web analytics

Category: Racial right

Categories
Correspondence Racial right

Silencio

The tragedy of Friedrich Nietzsche’s life was that it happened to be a one-man show, a monodrama wherein no other actor entered upon the stage: not a soul is at his side to succour him; no woman is there to soften by her ever-present sympathy the stresses of the atmosphere. Every action takes its birth in him, and its repercussions are felt by him alone. Not one person ventures to enter wholeheartedly into the innermost sanctum of Nietzsche’s destiny; the poet-philosopher is doomed to speak, to struggle, to suffer alone. He converses with no one, and no one has anything to say to him. What is even more terrible is that none hearken to his voice. —Stefan Zweig

Today, Benjamin sent me an email containing this paragraph: “I’m disappointed no one else even seems to have clicked my link to the page though (or if they have, from my analytics they haven’t stayed more than two minutes—odd with an easy-access layout one-page site containing many hours of content). Bar the psychiatry focus, and the veganism, I thought I was basically covering topics we talk about all the time on WDH. I don’t understand (my perennial problem: trying to analyse the apathetic) why they’re not interested. Maybe they haven’t got 6 quid. I hope not, or our movement is screwed”.

This is something that, in the past, has seemed like an extraordinary phenomenon to me, and I would like to respond to Benjamin in the second person singular:

As I’ve told you several times, even years before you found my site, when I posted quite insightful entries and thought some of them would have a large quorum, no one said a peep, and over time I invented a saying that I used to say to myself in soliloquies: “Here come the silent ones…!” in the sense that they left me talking to myself, over and over again.

It was so exasperating that, occasionally, as I’ve also confessed to you, I let the insulting trolls’ comments slide because I preferred the insults to have the racialists apply what the Germans call “death by silence” tactic. (My family, relatives, friends, therapist and acquaintances “killed me with silence”. No one wanted to know anything about what was happening at home, and it was precisely because no one wanted to listen that I dedicated myself to writing about the family tragedy.)

As I told you by email, the silence of the visitors began several years ago, when it became clear that my criticisms of white nationalism were going to be incisive, constant, and persistent. That scared everyone away. And they are fundamental criticisms: I was trying, and am trying, to shift the paradigm from the JQ to the CQ. And I do this not because I side with the Jews: I believe they should be expelled to Madagascar, Hitler’s original idea (or to Israel, although that country has already become a precarious place, and the war with Iran could evolve into a regional war).

I suspect that the relative silence in the comments section is due to what Thomas Kuhn said about a paradigm shift. The old guard first ignores the new paradigm (admirably summarised in yesterday’s post, citing your book!). When it’s no longer possible to ignore the new paradigm, let’s say if voices like yours were to multiply (obviously, we’re not there yet), the old guard fiercely opposes the new paradigm. Finally, the new paradigm is accepted as the most natural thing, although that only happens with the biological death of the old guard who controlled the boundaries of discourse. The new generations are seeing that the old paradigm was wrong or at least incomplete: something that, to preserve their egos, the older generations were reluctant to concede.

It’s similar to what Scott Peck says about narcissistic parents who never admit that they might have made a mistake with one of their children. It also reminds me of the case of a girl diagnosed as schizophrenic in one of Ronald Laing’s books. Laing wrote that it was precisely because the mother was incapable of accepting an ounce of guilt that her daughter was so disturbed.

The same thing happens with white nationalists: they are incapable of accepting that our civilisation took the wrong path many centuries ago. These nationalists maintain a working hypothesis that resembles a religious dogma: Jewry is responsible for our misfortunes. We say: Jewry is very powerful in the West and very subversive: but whites empowered them by destroying the religion whose Gods represented the Aryan collective unconscious, replacing it with the Judeo-Christian collective unconscious. As Emperor Julian saw when the transition from one collective unconscious to another was underway, “Why were you so ungrateful to our Gods as to desert them for the Jews?”

Contrary to what Hitler privately confessed to his closest friends, today’s nationalists are like the mother of the schizophrenic woman: they don’t accept an iota of blame. Compared to intelligent people like William Pierce, who wrote Who We Are, or scholars like Revilo Oliver, the ideology of today’s nationalists, besides being simplistic, represents a giant step backwards. If we follow the Rubicon metaphor it’s as if, after two solid steps toward the other side of the river—racial realism and becoming aware of JQ—instead of moving forward, these racialists panic about what they begin to glimpse through the fog on the other side. Transvaluing implies genocidal actions against our enemies and, like a magnet pulling them toward Normieland due to their Christian programming, they begin to take steps backwards instead of forward to finally cross the river toward National Socialism.

We can’t do anything with these cowards. We must be very patient. If Kuhn was right, the older generations—in our case, the white nationalists—will have to die. Perhaps those who are now Aryan children, or even unborn minds will have a better chance of seeing things differently: of discovering this site and embracing the post-1945 National Socialist antichristian worldview. But trying to do so with the hundreds of conservatives who comment on, say, The Unz Review and other racialist forums is a fool’s errand.

Since I’m already in my sixties I hope that if death were to surprise me, our work wouldn’t disappear but that I could pass the mantle to someone younger, like you: someone who would maintain the content of this site, especially the PDFs where the vital information is condensed.

And when it comes to the havoc that abusive parents wreak on their offspring, the situation is even worse! The taboo is universal due to the “problem of the attachment with the perp”, a concept explained in my Day of Wrath. However, if it makes you feel better, I received an email today from a Panamanian who asked me to share the link to your site, which I did.

Categories
Benjamin (commenter) Racial right

Excerpts

Editor’s note: Below, some excerpts from pages 184-199 of the expanded, August 2024 edition of Benjamin’s The Less Than Jolly Heretic:
 

______ 卐 ______

 

Dear César,

I hope you are well. Congratulations on the completion of the Savitri Devi book project. I’ve already downloaded a digital copy and read through it once. I was wondering if it was now possible to place an order for one of your home-bound editions? If you could tell me the full costs, I shall put the money through to you. I did not want to contact you until now as I wanted to make sure I was financially secure enough to afford the process and shipping costs…

I’m also aware that, sadly, the vast majority of “right-wing” individuals and the groups they cluster to are extremely hostile to manifestations of psychological pain, and ignorant over trauma, and with a particular recent drive to ridicule mental health for the purposes of ‘defeating’ their political ‘leftist’ rivals. As you wrote before, I consider them to be fakes. To be honest, you’re the only National Socialist I have ever encountered online who is at all understanding of madness…

I see nigh-on all these committed White political activists as just as much of a threat as everyone else. If there ever were to achieve substantial power, I would not expect them to impose an order in any way relatable to the worldview of National Socialism, or of any genuine intrinsic loyalty to the great vision of Adolf Hitler, or indeed the West itself…

Occasionally, I’ll check Counter Currents, maybe once every few months. I always regret it. Of all of them, I had expected more of ‘Morgoth’. I saw this today by Stephen Paul Foster. Immediately I was put off but decided to see what he had to say. I paused on the lines:

My friend, whose name was Bill, was not your typical loser who works himself into a violent temper and up and slays his defenseless girlfriend. This particular slayer turned out to be a man of advanced degrees, sophisticated tastes, serious books, and immense erudition. Fluent in four languages, the range and depth of his knowledge was phenomenal. He could converse insightfully about the influence of Kantian ethics on German legal positivism, help you fathom the aesthetics of Arnold Schoenberg’s atonalism, and substantively compare English translations of the pre-Socratic philosophers.

I knew he was hopelessly lost in relativism, ignorance and Christian moral outrage. Even culturally, we could do better than Schoenberg and Kant. Might as well be Bukowski, or at least their Hemmingway. He wrote:

In his trial for the second murder, to convince the jury that Bill’s torture and killing of his girlfriend was not a first degree (capital) murder, his attorneys summoned as defense witnesses “theorists of the mind”—psychologists—to compound the “assumptions” that would explain Bill’s evil; abstractions conjured out of the black box of “mental health” in the form of “disorders” .

Much as I don’t agree with the orthodox medical system or with the term “disorders” either, it seems like Stephen was unwilling to accept that Bill’s behaviour was in any way explainable beyond him being pure evil. I’m not sure how one could ever satisfactorily attempt to pass that off as an intelligent response. He even wrote immediately afterwards, using Poe as an authority, of all people:

By undue profundity, we perplex and enfeeble thought. — Edgar Allan Poe, The Murders in the Rue Morgue

He goes on:

The trial was a formal ritual of “undue profundity.” It attempted to factor in of all of Bill’s personal paraphernalia that had been relevant to the murder. But pondering his potential, intelligence, educational attainment, cultured charm, and his sick, unhappy childhood with divorced parents and a callous father was worse than useless as an effort to explain the elusive why he did what he did. Some people are just no good. It is that simple. They are unredeemable. They belong in Dante’s tenth and lowest circle of Inferno. The more assumptions introduced to explain it, the more confusing (perplexing) it becomes, and less satisfactory the results.

Considering what I said in my previous email, where I was pondering what the Dissident Right would be like in a position of power, this line troubled me:

Stupidity cannot be fixed; neither can evil. Yet, while everyone concedes that stupidity is impossible to remediate, many think that evil is an accident or a breakdown that can be repaired by “experts.”

Great, so first some people are just evil, fundamentally, and no further questions needed, and then we discover that they are also unable to repair from this. I am left wondering what they would propose to do, given this strange superstition. I can understand Bill’s sentencing, and I am not attempting to excuse the acts. However, I can see Stephen potentially applying this mantra further. He seems to be rationalizing for what is—in the near-synonymous to this wording of his own article—a fear of new knowledge. There is the voice of the Elizabethan witch-hunter in him. At what point does his pathetic Christian moralizing stop? What would prevent him expanding his definition of evil? I shudder to think how he would react to mental health in general. I was thinking of the case of Jeffrey Dahmer at the time, and the pieces you wrote on his case. [Editor's note: See e.g., here and here] It’s terrible, but now understandable. I am able to feel pity and sadness all round, knowing it was not dealt with in time.

After all, in the original entry in the un-updated blog he linked here Stephen wrote:

His personal history was indeed a remarkable departure from that of the typical slayer of ex-girlfriends: marks of social and economic privilege, impressive educational credentials, extraordinary intellectual attainment. Bill’s life had been considerably advantaged. His father was a highly successful attorney, first in St Louis, then in California.

He went on:

This man had been my friend for fifteen years. We met when he was a first year law student at St Louis University in 1982. I was a librarian at the law school, teaching part time and finishing a dissertation for a Ph. D. in philosophy. Bill worked as a student in the law school library and after a couple of initial encounters we became friends. Few friendships in my life formed so quickly and with such intensity, in part because we shared a passion for systematic and voracious historical and philosophical reading.

Additionally, I noted the sentence:

To me Bill had always appeared completely normal, even conservative in his personal habits, orientation and behavior.

Then, tellingly:

How could this extraordinary man I had known for so long and for whom I had so much affection, commit such horrible crimes? … How could I not over the years have seen any indications that he was capable of such murderous fits of rage? Did my friendship mean anything genuine to him, or was I a kind of social prop who served a darker pathological purpose? Was there a flaw in my character not to have recognized the malignancy in his?

I was vindicated when I read the lines:

…the attorneys also painted a picture of Bill for the jury that bore little resemblance to the person I had known for so many years. They said Bill was a socially inept, maladjusted loner, a man who had been irreparably damaged by an indifferent and emotionally distant father. About his upbringing I have no direct knowledge, but I do remember over the years how consistently he spoke with respect and admiration of his father [emphasis by Ed. - cf. the Dahmer case], particularly his basic decency and integrity.

The conclusion I drew from this was that Stephen was awed by Bill’s intelligent and academic nature, which was in fact all that really seems to have interested him, and he did not indeed know Bill that well, or a great deal about Bill’s father either, bar more credentialism, having never had the compassion or emotional intelligence to notice any warning signs of repressed psychological pain. Rather than a fairy-tale “evil,” I am concerned reading that he is so overcome with righteous rage at the crimes against two women that he cannot bear to wonder more about Bill’s childhood experiences with his father.

All he notes is Bill’s successes and erudition. I find the presumption terrible. Given the way you have exposed in your writings and links how much abuse victims idolize their abusive parents, and how the self-repressive mentality of continuing to do so is a sure-fire route to them taking out their rage on others, I thought it was not unbelievable that this indeed was the cause of Bill’s horrific criminal actions.

Rather than soaking up facts about Schoenberg and feeling smug in having a charming token ‘highly intelligent friend,’ perhaps Stephen could have listened to him, or had the perception to see between the lines. Despite his PhD in philosophy, his argument seems to stem more from his livid social embarrassment at having been ‘caught out’, especially on account of the fact that he seems to have considered Bill a good catch, almost as a vicarious academic status booster, basking in the glow of his knowledge, and yet another very able scholar himself, perhaps observable now, given his protestive elucidation, this sounder moral quality, rising.

In a nutshell, this is generally the sort of reason I keep clear of Counter Currents and the Dissident Right. They infuriate me.

Well, I’m off to lift my weights and prepare some soup, I shall look forward to ordering your bound translation next week. I hope you have a good day.

15 March 2023

Categories
Benjamin (commenter) Racial right

Some

quotes from The Less Than Jolly Heretic: The Philosophy of Hurt Children and An Adult’s Transvaluated Moral Principle by Benjamin:

 

______ 卐 ______

 

The term “Neochristian” is perhaps most appropriate. It is a slightly different consideration that takes European racial history into account in detail beyond mere latter-day political manipulation and propagandizing, an understanding that does not pass off this issue as mere leftist ‘brainwashing.’

After all, in the words of an anonymous commenter I discovered online through the West’s Darkest Hour blog in 2024 (a highly detailed and beautifully erudite online academic resource where one will, doubtlessly, have one’s core assumptions shaken), “liberalism itself, and its factional development into the likes of Marxism, Bolshevism, Fabian Socialism, and Fourierism is merely a repurposing of Christian ethical values, the ‘catholic,’ i.e., universalist dogmas of egalitarianism that inspired Boasian anthropology, and the genuflection, self-abnegation, and self-abasement that function as necessary prerequisites for spiritual purity, the public display of self-hate coupled to penitent virtue-signaling, the Christian doctrine of original sin synonymous with modern white guilt and the moralizing over privilege, and political correctness no different to judgments of heresy, witch-hunting, and ex-communication, with government replacing God as an omnipotent benefactor.”

He goes on, in my mild paraphrasing: “Even as the original religious belief in a supreme Jewish deity and an afterlife dies, the inverted value system remains, self-policing and condemning other tribal kin as heretics and infidels and working against their family interests, a meek, self-defeating, pacifist transvaluation of traditional moral values, replacing the pre-Christian aristocratic values that inspired a love of strength, pride, honour, loyalty, family, tradition, and race with weakness, mediocrity, conformity, and vulgarity, stripping all self-worth, severing connections to ancestry and genetic memory, rendering intellectual curiosity and critical thinking a sinful threat and stimulating a culture that holds contempt for learning, learned helplessness and conditioned group obedience, the slave-like underclass of society weaponized to resent, judge and police the behaviour of the warrior and aristocratic castes, and a hyper-political polarization.”

The commenter (whose extended quotation is sadly unlocated by me at the time of writing this so I am unable to provide a proper acknowledgement) ends his share of prudent wisdom with the acknowledgement that “Christianity itself has always been an institutionalized, self-regulating millenarian slave-morality system promoted as a religion, shaping the evolutionary group strategy of Europeans for almost two thousand years. These values are handed down from parents to children, and all modern patterns of perception, logic, speech, thought, action, and emotional response operate subconsciously within the dynamics of this system”, irrespective of an increasingly anti-theistic secularity since the 18th Century. [pages 10-11 of the Third Edition, 2024]

——- * * * ——-

I generally find I have absolutely nothing in common with those I observe and read who are designated “Far Right” by the establishment or, indeed, self-defined as “White Nationalists.” As examined at length above, then, I am vastly more interested in the close Nordic phenotypical similarities of the Cro-Magnon settlers who migrated to Europe from the Anatolian peninsula of Western Asia at the end of the Middle Palaeolithic than in rooting our racial origins in the early Bronze Age.

There’s the superficial appearance of a relationship with the dissident right, but it remains a shallow, lazy analysis. I have little interest in the right’s incessant and fallacious genetic determinism theorising. I find the political right appallingly crass, boorish, and ignorant in general, more an example of insincere, ratings-sensitive showmanship than a force for any active change, and I can’t imagine I’d integrate too well with any of their peer groups, even if I somehow wanted to. They seem to remain as rooted in the orthodoxy as every other branch of political activists across the spectrum, or indeed the apolitical citizen majority, the same insular, bourgeois attitudes, and those cruel moralizing values of what unfortunately amounts to the 99%. [Ibid., page 128]

——- * * * ——-

You might also have to come to terms with the uncomfortable realities of Nordicism. Suppose you can’t even admit that your recent ancestors ended the world and are to be held accountable for this. In that case, you’re going to have problems announcing that those of them before that violated your racial phenotypes also, corrupting your genetics through poor mate choices – and some considerable way back. Genetics (or archaeogenetics) is often a superficial excuse. Just look at your exterior forms, your faces and bodies, their minds and actions. You’re dung. There, I can see some conservative type getting offended at me now.

As I wrote before, I don’t relate well to White Nationalists and right-wing thinkers, the discrete ‘national supremacists’ of England and America, as I call them. I see the communistic Athenian democracy of their massed online alternative media forums, and I have no respect for – or interest in – their proud, cruel, egalitarian conservatism, that brutish bourgeois capitalism and psychiatric Neochristianity, always the resolute pacifism and the scolding of braver men. [Ibid., pages 194-195]

Categories
Benjamin (commenter) Racial right

Dear César,

Thank you for your email. I’m sorry to hear you are in such abject unhappiness. I hope returning to your childhood area helps you. I grew up on the outskirts of a tiny, picturesque country village. I don’t know if it would let me down these days if I returned and examined it in adult detail, but all I remember from then are miles of bright cornfields and flower meadows, horses, and fields of cows, the scent of manure, and wood smoke, and plenty of butterflies. It’s a shame the atmosphere inside my family home did not match the delightful pastoral exterior, at least not for very long. Still, it’s good therapy to extricate yourself from what sounds like a nightmare town. As an honorary ‘country person’ I’ve never liked living in cities or towns much. I can’t imagine what it would feel like to live in an area with no white faces. I imagine it would make me paranoid, as if they were ‘closing in’. I look at the classic illustrations of Rome in about 400-500 AD, totally decayed and vulgar, fallen to pieces, and terribly depressing, and I think of our countries these days.

As with myself, I know you are betting on a currency collapse to aid your financial situation. I often feel I have let myself down by not having a job which could provide for us ([my girlfriend] and myself, but also donations), but then I remember that I was at various university courses until age 26, then spent longer than a decade after that in regular psychosis which only really went into remission once I wrote my books (and with the trial out of the way), and I remember that, on this account, I’ve simply been too busy/ill. I wish I could help you out more financially. None of my myriad self-employment creative efforts ever sell.

I was shocked by Europe. True, the buildings and statues were awe-inspiring, especially compared with the slum of Britain, but it was simply eye candy, and, when placed in context with the degenerate soullessness of the natives, somehow garish, and totally empty. A decent civilization requires decent quality people. I was surprised more did not comment on your report.

That’s the long-term problem with your site—it’s erudite, and intensely detailed, and high-brow (and challenging both intellectually and ethically) unlike the stale, pop journalist circle-jerk of Unz for example, or the smug hipster pretension of C-C. You know what you get there. I imagine it’s like cocaine to them, their daily slew of bland articles. Ego-stroking prolefeed, to do no more than delay vast numbers, and keep them vegetating in their echo-chamber. I should rephrase: the problem is not your site, it’s that people are idiots. I’m left waiting for the likes of Walsh to get out of prison so they can come back to commenting (although I imagine he’ll be monitored pretty tightly in aftermath).

I re-read your PDF booklet on American racialism recently. I didn’t realise there were so many small NS movements, all highly unsuccessful. It seemed to go in cycles. I noticed that the hardest point is always finding, recruiting, and holding onto people. It’s like NS is on the whole dead, somehow. The British Movement disappointed me terribly recently. It seems I was right—this country has no National Socialist presence. It’s just scores of bourgeois dissident rightists here and there, some with swastika paraphernalia, and fat, football hooligan punks.

I have to go shortly, I have a health appointment. I’ll write more later.

Best regards,

Ben

Categories
'Hitler' (book by Brendan Simms) Racial right

Another pdf!

From 18 November 2023 until 12 January this year I had been publishing some extracts from Brendan Simms’ book on Hitler. I will no longer quote it at length. But I have just edited a PDF that can serve not only as an introduction to Simms’s intellectual biography—in the sense of trying to understand Hitler’s ideas— but for something more important.

I am referring to the fact that, even eighty years after the fateful 1945, the American racial right still fails to understand fundamental aspects of National Socialism. I hope that our ‘Hitler’ PDF will serve not only to make them, at last, begin to understand Uncle Adolf, but also the German—and European—degenerates I saw earlier this month on my recent visit to continental Europe. In his book, Simms observed:

Hitler rose to new heights of invective against the German middle class, whom he dismissed as ‘philistines’, ‘bourgeois boobies’, who were so befuddled by the ‘fug of associational meetings’ that they were unable to transcend the ‘usual jingoism of our bourgeois world of today’. He contrasted the robustness of the SA, who knew that ‘terror can only be broken by terror’, with ‘bourgeois wimpishness’. Hitler also trenchantly restated his objections to parliamentarism and electoral politics, and western democracy in general, concluding that the ‘majority principle’ amounted to ‘the demolition of the Führer idea as such’.

Does one begin to understand why I have so much contempt for the racial right of our day, infinitely closer to American conservatism than to National Socialism? I recommend reading these excerpts from Simms’ book to anyone who wants to understand history’s darkest hour.

Categories
Benjamin (commenter) Racial right

Quietness

by Benjamin

I feel very frustrated that comments on WDH have on the whole tailed off. Where did they all disappear to? Or were they timewasters in the first place? I didn’t think so. I dislike the quietness. It’s like they’ve all lost their spines. I don’t know if they’re demoralised, or simply ideologically opposed all of a sudden when National Socialism didn’t turn out what they wanted it to be/didn’t turn out to be ‘hardcore’ WN with swastikas. I imagine it’s the Christian question, but more so especially the trauma model and animal rights that gets them the most—most people are cruel; I’ve gathered that, and resent being forced to high moral standards.

I had an obvious thought as to the commenters, and commenters in general. I notice the most responses are always to the ‘what was done in the war/what could have been done instead in the war’ topic set. It’s because, I think, this topic is basically abstract, and doesn’t require personal change. One can mull over nerdy history perspectives all day long, massaging tiny new snippets of information in.

But to discuss ethics is more of a quality than a slew of mere information, and brings the person in question into the debate, not just the abstract at arms length, and thus is harder to massage into their already-rigid position, as, for once in their lives, coming from the dissident right in general as they are, they are encouraged to see ‘the mentally ill’ not as hate objects, but as victims of parental cruelty, and, more than that, are encouraged to realise that by eating meat they are causing unnecessary suffering, and are so evil in some sense.

That takes too much effort to change over compared with editing in a tiny new snippet of historical insight here and there, or piping up with more. I don’t personally know a huge deal about that point in history (though like to learn), and I don’t have an endless fascination with regurgitating facts one could find in a book if they wanted.

I think that’s the root of it, qualities versus facts-by-rote. It’s a hard situation to get around.

If I wanted endless Jew-bait, as I call it (a pun on click-bait), I’d just go to The Unz Review. Don’t get me wrong, I consider it a problem, but Jews don’t really play on my mind much these days, unlike Christianized whites. The more they look at Jews, the more excuse they have, and the less they see themselves. Only when they see themselves, and tackle themselves, can they mount any sensible attack on their enemies.

I hope you have some new blood soon. At one point there were over 40 people, right? I count loads of commenters, and I get frustrated when the ones I like drop away. They should understand, as you say, that yes, the Jewish Question is a given, and we’ve all done it to death (if not, the SS Pamphlets cover it pretty well) but the Christian Question encapsulates everything. If not for the latter, these ignorant mercantile commenters really are no different to Jews in my eyes. They worship and obey the principles of the same alien god.
 

Editor’s 2 ¢:

I think the Christian issue has really alienated the dissident right from this forum, and the fact that I barely mentions Jews.

The position of this site, following the four words, is: Be kind to abused animals and children, and tough on the exterminable Neanderthals who abuse them. Conversely, the WN position in general is based on Christian ethics: Love one another, and exterminationism is unthinkable anathema.

To the commenters:

I wonder, if Ben and I launched a podcast talking about all of this (a WDH transformed from written word to spoken word, inviting listeners to speak to the show), would you come back?

Categories
Miscegenation Nordicism Racial right

Lebensborn

‘If we could establish the Nordic race and, from this seedbed, produce a race of 200 million, the world would be ours.’ —Himmler

In heated debates, many commenters on racialist forums continue to discuss Hitler and National Socialism these days, including Greg Johnson (e.g., here).

One of the most recurring themes of Hitler’s critics has been the way the Germans treated the Slavs in WW2. I am enormously struck by the fact that none of them have been able to point out the obvious. It was perfectly natural and laudable that Himmler and his people, who had some Norwegian villages as an almost perfect paradigm of the Aryan, wanted to Aryanise the occupied territories of those who had suffered miscegenation due to the continuous Asian invasions.

Concerned about this issue, while walking through a beautiful little English village I once asked historian Arthur Kemp, author of a book on the history of the white race, a naive question. I asked him what percentage of Russians would be mixed. I say naive as it is obvious that they are already all more mixed than the purest Nordics—the paradigm with which Himmler and his ilk wanted to populate Europe, beautifully portrayed by the American Maxfield Parrish whose paintings now hang on the walls of my studio.

As we said in my anthology ‘On Exterminationism’, a few months after its founding, Himmler’s Lebensborn project opened Heim Hochland, the first home for pregnant women. For this purpose, the National Socialists took over the construction of a Catholic orphanage in Munich. Initially, the institution could accommodate up to thirty mothers and fifty-five children, and the candidates were carefully selected. Only women who met the characteristics of the dominant race were admitted. Candidates had their skulls measured, and only those with the coveted elongated skull, typical of the Nordic type, could be admitted. They also had to meet other requirements, such as blond hair, blue or green eyes and good health. Those who passed the test received the best care.

This fact, that due to the brutal Asian invasions the Slavs’ bloodline was already more compromised than the specimens chosen by Himmler and the SS to repopulate the conquered territories, is completely overlooked by all these critics of Hitler. They overlook it because of their Christian ethics and the mandate of universal brotherhood, so they see all Caucasoids (except Jews) as brothers. It is surreal to admit, but only someone who is not an Aryan, such as myself, has been able to point this fact out over the years in my disputes with white nationalists.

The thing to do is to applaud Hitler’s plans, including his Master Plan East, and only criticise him militarily (easy to say now: he should’ve waited until he had the atomic bomb before venturing into Operation Barbarossa).

What I say in ‘The Wall’ stands, which is why it remains and will remain the featured post of The West’s Darkest Hour. An axiological wall separates National Socialists from white nationalists and very few Americans have crossed it. William Pierce was one of them but it is a wall that very few racialists are, now, willing to cross.

There is something I have perceived and have already said but it is worth reiterating.

In my experience on this site, thanks to the emails sent to me by the more radical commenters I have noticed that only those who were martyred as children or teenagers by their parents have been able to truly break with the values of today’s West. It is difficult to visualize it if you don’t read the autobiography of one of them. But for the sake of understanding I will use an analogy.

Only people like Solzhenitsyn, who suffered years in the Gulag, broke with the ideology of the Soviet state to the extent that, already a refugee in the US, he wanted that state to be destroyed. We can already imagine nationalist Russians in Brezhnev’s time! Despite Stalin’s crimes, it would be unthinkable for them to wish for such a thing because, unlike Solzhenitsyn, they didn’t suffer the horrors of the Gulag.

Only intense suffering makes one break with the paradigm in turn, although I recognise that suffering resulting from parental abuse annihilates psychically almost everyone. That is why I must translate my books into English, something I will restart now that I am beginning to settle down after a very calamitous move.

Categories
Racial right

What

does not work

by Kevin Alfred Strom

 
HISTORICALLY, ethnic nationalism — both the conscious type, which first flowered in Europe in the 19th century, and the unconscious, natural type which has been around among all races since time immemorial — has been tried again and again, hundreds of times, nay, thousands of times throughout history. It is no strong proof against the dangers of miscegenation, or mercantile empire which usually leads to multiculturalism and multiracialism and ultimately miscegenation. It has failed again and again to prevent Jewish infiltration and domination, which are death sentences for any people which tolerate them. In short, ethnic nationalism alone is not enough. It has been tried and it has failed. For a cumulative total of a thousand years and more, it has utterly failed to prevent the existential plight in which the White race finds itself today. Ethnic nationalism on its own is the quintessence of what does not work.

But National Socialism did not fail. That is why it is vilified by our enemies. True, it was defeated in a war — I say a battle in a war that is not yet over [emphasis by Editor]. But, barring war, its trajectory was perfect. In just twelve years: A nation, freed from Jewish usury and destructive influence. A nation, determined to preserve its Aryan racial heritage and carry it, progressively, into the infinite future. A nation, broken free from ossified and dangerous hereditary aristocracy, and broken free from even more dangerous mass “democracy.” A nation, freed from hostile alien media. A nation, freed from the twin evils of international Communism and international banking. A nation, ultimately forged in war as the vanguard and protector of the entire European race. A nation whose titanic sacrifice and immolation at the hands of Jewish power may one day — if we do right — become an element of a religion [emphasis by Editor] which will inspire our people to protect and defend forever our sacred race against all dangers.

It was tried for just twelve years. You could say National Socialism hasn’t really been tried yet, not fully. But in those twelve years, it was the most positive revolutionary force ever seen on this planet. It shows every prospect of success if it can capture the imaginations of enough of our people and become established again. And our enemies certainly know that — that is why they do everything they can, constantly, to prevent its resurgence. And today, buttressed by William Pierce’s discovery of and elaboration of Cosmotheism, it would be even more powerful, being even more imbued with the spiritual essence and Life of our people.

Plain vanilla “ethnic nationalism” equals a thousand years of failure (which fails in the long term even when it “succeeds”; look at Ireland today); that’s the ethnic nationalism of Keith Woods, who wrote a recent article suggesting that nationalists should abandon National Socialism (see the critique of his approach here by Daniel Zakal) — and that failure is embodied in every other White man who refuses the hand of Providence offered by Adolf Hitler and his new creed. An entirely new race-based creed and spiritual outlook to replace the failed and outworn creeds of Christianity and democracy; with great prospects of success — that’s what National Socialism promises.

The triumph of race-based, deeply spiritual, National Socialism means the eternal existence of our race, the total reorientation of society toward racial progress, and the achievement of our cosmic destiny. The triumph of plain-vanilla “ethnic nationalism” means “business as usual” leadership from figures only faintly more race-oriented than Geert Wilders, Nigel Farage, and Vladimir Zelensky — and probably significant compromises with such figures. That’s a huge difference.

I wrote of this in my program “A New Religion for Us,” highlighting the spiritual and philosophical depth of National Socialism, which sets it so much higher than the emptiness of mere “ethnic nationalism,” which nearly always merely holds on to whatever creed happens to be popular at the moment — and which today would surely cling to Abrahamic Jew-centered nonsense, as well as holding on to so-called “democracy.” The triumph of such a “nationalism” would get us almost nowhere. I wrote:

With profounder ideals and a stronger will than any other leadership structure of any other society for thousands of years at least, Germany ultimately sought to spiritually shepherd the unique expression of the Life Force and the growing consciousness that is our race through the dangers of the 20th century and beyond. Those dangers include 1) being trapped in an earth-bound Semitic creed designed to ensnare us in universalism, weakness, and worship of our enemies; 2) rejecting that Semitic creed in favor of an atheistic materialism and individualism that destroys our ability to grow and act as a natural biological and spiritual community; and 3) rejecting that Semitic creed in favor of the equally alien, spiritually empty, and equally debilitating equalitarian creed of Marxism.

National Socialism, especially when coupled with a strengthened spiritual aspect that has developed since 1945, saves us from those three dangers.

Savitri Devi wrote of National Socialism as a new life-affirming faith while she was imprisoned for her beliefs after the war:

And Hitler’s words about Christianity, reported by Rauschning in the fourth chapter of his book, would be admired — not criticised — in an Aryan world endowed with a consistently National Socialist consciousness, for they are in keeping with our spirit — and ring too true not to be authentic. [Even though parts of his book were surely forged in an effort to harm Germany and Hitler. — K.A.S.] “Leave the hair-splitting to others,” said the Führer to Hermann Rauschning before the latter turned renegade:

“Whether it is the Old Testament or the New, or simply the sayings of Jesus according to Houston Stewart Chamberlain, it is all the same Jewish swindle. It will not make us free. A German Church, a German Christianity, is a distortion. One is either a German or a Christian. You cannot be both. You can throw the epileptic Paul out of Christianity — others have done so before us. You can make Christ into a noble human being, and deny his divinity and his rôle as a saviour. People have been doing it for centuries. I believe there are such Christians today in England and America — Unitarians, they call themselves, or something like that. It is no use. You cannot get rid of the mentality behind it. We do not want people to keep one eye on life in the hereafter. We need free men, who feel and know that God is in themselves.”

Indeed, however clever he might have been, Rauschning was not the man to concoct this discourse out of pure imagination. As many other statements attributed to the Führer in his book, this one bears too strongly the stamp of sincerity, of faith — of truth — to be just an invention. Moreover, it fits in perfectly with many of the Führer’s known utterances, with his writings, with the spirit of his whole doctrine… [He] knew that we can only win, in the long run, if, wherever essentials are concerned, we maintain that intolerance of any movement sincerely “convinced that it alone is right.” And he knew that, sooner or later, our conflict with the existing order is bound to break out on the religious and philosophical plane as well as on the others. This is unavoidable. And it has only been postponed by the material defeat of Germany — perhaps (who knows?) in accordance with the mysterious will of the Gods, so as to enable the time to ripen and the Aryan people at large, and especially the Germans, to realise, at last, how little Christianity can fulfil their deeper aspirations [emphasis by Editor], and how foolish they would be to allow it to stand between them and the undying Aryan faith implied in National Socialism.

That Aryan faith — that worship of health, of strength, of sunshine, and of manly virtues; that cult of race and soil — is the Nordic expression of the universal Religion of Life. It is — I hope — the future religion of Europe and of a part at least of Asia (and, naturally, of all other lands where the Aryan dominates). One day, those millions will remember the Man who, first — in the 1920s — gave Germany the divine impetus destined to bring about that unparalleled resurrection; the Man whom now the ungrateful world hates and slanders: our Hitler.

Imprisoned here for the love of him, my greatest joy lies in the glorious hope that those reborn Aryans — those perfect men and women of the future Golden Age — will, one day, render him divine honours.

Woods is so wrong when he says “we nationalists” need to reject Hitler and National Socialism in order to more quickly “gain popularity.” I say there is no solution without waking up from the brainwashing. And if you think National Socialism was evil, you have not awakened from the brainwashing. And having a “movement” of supposed “nationalist revolutionaries” who accept 80 or 90 per cent of the Jews’ false world view will quickly be fatal to any state so founded. It’s real revolution, Hitler’s and Pierce’s revolution, or nothing. That is the real choice we face as White people in this hostile world.

And I’ll add two more important points to address the claim that Hitler denigrated and fought against other Aryan nations, who still resent it: 1) Adolf Hitler evolved during the great conflict of World War 2, which he began as a German nationalist and ended as the de facto leader of all Aryans against malevolent Jewish power, with volunteers (including a gigantic Slavic army) from every part of Europe, not just the Germanic or Nordic parts, on his side; and

2) Just because you descend from a nation that, due to historical circumstance, had a conflict with National Socialist Germany, that shouldn’t make you blind to the mythopoeic power of the greatest struggle of all time, between the heroic and spiritually noble National Socialists — for whom the worth of a man was his fidelity to his cosmic and biological destiny — and the crass materialist Jew-dominated capitalists and Communists, for whom the worth of a man was purely economic and who instinctively hate the race-based order we need.

My ancestors, for example, were from Norway. Norway was occupied by German troops. I am sure that some Norwegians were imprisoned by the German National Socialists. Some who made war on Germans were probably killed, as were some Germans in that fight. So what? Should Norwegians hate Germans and everything that has come from Germany on that account, from Hitler to Beethoven? No, that’s absurd. The Norwegians and the Germans need to forget those quarrels and wars of the past. The triumph of National Socialism would mean the Norwegians — and our kindred peoples from across all of Europe — would have a chance to exist eternally, and evolve higher and higher, as Fate and Destiny beckon us. No petty nationalism comes close to that — not by 10,000 miles.

Categories
Racial right

Timidity

by OD commenter

[National Socialist critic] Keith Woods advocates weakness, compromise, and intellectual dishonesty.

Keith Woods’ arguments ultimately boil down to a defense of half-measures and ideological timidity, dressed up as pragmatic strategy. His primary concern—that National Socialism carries negative stigma—is nothing more than a fearful retreat into weakness and respectability politics. Rather than standing firmly behind a rigorous, comprehensive, and proven life-affirming ideology, Woods prefers a sanitized nationalism designed to placate enemies who despise our existence regardless.

Nationalism without National Socialism is precisely the half-measure that has repeatedly failed European peoples. It offers neither structural solutions nor ideological coherence. Woods’ belief that the essence of National Socialism—its fundamental commitment to racial health, cultural vitality, economic independence, and disciplined self-overcoming—can be stripped away, leaving behind a vague ethnonationalist shell, is intellectually bankrupt. Such hollow nationalism can never provide the depth of purpose, moral clarity, or strategic vision essential for genuine rebirth and sustained revival.

Woods deliberately misconstrains the complexity of historical events, lazily parroting mainstream tropes without rigorous engagement with primary sources. He misrepresents the nature of Lebensraum, dismisses Slavic collaboration, and leans heavily on mistranslated excerpts from Hitler’s Table Talk. The reality is clear: the table talks—recorded firsthand in German by Picker and Heim—are authentic records, distorted only through English translations. To entirely dismiss them, as Woods does, is intellectually negligent and betrays a lack of scholarly integrity.

Woods’ rejection of National Socialism reveals more than historical ignorance—it exposes his philosophical cowardice. His ideological stance resembles National Bolshevism, a confused hybrid that tries and fails to reconcile nationalism with leftist economic populism, inevitably resulting in ideological paralysis. Woods advocates a path of least resistance, endorsing a nationalism devoid of moral clarity or revolutionary intent. He proposes nothing concrete beyond vague appeals to national tradition, conveniently sidestepping the urgent structural crises—demographic collapse, cultural degeneration, economic subjugation—that demand radical solutions.

In short, Woods represents precisely what must be eradicated from nationalism: timidity, compromise, and a preoccupation with optics. He prioritizes popular acceptance over ideological integrity, fundamentally misunderstanding the reality that true nationalism requires sacrifice, struggle, and unwavering adherence to principles that sustain and elevate life.

The Life Affirming Principle dictates clear solutions: nationalism must be bold, disciplined, and uncompromising. It cannot thrive through half-hearted populism or sanitized historical revisionism. National Socialism is more than Adolf Hitler or the Third Reich; it is a timeless truth, discovered rather than invented [emphasis by Editor]: a guiding philosophy for cultural, biological, and economic health. To reject it is to reject the only fully coherent system capable of achieving lasting strength and survival for our people.

Ultimately, Woods embodies a defeatist mindset. He would rather pursue polite nationalism, begging permission to exist, instead of forging an uncompromising path toward genuine national renewal. His approach offers neither hope nor solutions, only endless retreat. To embrace Woods’ path is to embrace perpetual defeat.

Categories
Racial right

H man

I am pleased that in The Occidental Observer (TOO) an author, who considers Hitler ‘the greatest champion of our race’, defends him against a silly TOO columnist. There are even good comments in the comments section of both that webzine and its republishing in The Unz Review.

It’s no wonder that Matt Parrott sided with the silly columnist in this controversy. Devout Christians love the god of the Jews. They will never truly love the real champion of the Aryan cause.

As another commenter said, Hitler is the Spirit, the will of the universe. If one follows the tenants of National Socialism, the power of Hitler will come again onto this earth.