republic.

Those ‘Sentiments of the Nation’ are those of today: the ancient moral philosophy of Christian equality and natural liberty which—in the lucid analysis of Don Silvio Zavala—founded Mexico. We must consolidate the modern republican institutions founded and respected by Morelos.

But there is one more sentiment that is not only current but urgent: that of a sovereign country. To our problems, we must add the threat of an economic and diplomatic war of enormous proportions, provoked by the United States if Trump (that despicable tyrant candidate) becomes president. That is why we must reclaim our love for our homeland. But—once again—I am not talking about an operatic love that is reduced to singing the national anthem, shouting ‘viva Mexico’ or waving our flag. I am talking about defending, with all the diplomatic, legal, political, economic and media resources at our disposal, the millions of Mexicans at home and abroad who could suffer the consequences of this unjust war.

If those men who surrounded Morelos did not falter in his hostile and merciless time, it is cowardly for us Mexicans of the 21st century to falter, given to discouragement or cynical selfishness. We live, wrote Luis González, under ‘the good shadow of Morelos.’ Let us be worthy of it.

In another of his Reforma articles, Krauze lets us know: ‘Every Friday, at twilight, my maternal grandmother sanctified the coming of Saturday; she lit her candles…’ However, one of the reasons I don’t inhabit the white nationalist Judeo-reductionist paradigm is that, if you listen to Mexican intellectuals who aren’t ethnically Jewish, they say the same thing Krauze says above about Morelos. And I mean both mestizos and ‘Mexican Criollos’ (those born in Latin America but of European origin, without Jewish blood). In today’s Mexico all mestizo, Criollo and Jewish intellectuals subscribe to the official story about Morelos (the exception was a great Mexican intellectual, José Vasconcelos, but he died in 1959).

American civil war Judeo-reductionism Kevin MacDonald

Morgan on KMD, again

Kevin MacDonald: ‘Individualism and the Western Liberal Tradition…’

I’ve been flipping through this book, and it’s not as bad as I thought it was going to be. On the positive side, I’m glad to see that MacDonald is evidently of the view that the American Civil War was all about slavery. He says, for example:

Whatever the political and economic complexities that led to the Civil War, it was the Yankee moral condemnation of slavery that inspired and justified the massive carnage of closely related Anglo-Americans on behalf of slaves from Africa.

This is a controversial statement in right-wing circles, where it is common to hold that the Civil War was only a dispute over states’ rights or tariffs, and that slavery played no role at all. So kudos to MacDonald for taking a stand in the opposing camp.

On the other hand, he is still pushing the view that the cultural defeat of Darwinism in America marked a turning point in white fortunes, and for this defeat he blames the Jews, especially Franz Boas. But, to those who have been following the matter, it will come as no surprise that he completely ‘forgets’ to mention the sizeable Christian role in the defeat.

There was a considerable amount of resistance to Darwin’s ideas from Christians on both sides of the Atlantic. In England, Thomas Huxley, ‘Darwin’s bulldog’, verbally jousted with Bishop Wilberforce. In America, it culminated in the 1925 Scopes trial, the so-called Monkey Trial. Darwin’s theory was thought to be contrary to the Bible, and there had been a law passed making it illegal to teach anything other than Biblical creation stories in public schools.

Ironically enough, it was the heavily Jewish ACLU that challenged this law. This would seem to pose a problem for MacDonald’s notion that the Jews were the only force [emphasis added by Ed.—what I call ‘monocausalism’] against Darwinism, so he prefers not to discuss it. Those pesky Jews!

In their relations with whites, it’s always been heads they win, tails we lose. If they challenge Darwin’s idea, as did Boas, they’re attacking white racial solidarity. If they uphold Darwin’s idea, they’re attacking Christianity, which in MacDonald’s view has been a force for white unity. Thus it seems the abandonment of Darwinism was not entirely a Jewish project. White Christians, too, reacted in horror to Darwinism’s implications, and still do so today.

In my view, omitting a discussion of this is a serious flaw in the book.


Read it all here.

Alfred Rosenberg Catholic Church Child abuse Hitler's Religion (book) Joseph Goebbels Judeo-reductionism Mein Kampf (book) Racial right Richard Weikart Rudolf Hess

Hitler’s Religion: Chapter 1

Goebbels’ Diaries

Joseph Goebbels, based on his frequent and extensive conversations with Hitler, recorded numerous times in his diary that Hitler was anti-Christian and wanted to destroy the churches. A few days after Christmas in 1939, he conversed with Hitler and reported, “The Führer is deeply religious, but entirely anti-Christian. He sees in Christianity a symptom of decay. Rightly so. It is a strata deposited by the Jewish race.”

The first chapter of Richard Weikart’s book is entitled ‘Was Hitler a Religious Hypocrite?’ In the white advocates’ internet movement, Carolyn Yeager has been the most faithful in holding in high esteem the memory of Hitler and his Reich. But like many Christian white nationalists, she has failed to notice the hypocrisy of the Führer’s public pronouncements when compared to his private pronouncements. I recommend Weikart’s book to those racialist Christians who are stuck with Hitler’s public image.

Who was the historical Hitler? Since, in many respects, Hitler is the antithesis of the archetypal Jesus, we can recall a verse from Mark’s gospel that portrays him: ‘He spoke to them only in parables, but to his disciples privately he explained everything’.

Plenty of evidence suggests Hitler was concerned lest he offend the religious sensibilities of the German public. In a lengthy passage in Mein Kampf, he warned against repeating the disastrous course that caused Georg von Schönerer’s Pan-German Party to nose dive. Schönerer was an Austrian politician in the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries who wanted to unite all Germans in a common empire. His fervent German nationalism brought him into conflict with the multi-ethnic Austro-Hungarian Empire, which would dissolve if Schönerer had his way. He also promoted a biological form of anti-Semitism, wanting to purify the German people by getting rid of this allegedly foreign race. In 1941, Hitler told his colleagues that when he arrived in Vienna in 1907, he was already a follower of Schönerer. By the time he wrote Mein Kampf, he agreed fully with Schönerer’s Pan-German ideals, affirming, “Theoretically speaking, all the Pan-German’s [Schönerer’s] thoughts were correct.” However, he blamed Schönerer for not recognizing the importance of winning the masses over to Pan-Germanism and harshly criticized him for launching the Los-von-Rom (Away-from-Rome) Movement, which called on Austrians to abandon the Roman Catholic Church. Schönerer opposed Catholicism because he considered it an internationalist organization that undermined nationalism.

This reminds me of what Henry VIII did in separating the Church of England from papal authority.

He believed it posed a danger to the German people since it included many different nationalities, including his enemies: the Slavic groups in the Austro-Hungarian Empire. Schönerer himself personally left the Catholic Church in January 1900 and joined the Lutheran denomination. Though he occasionally lauded Luther and Protestantism, his concern was purely political. According to Andrew G. Whiteside, a leading expert on Schönerer, he remained a pagan at heart and was indifferent to Christianity; though sometimes he claimed to be a Christian, at other times he admitted, “I am and remain a pagan.” Another time, he stated, “Where Germandom and Christendom are in conflict, we are Germans first… If it is un-Christian to prefer the scent of flowers in God’s own free nature to the smoke of incense… then I am not a Christian.” According to Whiteside, “none of the Pan-German leaders was in the least religious.”

Hitler viewed the Los-von-Rom Movement as an unmitigated disaster because it unnecessarily alienated the masses from the Pan-German Party, precipitating its decline. Hitler suggested the proper political course would be to imbue ethnically German Catholics (and Protestants) with nationalist sentiments so they would support a “single holy German nation,” just as they had done during World War I. Hitler also rejected Schönerer’s anti-Catholic crusade because he insisted that a successful political movement must concentrate all its fury on a single enemy. A struggle against Catholicism would dissipate the Nazi movement’s power and sense of conviction it needed to carry on its fight against the Jews.

Wow, this puts me closer to Schönerer than to Hitler, even though, privately, Hitler believed the same as Schönerer did about the religion of our parents.

But we must try to understand Hitler. In the case of Henry VIII, the winds of the zeitgeist on the British Isle were in his favour. The Austrians and Catholic Germans weren’t prepared for such a step, and in any case, German Lutheranism was as harmful to the Aryan cause as Roman Catholicism. If someone wants, like Hitler, to do politics, he has to compromise.

While Hitler faulted Schönerer for alienating the masses through his anti-Catholic campaign, he was not thereby endorsing Catholicism. Overall, he supported Schönerer’s ideological goals and only objected to his inopportune tactics: “[The Pan-German movement’s] goal had been correct, its will pure, but the road it chose was wrong.” What Hitler learned from Schönerer’s tactical mistake was that political parties should steer clear of interfering with people’s religious beliefs or attacking religious organizations: “For the political leader the religious doctrines and institutions of his people must always remain inviolable; or else he has no right to be in politics, but should become a reformer, if he has what it takes! Especially in Germany any other attitude would lead to a catastrophe.” Hitler thus warned any anticlerical members of his party to keep their antireligious inclinations private, lest they alienate the masses.

Hitler’s compromise took a toll that is noticeable even in American white nationalism: what I have been calling monocausalism on this site.

By focusing, at least in the Reich’s public pronouncements, solely on Jews as the Enemy #1 of the Aryan, the public NS ideology exonerated Christians. I won’t reprove what Hitler did, because rather than being a religious reformer he chose to be a politician; and every politician has to compromise. But this tactic left a gap in racial ideology that to this day hasn’t been filled. (Since American white nationalists aren’t politicians but internet commentators, unlike the NS of the previous century they could break down the barrier between private and public, and start saying what Hitler said privately about Christianity, which they don’t.)

In 1924, when Hitler was interned in Landsberg Prison after his failed Beer Hall Putsch, his fellow prisoner and confidante Rudolf Hess talked with other Nazis about religion. Hitler did not join the conversation; afterward, he told Hess that he dared not divulge his true feelings about religion publicly. Hitler confessed that, even though he found it distasteful, “for reasons of political expediency he had to play the hypocrite toward his church.” From the early days of his political activity, Hitler recognized that being a religious hypocrite had its political advantages.

In his diaries, Goebbels confirmed that Hitler camouflaged his religious position to placate the masses. Based on his conversations with Hitler more than a year before the Nazis came to power, Goebbels wrote that Hitler not only wanted to withdraw officially from the Catholic Church but even wanted to “wage war against it” later. However, Hitler knew withdrawing from Catholicism at that moment would be scandalous and undermine his chances of gaining power. Rather than commit political suicide, he would bide his time, waiting for a more opportune moment to strike against the churches. Goebbels, meanwhile, was convinced the day of reckoning would eventually come when he, Hitler, and other Nazi leaders would all leave the Church together. If Hitler was being frank with Goebbels, then his public religious image was indeed a façade to avoid offending his supporters.

It couldn’t be clearer.

In a diary entry from June 1934, Rosenberg also explained how Hitler masked his true religious feelings for political purposes… According to Rosenberg, Hitler divulged his anti-Christian stance and “more than once emphasized, laughing, that he had been a heathen from time immemorial,” and that “the Christian poison” was approaching its demise. Rosenberg explained, however, that Hitler kept these views top secret.

Multiple sources, not only his monologues that we have begun to translate, portray what Hitler said to his ‘apostles’ in private in contrast to his ‘parables’ to the people.

In a major speech on the sixth anniversary of the Nazi regime (the same speech where he threatened to destroy the Jews if a world war broke out), Hitler remonstrated against the “so-called democracies” for accusing his government of being antireligious. He reminded them that the German government continued to support the churches financially through taxes and pointed out that thousands of church leaders were exercising their offices unrestrained. But what about the hundreds of pastors and priests who had been arrested and thrown into prison or concentration camps?

A fair question.

The only religious leaders persecuted by his regime, he smugly said, were those who criticized the government or committed egregious moral transgressions, such as sexually abusing children.

It is a myth that American Boston journalists were the first in the West, at the beginning of this century, to expose the Can of Worms that is the Catholic Church: it was the Germans. We can imagine how many Catholic children would have been spared if Hitler had won the war…

“Nor is it acceptable,” Hitler told the churches, “to criticize the morality of a state,” when they should be policing their own morals (the Nazi regime was at this time conducting trials of Catholic clergy for sexual abuse). He continued, “The German leadership of state will take care of the morality of the German state and Volk.” In Hitler’s view, morality was the purview of the state and its political leaders, not religious institutions and religious leaders. Any pastor or priest teaching his congregation morality contrary to Nazi policy or ideology could be labeled a political oppositionist, even if he was simply teaching moral precepts that Christians had been teaching for centuries.

Highly commendable, but because he lost the war we never settled accounts with Christianity: something Hitler planned to do after the war.

Deranged altruism Judeo-reductionism Mauricio (commenter) Racial right

Two thousand years together!

by Mauricio

Who is worse, the drug dealer or the drug addict?

When you have a people who have become so dependent on this egalitarian worldview for so many centuries, and failed every single opportunity to break off this addiction, it starts to look like the drug dealer is just doing business, and the drug addict has an incorrigible deathwish.

One could write a history of White decline called ‘Two Thousand Years Together’.

It’s Whites who like to get high on slave morality. They’ve been getting higher and higher on this Christian drug ever since Constantine.

They’ve finally overdosed in 1945, and now the White race is lying comatose on a hospital bed full of Jewish doctors, lucid-dreaming about a perfect world full of brown people.

Nature has tested Whites’ spiritual resilience to a poisonous mental software, and they’ve failed repeatedly. The jews were merely the vector for that poison. Time for the final verdict: genocide.

Had the Third Reich survived, it would’ve brought a superior human race to this world—the Ubermensch—which would be practically immune to this mind poison; then the drug-dealing jew would have to peddle his pity-loving bullshit elsewhere.
It will take a catastrophe of unforeseen magnitude—and centennial duration—for the white human to stop pitying the angry brown subhuman mass that wants to kill him.

Abhor pity towards mankind – four words of Savitrian wisdom.


______ 卐 ______


Editor’s note: Mauricio was responding to a typical white nationalist (they believe that Jewry is the root cause of white decline). In the comments section I just added these words:

As Thomas Kuhn saw, the same information can be processed in a completely different way between two subjects. So different that, depending on how we process the info, the paradigm shifts. In science, the classic paradigm shift would be from the geocentric to the heliocentric system. Although 17th-century astronomers had exactly the same information, it depended on how they interpreted the data.

This caricature reflects the paradigm shift from the JQ, which currently reigns in white nationalism, to the CQ—Christian question—that I propose. The caricature is interpreted by some white nationalists as archetypal Jewish subversion, as if to imply that the kikes hypnotised us through religion:

Regardless of whether or not that was the intention of the caricaturist, I see the same information differently. The kike didn’t hypnotise us. There is white agency. Just look at the faces of these white idiots. They simply love what the kike tells them. For two millennia white Christians have been willingly indulging in evil by following the gospel. And the same can be said for secular white nationalists who continue to subscribe to the same ethical code that we see in the caricature.

The caricature shows a malicious Jew selling us Christian ethics. The orthodox interpretation of our decline, which we see every day in The Occidental Observer, blames the Jew. But with the same info that MacDonald sees, I see whites as the real culprits. Who dares to believe such bullshit, the white family in the above caricature? The same info can be interpreted differently depending on our internal will. While white nationalists see a couple of kike silhouettes, I see in ochre colour the bitter cup that Christianity made us drink since Constantine:

The image above can also be used as an illustration of a paradigm shift. Who to blame: the Jew who wants to sell us the teachings of Jesus or the white people drinking this poisonous Kool-Aid with their eyes wide shut—including the ‘racist’ commenters linked above from Occidental Dissent and The Unz Review? Who is worse: the white imbecile or the foreign subversive?

Alice Miller Autobiography Ferdinand Bardamu Judeo-reductionism Kevin MacDonald Psychohistory Racial right


‘Tanstaafl cannot think in terms of a combined causality, for him there can be only one cause: the Jews’. —Franklin Ryckaert

I woke up thinking I would post an entry from another section of Savitri Devi’s book and, while checking my email spam filter, I come across an article in The Occidental Observer (TOO) about Tanstaafl (Tan).

Although I never met him personally (the American government doesn’t give me a visa to visit the US), when I first woke up to the Jewish question, Tan and I were friends. Then I began to ask questions, such as the cases of ethno-suicidal miscegenation without Jewish subversion that have occurred throughout history, and I distanced myself from him. While I still believe that the JQ (the Jewish Question) is a very real thing—Kevin MacDonald is more or less right, as far as he goes, in his three books on the JQ that I’ve read—, in expanding the JQ into the CQ (the Christian Question) I lost almost all the friends I had known, thanks to the internet, from white nationalism.

But before I get into the title of this article, which I came up with because my previous article is entitled ‘WDH vs. AmRen’, I would like to confess a few things about my biography.

As you can read in my autobiographical books, my adolescent life begins with a family tragedy that destroyed several people. Cognitively, I was not well after the storm and fell into a neochristian cult, whose dogmas led me into a ‘dark night of the soul’.

Specific anecdotes are beside the point except that, after a period of blind belief in the cult, called Eschatology, I began to ask questions. For example, why, if Eschatology develops paranormal powers to heal the body and in theory one can prolong youth, did eschatologists get sick and die like everyone else (see my article on the subject on pages 9-24 of Daybreak)? My teachers of Eschatology never answered me, nor did it ever occur to them that they should answer me.

That was the first time I left a group that had served as a new family after the loss of my biological family. It was also the first time I realised that a group of religionists are so self-encapsulated in an ideological bubble that any rational argument attacking their bubble from the outside will simply be ignored.

Years after I left the cult, something similar would happen to me with another group I belonged to, but this time it was just an internet group about abusive parents: specifically, readers of the Swiss psychologist Alice Miller. By now I was familiar with the work of Lloyd deMause, who, in his book that was translated into several languages, History of Childhood, said that children had been much more abused in the historical past, and more so in non-Western cultures. Since Miller’s fans were (and apparently still are) all liberals, they didn’t enter into an honest discussion with me about the terrible treatment of children in non-Western cultures.

So, for the second time, I lost a group I had acclimatised with, and for exactly the same reason: a lack of honesty on the part of my colleagues to face the facts. My conclusions about deMause’s work can be read in my book Day of Wrath, and my final word to those I left behind as I crossed the bridge from Miller country to White Nationalist country can be read: here.

But my spirit of always going to the frontier of knowledge made me cross, once again, another bridge, although crossing it has left me almost alone. A commenter on this site hit the nail regarding this ultimate loneliness: ‘The leap from 5 to 6 [of Mauricio’s ladder] is astronomical due to the Xtian malware rejection. Feels lonely sometimes’. Indeed: by introducing the CQ we lose the friendship of not only Christian white nationalists, but Christian sympathisers like Kevin MacDonald and many secular people who comment on his site and AmRen.

The West’s Darkest Hour used to be visited by more people, and even receive more donations, before I went nuclear on the CQ. But I won’t change my views unless someone shows me I’m wrong.

A while ago I asked commenters who subscribed to ‘monocausalism’—Jewry as the primary cause of white decline—not to argue here. I have modified that request and I think that, if they have good reasons to refute me, they could point them out to me—as long as they take into consideration what I say in the single comment of the sticky post!

But there is a problem with this desire of mine for dialogue. If I take into consideration my past, for example all those decades I lost in the cult and the reluctance of eschatologists to discuss the issues with me, or the reluctance of Alice Miller fans to discuss my interpretation of deMause, I think I should understand that white nationalists will never try to refute me. Like the eschatologists and Miller fans, they will simply ignore what I say even though it would be possible, say, for one of these fans to write a critical review of my Day of Wrath, or for the nationalists to write critical reviews of the other books on the sidebar.

As those who study paradigm shifts know, the old-school proponents (e.g., those who believe in the quasi-monocausal premise of TOO) have to die off so that the proponents of the new paradigm—that the CQ and JQ are two sides of the same coin—can begin to flourish.

The problem is that we don’t have much time. The anti-white establishment is growing by the day to ‘wait’ for the monocausalists to die out (think, for example, of who Biden wants to nominate to fill the vacant Supreme Court seat). Rather than trying to convince them, it would be great if younger people could climb Mauricio’s ladder and get to where very few of us are. And if we are wrong, let those of the old school start, for example, by answering what Ferdinand Bardamu objects to about Kevin MacDonald (pages 171-181 of The Fair Race’s Darkest Hour).


Update of February 4

Edmund Connelly, PhD, the author of ‘Tanstaafl and Rational [!] Discussion of Jews’—the first link in the above article—didn’t mention what Greg Johnson thinks about Tan’s monocausalism.

In white nationalism there are three main sites of pundits: TOO, AmRen, and CC (Counter-Currents) administered by Johnson. Had Connelly been a little more objective, he would have taken Johnson’s objections to Tan into account.

Exactly the same can be said about the commenters in the TOO discussion thread. As of this update, there is not a single critique of Tan—or monocausalists like him—of the sort of Greg Johnson’s sharp critique. That gross omission vindicates what I wrote above about ‘the quasi-monocausal premise of TOO’.

Judeo-reductionism Kevin MacDonald Miscegenation Racial right

How KMD ushers in the new year

In my last post last year I reminded visitors that none of the mainstream white nationalist forums has tried to answer my main point about miscegenation in Latin America, when Jews had no influence in the Americas. Kevin MacDonald’s first article this year in The Occidental Observer opens with these words:

Nathan Cofnas published a paper in the Israel-based academic journal Philosophia: Philosophical Quarterly of Israel in February of last year titled “The Anti-Jewish Narrative.” Andrew Joyce wrote a masterful reply, “The Cofnas Problem,” while I decided to try to publish a response in Philosophia. My paper went through two rounds of peer review and was finally accepted. It is the lead article in the January issue of Philosophia, and is available as an open-access paper on Springer Nature.

This is the first time I have attempted to publish an article on Jewish influence in the mainstream academic literature since The Culture of Critique was published in 1998 by Praeger, so it is something of a milestone.

MacDonald is one of the most respected white nationalists in America. I would like to respond to what he says about his milestone by paraphrasing the article’s abstract, replacing terms that refer to Jewry with terms that refer to Christian ethics. This is MacDonald’s original abstract:

The role of Jewish activism in the transformative changes that have occurred in the West in recent decades continues to be controversial. Here I respond to several issues putatively related to Jewish influence, particularly the “default hypothesis” that Jewish IQ and urban residency explain Jewish influence and the role of the Jewish community in enacting the 1965 immigration law in the United States; other issues include Jewish ethnocentrism and intermarriage and whether diaspora Jews are hypocritical in their attitudes on immigration to Israel versus the United States. The post-World War II era saw the emergence of a new, substantially Jewish elite in America that exerted influence on a wide range of issues that formed a virtual consensus among Jewish activists and the organized Jewish community, including immigration, civil rights, and the secularization of American culture. Jewish activism in the pro-immigration movement involved: intellectual movements denying the importance of race in human affairs; establishing, staffing, and funding anti-restrictionist organizations; recruiting prominent non-Jews to anti-restrictionist organizations; rejecting the ethnic status quo as a goal because of fear of a relatively homogeneous white majority; leadership in Congress and the executive branch.

What KMD says both in this article and in his trilogy on Jewry is basically true. My objection is that it is short-sighted, in that it doesn’t adequately consider the history of the white race outside his nation. This is my paraphrase:

The role of the Catholic Church in the transformative changes that have occurred in the West continues to be controversial… On this side of the Atlantic, the post-Conquest era after 1521 saw the emergence of a new, substantially Spanish elite in the American continent that exerted influence on a wide range of issues that formed a virtual consensus among the organised Church and Catholic religious orders, including immigration of blacks from Africa, civil rights for the native Amerindians, and the Christianization of the Americas. The activism of the Spanish and Portuguese crowns involved a pro-immigration movement (in the following centuries more blacks migrated to the Catholic Americas than to Protestant America); Christian movements denying the importance of race in human affairs, and minimizing white supremacy to the point of wholesale mestization of the Iberian whites with both, native Amerindians and imported blacks.

If you wonder where these blacks are in Latin America, the answer is brutal: they have long since been genetically amalgamated with the other races, so the average ‘mestizo’ is actually the product of all three races.

Is it getting through that my ‘heliocentric’ paradigm replaces the ‘geocentric’ paradigm of the US racialist right? The policies of the 1965 Act that MacDonald mentions in his January 1st piece fall within my own life span. By contrast, what Christians did on the continent, ruining the DNA of those who came from the Iberian peninsula, was perpetrated for centuries (the first cases of interbreeding were consummated even before the Conquest of the Aztec Empire).

But obviously, white nationalists will continue to ignore these facts because confronting them would imply updating their little paradigm! Incidentally, to the translation of Ferdinand Bardamu’s essay into the language of Cervantes on why Europeans should reject Christianity, I have added a brief prologue and an epilogue, which can be read in the Spanish section of this site (here and here).