[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.
Bootlickers of the powers that be are useful idiots of kosher MAGAism and Homelandism.
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.
On an American racialist forum, I heard that Keith Woods recently wrote an article attacking National Socialism.
If my psychological profile of Woods is accurate, it’s because he’s a Christian—and National Socialism is incompatible with a religion started by Jews.
I don’t have time to locate Woods’ article. Due to my move, I’ll be canceling my internet service the day after tomorrow. I hope to have another one by next week…
Eagle Eye: “Even back then, scientific authors were required to recite these politically-correct shibboleths to be allowed to publish at all.”
I wouldn’t say so. Phillipe Rushton and Arthur Jensen were able to publish their heretical ideas on the hereditary nature of racial differences in intelligence “back then”, along with other racial characteristics. In fact, plenty of others, too, were questioning the standard line: Hans Eysenck, Chris Brand, William Shockley, James Watson, Richard Lynn, Herrnstein & Murray (in 1994’s The Bell Curve), etc.
The biggest stumbling block was that in our Christianity-derived culture, all “souls” are supposed to have been created equal, and rightly or wrongly, most people appear to think a “soul” has something to do with mental abilities. To proclaim otherwise is looked at as a kind of blasphemy, so people are reluctant to agree, and they self-censor any doubts. I think it likely that Cavalli-Sforza actually believes what he’s saying in the quote above, although I don’t myself believe it.
Spencer J. Quinn: “In the past 15 years, geneticists have been struggling with the idea of early human ‘introgression’ with archaic hominid populations. Through introgression, members of two disparate populations mate and produce hybrid individuals, which then mate with members of either parent population.”
“Disparate populations”? LOL That palaver is a kind of cleaned-up way to put it. What it really means is that two different SPECIES crossed and produced a fertile hybrid, which of course boggles the mind of every good American, who has been told for years that the proof that niggers are the same species as whites is that a nigger/white cross can produce fertile offspring. But it’s been known for a long time that animals as taxonomically separated as sheep and goats (not even in the same genus, let alone same species) can interbreed and produce fertile offspring. Oxford biologist John Baker, in his book Race, says:
These and many similar experiments were performed by others, but Buffon himself supervised experiments on the crossing of sheep with he-goats. The fact that this intergeneric cross is sometimes successful, and that the hybrids are not infertile, appears to be established. It was accepted as true by Broca, who mentions that the French have a special name, chabin, for the hybrid. Several examples of the successful outcome of this cross are quoted by Alfred Russel Wallace in his famous work Darwinism. The information he quotes suggests that the hybridity is paragenesic. The cross appears to be what Broca called ‘unilateral’, since there is evidence that the ram does not produce progeny with the she-goat.
– John Baker, Race, p. 94
America’s (and the West’s) culture of equality demands, however, that niggers be ranked as the same species as whites, even at the cost of the falsification of reality and the betrayal of scientific truth. This new information about nigger genetics, which underscores how different they really are from whites, may someday help reality break through the complex network of lies that has been constructed to obscure it, but in all frankness, I wouldn’t expect that to happen for many years, if ever. America and the entire West have bet so heavily on racial equality that both would rather immolate themselves on its pyre than admit that the whole thing has always been a lie — a lie inspired and kept in force by the most grievous Christian ignorance and misconceptions about the nature of the world.
Gregory Hood: “American Empire must serve white interests, because the core American identity is white identity. … White identity remains forbidden in public life while non-white identity is celebrated. ”
Huh?
White identity is the “core” American identity, but it’s somehow “forbidden” in public life? LOL What kind of “core” identity is that?! And how can American Empire serve it, if it’s forbidden?
The truth is, the average white American doesn’t identify as white at all, and that’s why white nationalism never gets anywhere. If forced to, a white American might reluctantly check that box on a form, but he’s not proud of it. His culture has taught him that thinking of his race as being important would be racist! Unpatriotic! Hitlerian! Anti-Christian! Almost blasphemy!
Until that changes, the downward spiral will only continue.
Rich: “The Whites I know are proud of their heritage and are angered by the anti-White, anti-Christian actions and rhetoric of leftist Americans. They vote White, they seek out White neighbors and associates. They are the largest segment of American society by numbers. It’s why republicans win elections.”
If the average white man were proud of his race, then “racist” wouldn’t be the toxic label it is. By their reaction, you can tell that whites think that that is about the worst thing you can call them. LOL Even Jeffrey Dahmer took pains to let folks know he wasn’t a racist. A serial killer, a cannibal, and a homosexual, sure, but NOT a racist!
Christianity, with its emphasis on the idea that it’s the “soul” and not the body that’s the thing that’s really important about a man, is responsible for a lot of this. Race is a property of the body, not the “soul”. A typical white Christian would rather his daughter marry a nigger who’s a Christian than a white man who’s not. It’s hard to see how that’s a sign of racial pride.
As for voting Republican, Trump explicitly condemns racism, and especially white racism, as he carefully said after the Charlottesville fiasco. He’s not a racist who values the white race above all others. He favors a race-blind meritocracy. Anyone who voted for Trump expecting him to make America white again is going to be sorely disappointed.
John Johnson: “I don’t think that is an accurate term as liberal religious beliefs are not derived from Christianity nor do they require belief in Christ or God.”
Not derived from Christianity? That’s just historically inaccurate. John Locke, often called the father of liberalism, was a Christian theologian who based his arguments about human rights on his reading of the Bible. The case for these so-called human rights is a cultural legacy of Christianity, and only Christianity. Liberals didn’t invent human rights ex nihilo.
John Johnson: “The most closely held liberal religious belief is related to evolution and not Abrahamic religion.”
This is just another way of saying that human equality is one thing there are fanatics about, and I agree. But a faith in human equality, human rights, and a supposed “brotherhood of man” reeks of Christianity, and is obviously derived from it. The genius of Christianity as a belief system is that this ethical perspective can persist without any “belief in Christ or God”, as you put it. Thus, there are even atheistic versions of Christianity, such as Marxism.
Above in #230, I made a racist revision of John Lennon’s song “Imagine”. But as historian Tom Holland observed in his book Dominion, the original version is Christian through and through.
As to why I said yesterday that the Christian Question is more relevant than the JQ—something the American racial right doesn’t want to see—see a minute of Judge Napolitano’s interview with Matt Hoh today, starting here.
The epigraph to this February 1977 essay, originally published in French, appears here.
As can be seen in the hatnote that provisionally appears in the latest version of ‘The Wall’, unlike others, this racialist site has as its primary focus Christianity because to save the Aryan from the miscegenation that is destroying him, we must first identify the Enemy.
One of the reasons why the helicopter visitors never come down but leave me preaching in the desert is because I am like the child who says the king is naked.
‘Tell me what your holidays are and I’ll tell you who you really worship: the Aryan or the Jew’. When even white nationalists celebrate the birth of a Jew on December 25th, and also celebrate the year 2025 from the supposed birth of that kike instead of honouring the birth of our Aryan saviour on April 20th, it becomes clear that they are, ultimately, traitorous neonormies…[1]
What the racial right doesn’t yet understand is that it is impossible to avoid getting into trouble as long as we remain in trance with the religion of our parents. Those who believe that by celebrating the birth of the unhistorical Yeshu it is possible to save the Aryan, should ponder the words of their countryman Mark Twain: ‘It ain´t what you know that gets you into trouble. It´s what you know for sure that just ain´t so’.
______ 卐 ______
In his account of the wars against the Persians, Herodotus attributes the success of the small Greek cities against the mighty Iranian Empire to the ‘intellectual superiority’ of their compatriots. Would he also have explained their decline by their ‘inferiority’? The question of why cultures disappear and empires collapse has always preoccupied historians and philosophers. In 1441, Leonardo Bruni spoke of the vacillatio of the Roman Empire; his contradictor, Flavio Biondo, preferred the term inclinatio (which summed up, for Renaissance man, the abandonment of ancient customs). The debate was already set: was the Empire destroyed or collapsed on its own? For Spengler, the alternations that have occurred throughout history are the result of inevitability. The identifiable causes of a decline are only secondary causes. They accentuate, and accelerate a process, but they can only intervene when that process has begun. But it is also possible to think that no internal necessity fixes an end to cultures: when they die, it is because someone kills them. André Piganiol’s opinion is well known: ‘Roman civilisation did not die a natural death. It was assassinated’ (L’Empire chrétien,1947). In this case, the responsibility of the ‘assassins’ is complete. However, we can admit that only structures already very weakened, devoid of energy, abandon themselves to the blow that wounds them, to the enemy on the prowl. Voltaire, who was, after Machiavelli, one of the first to speak of historical cycles, said that the Roman Empire had fallen simply because it existed, ‘since everything must have an end’ (Philosophical Dictionary, 1764).
We will not attempt here to find out whether or not the fall of Rome was irremediable, or even to identify all the factors that contributed to its fall, but to examine what responsibility the nascent Christianity bears for its fall.
It is well known that it was the Briton Edward Gibbon (1737-1794) who first established that responsibility, in chapters XV and XVI of his History of the Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire, six thick volumes of which appeared between 1776 and 1778. Before him, in 1576, Löwenklav had defended Emperor Julian, whose talent, temperance and generosity he praised, thus opening a breach in the doctrine which claimed that Christian emperors had been, by the privilege of their faith alone, superior to pagans. Shortly afterwards, the jurisconsult and diplomat Grotius (1583-1645) endorsed Erasmus’ thesis on the Germanic origin of the Neo-Latin aristocracies. Finally, in 1743, Montesquieu attributed the decline and fall of Rome to various factors, such as the extinction of the old families, the loss of civic spirit, the degeneration of institutions, the collusion between administrative power and business fortunes, the high birth rate of the foreign population, the wavering loyalty of the legions, and so on. Better documented than his predecessors, Gibbon took up all these elements anew, ready to write an ‘unbiased history’. His conclusions, tinged with an irony inherited from Pascal, remain essentially valid.
Portrait of Edward Gibbon (1737-1794).
In the 19th century, Otto Seeck (History of the Decline of the Ancient World, 1894), drawing on an idea of Montesquieu, as well as certain considerations of Burckhardt (in his Epoch of Constantine, 1852-1853) and Taine, insisted on a biological and demographic factor: the disappearance of the elites (Ausrottung der Besten), accompanied by the senescence of institutions and the importance gained by the plebs and the crowd of slaves, who constituted the first clientele of Christian preachers. This thesis was adopted by M.P. Nilsson (Imperial Rome, 1926), after having been confirmed by Tenney Frank, who, after examining some 13,900 funerary inscriptions, concluded that, from the 2nd century onwards, 90% of the population of Rome was of foreign origin (American Historical Review, XXI, 1916, p. 705).
In Marcus Aurelius (1895), Renan made his own one of Nietzsche’s formulas: ‘During the third century, Christianity sucks in ancient society like a vampire’. And he added this sentence, which echoes so many times today: ‘In the third century, the Church, by monopolising life, exhausted civil society, bled it, made it empty. Small societies killed big society’ (pp. 589 and 590). In 1901, Georges Sorel (1847-1922) published an essay on The Ruin of the Ancient World. ‘The action of Christian ideology,’ he argued, ‘broke down the structure of the ancient world like a mechanical force working from within. Far from being able to say that the new religion infused new lifeblood into an ageing organism, we might say that it left it exhausted. It severed the ties between the spirit and social life, and sowed everywhere the seeds of quietism, despair and death’.
For his part, Michael Rostovtzeff (Social and Economic History of the Roman Empire, 1926), opposing Seeck on certain points, and also Max Weber (Social Origins of the Decline of Ancient Civilisation, 1896), posed an essential question: ‘Is it possible to extend a high civilisation to the lower classes without lowering its level, without diluting its value to the point of making it disappear? Is not all civilisation, from the moment it begins to penetrate the masses, doomed to decadence?’ Ortega y Gasset was to answer him, in The Revolt of the Masses: ‘The history of the Roman Empire is also the history of subversion, of the empire of the masses, who absorb and annul the ruling minorities and take their place’.
This overview would be incomplete if we omitted to mention three works which appeared at the beginning of the century and which seem to us to herald the rise of modern criticism: L’intoleránce religieuse et la politique (Flammarion, 1911), by Bouché-Leclercq; La propagande chréthienne et les persecutions (Payot, 1915), by Henri-F. Secrétan, and Le christianisme antique (Flammarion, 1921) by Charles Guignebert.
_________
[1]Check out the April 20th posts on the major American racialist forums and webzines, and you’ll see that they don’t celebrate the birth of Uncle Adolf.
A passage in Thus Spoke Zarathustra, ‘On Old and New Tablets’, inspires me for this post. But before I continue with the routine of this site (perhaps my next post will be one more passage from Irving’s book on Himmler), I would like to clarify something about today’s previous post.
The pair of four words, Gens alba conservanda est (White people must be preserved) and ¡Eliminad todo sufrimiento innecesario! (Let us eliminate all unnecessary suffering!), define the two commandments, or new conception of right and wrong, in our new Tablets of the Law.
The second commandment is given because of the colossal hells that some abusive humans inflict on their children, or the defenceless animals at their mercy.
That doesn’t mean that only those who already have these two commandments as their religion can be my comrades. Although Hitler was surprised when Himmler confessed to him that he still practised hunting with other Nazis, Uncle Adolf couldn’t have formed a political movement if he repudiated them. But it is obvious that a priest of the holy words has already taken his vows to fulfil both commandments (vows that non-priests aren’t yet capable of fulfilling because they lack the compassion we have developed).
Another thing I would like to say today is something else about my eternal quarrel with the American racial right. Yesterday I saw a video by Jared Taylor about the recent attacks in Germany perpetrated by a sandnigger. Taylor mocks the fact that the Eurocrats have been ‘speechless’ and ‘stunned’ after the massacre of civilian Germans. However, as a good Christian or secular neochristian (Taylor has never confessed whether he still believes in the religion of his parents) he fails to realise that these Eurocrats have taken Christian morality to its ultimate consequences (forgive your enemies, never allow yourself to hate them, turn the other cheek if they attack you, etc.).
While I watched the entire Taylor video, I didn’t read the recent Counter-Currents article on the massacre. I merely read the first two comments in that thread, where the first thing a couple of commenters did was say ‘Merry Christmas’.
Apparently, neither the commenters nor the author of that article are aware that it was precisely that Christianity that they still celebrate at Christmas that caused not only the massacre, but the previous massacres perpetrated by the jihadis that Taylor mentions in his video, and the massacres that other sandniggers will perpetrate in the future! Just as George Washington and the other Founding Cucks enabled Jewish infection in their brand new country, so the religion that conquered the Aryan soul has imposed on whites Semitic commandments diametrically opposed to the two commandments of our Tablets of the Law.
No, there was no point in reading either C-C’s article or the rest of the comments. The only thing to reiterate is that those on the racial right are neo-normies, not 21st-century National Socialists who have woken up to the real world.
One way to demonstrate that the American racial right is monumental nonsense is simply to compare what the Founding Father of the United States said with what Hitler said in his public speeches a century ago.
With this post, I begin a new series commenting on his speeches in German, which only until this year were available in English thanks to A.I.’s translators (translations that, by the way, were all censored on YouTube but not in Rumble).
Near the beginning of this speech that we can now hear in English, originally delivered in February 1920, Uncle Adolf says that only Aryans can be German citizens, so Jews cannot be. That was an early pronouncement by Hitler before he took power.
Let’s compare it with a few words from a speech by George Washington, who in 1790 before the Newport Hebrew Congregation said: ‘May the Children of the Stock of Abraham, who dwell in [the US], continue to merit and enjoy the good will of the other inhabitants, while every one shall sit in safety under his own vine and fig tree, and there shall be none to make him afraid’.
In other words, to save the Aryan on the continent where I live it is imperative to repudiate American patriotardism and replace it with Hitlerism. There is no third alternative.
Yesterday I alluded to American Renaissance and The Occidental Observer when I said that it was part of German decency in earlier centuries to know something about race realism and to be aware of the JQ. But there is another racialist webzine that has been publishing, rather, cultural articles since 2010. This month for example Counter-Currentsfinished, in a fifteen-part series, publishing a philosophical article on the problem of evil analysing the philosophies of Schelling and Heidegger.
As a teenager I was going to study philosophy. My plans were spoiled by a family tragedy that left me without an official degree, although I became a wandering philosopher. Perhaps I should say that Schelling and other German metaphysicians of his time helped me to realise that there was a new conception of God, pantheism; and in more recent times I was pleased that Heidegger had been a member of the National Socialist Party. Well: what about the recent article in Counter-Currents? The author wrote:
I have tried to argue that Schelling’s theory of evil was a major influence on Heidegger. Heidegger effectively adopts Schelling’s account of evil, but places its existence on philosophically surer footing. Whereas Schelling’s claims are metaphysical and often seem ad hoc, Heidegger’s account is phenomenological. In other words, Heidegger shows us that, if we are honest with ourselves – if we are, in other words true to the phenomena – we clearly do experience life as if we are in the grip of forces over which we have absolutely no control, regardless of whatever modern myths we may pay lip service to about how man is the author of his destiny. And, more specifically, it really does seem as if there is a force of evil loose in the world.
Following George R.R. Martin’s fiction, a wandering philosopher is someone who, unlike the Maesters—an order of scholars in the Seven Kingdoms who educate new students in the Citadel (see image above)—educates himself. Thus, unlike the academic author of Counter-Currents, I have approached the problem of evil from my peculiar point of view: exterminationism. See for example what Gaedhal and I say very briefly on the subject in ‘On solving the problem of evil’ (pp. 143-144 of On Exterminationism).[1]
But that is not what I wanted to talk about in this article. What caught my attention in the Counter-Currents article were these passages more or less sympathetic to Christianity:
One of the interesting aspects of today’s cultural scene is the plethora of conservative “influencers” who are flocking to Christianity. More and more, it seems, convert – or return – with each passing day. A frequent topic of discussion in our circles is whether such and such influencer seems to be tending towards Christianity and about to announce his conversion. “It’s going to happen any day now,” friends will say to me (Joe Rogan is the current topic of speculation). It is fascinating that what seems to have drawn them to religion is their confrontation with the political Left. The extraordinary indecency of the Left today does indeed often seem to be demonic. It is enough to drive one into the arms of the angels.
Of course, most so-called “conservatives,” especially those holding political office, are serving the same system and see nothing problematic at all about the commodification of beings and about an ideal of “freedom” that amounts to freedom to exploit and consume. Nevertheless, it is a fact that those locating themselves on the political Left present us with the most extreme examples of modern perversity – and the most extreme examples of malice. In the face of this overwhelming perversity, for many people – those aforementioned influencers, and others – Christianity has essentially morphed into “the decency party.”
For most of them, the details of Christian teaching, and the differences between denominations, seem to be largely unimportant. They see Christianity as something clean, decent, and untouched (so they imagine) by modern perversity; a refuge, in other words, from evil. It is a reaction with which we can sympathize – even if we cannot ultimately follow them. What is indisputably true, however, is that the religious and mythological traditions that personify evil may offer us invaluable insights into its nature. And it is to those that I plan to turn, if and when I decide to write about evil again.
Let there be no doubt: wandering philosophers like Gaedhal and I see things infinitely differently than the Maesters of the Citadel for the simple fact that we have suffered evil in the most direct and overwhelming way imaginable. Philosophising in an ivory tower (see an artistic representation of the Citadel tower here) isn’t the same to suffer evil in the most brutal way and in the naked world. For example, the Counter-Currents author’s paragraphs on Christianity sugar-coat the subject. Just compare those paragraphs with the series on the criminal history of Christianity that we have been translating into English, which will soon reach instalment #200!
_________
[1]In that 2022 article, I mentioned that I intended to call the whole of my series of autobiographical books From Jesus to Hitler. I have changed my mind, and the trilogy has three different titles (see here).
Hans F. K. Günther’s essay ‘The dissolution of Germanic racial care by medieval Christianity’ is now available here.
As I have said countless times, German National Socialism was in every way superior to the American white nationalism we suffer from today. It is striking how this essay by a Nordicist who flourished in the Third Reich is still far more relevant than what, on this Monday before Christmas Eve, we can see in any racialist webzine today, for the Aryans of the time had not degenerated.
I have been watching and listening to some of my favourite pieces by Modest Mussorgsky and Richard Wagner on YouTube. I was impressed to find several non-white musicians in a performance of the Berlin Philharmonic playing Wagner. A Polish orchestra, on the other hand, was composed only of young white musicians. At least in both orchestras, people continue to dress as orchestral musicians of the last century did: as Günther dressed above, whose father was a musician, by the way.
What the contemporary racial right ignores is that we must transvalue all values, including musical values and dress, to how we were in the past. Racial realism awareness, and JQ awareness, are just a couple of decent facets among many other decent facets of cultural preservation. Alas, as long as, because of their ersatz Christianity, whites continue to behave like that crazy ascetic I saw in Ripley’s Believe It or Not the day I fled San Francisco—mea culpa! mea culpa! mea culpa! mea culpa!—they will be unable to save their race from the extinction still underway.
[National Socialist critic] Keith Woods advocates weakness, compromise, and intellectual dishonesty.
