And as is typical of white nationalism, a couple of days ago they celebrated the ‘resurrection’ of a fictional Jew. But in their main forums, they never commemorate the birth day of the non-fictional Aryan who wanted to save their race.
That is American white nationalism in a nutshell.
Editor’s note: In ‘The resurrected Jew’ I wrote: ‘With the characteristic symmetry of the Renaissance, Mantegna composed this Resurrection in which the resurrected Jew is the luminous axis of the scene… Always keep in mind that the doctrine of the Resurrection was plagiarised by the Jews who originated the Christian sect. They simply used the story of the founding hero-God of the Romans: Romulus. The idea of those who wrote the New Testament was simply to use the mythological biography of the white God to convince the Romans to better worship the god of the Jews’.
Below we continue the German-English translation of the preface to Monologues at the Führer’s Headquarters 1941-1944, the Records of Heinrich Heim edited by Werner Jochmann—a translation that we had suspended because of the other translation, that from French to English of Savitri’s book.
If there had been mobile phones in the 1940s, Hitler’s after-dinner monologues would have been recorded down to the intonation of his voice. But what we got is what we got.
However, the imperfect text of the table talks still reflects that the Führer wanted to solve the Christian problem (see my emphasis in red below). And it would have been solved if he had won the war. In that hypothetical parallel world, American white nationalists wouldn’t be celebrating the resurrected Jew, as they did yesterday. In the preface of the German edition we read:
______ 卐 ______
Picker’s selection and reproduction of the sources also give rise to objections. For example, he included a document under number 6 in his edition of the table discussions that is missing from Bormann’s collection. It does not belong to the conversation notes, nor was it recorded and handed down by Heim. Record 7—number 16 in the present edition—is incorrectly dated. Picker adds two sentences to the note of 21 July 1941 at the end which do not exist in the original. There is no space here to register all the carelessness that Picker committed in transcribing Heim’s texts. Henceforth, the originals from Bormann’s collection published in this volume should be used in any case, especially since Picker has occasionally even compromised the substance of the statement in his transmission. According to Picker’s text, Hitler declared on 13 December 1941: ‘The war will come to an end. The last great task of our time is then to be seen in still settling the church problem’. In Heim’s original, on the other hand, the passage reads: ‘The war will come to an end, and I shall see my last task in life in settling the church problem’. It is surely significant that Hitler himself still intended to fight the battle against the churches.
But Picker was not only negligent in transcribing other people’s texts; he also failed to take the necessary care in reproducing his notes. In the note of 2 July 1942, for example, he says: ‘After reviewing the report, the chief remarked that one could not, however, have expected such a rapid write-off of Egypt by the English’. The following sentence in Picker’s publication reads: ‘Besides, the lies show that once Churchill is dead, we will have to make sure that his unshakeable loudmouthedness does not live on’. This sentence is missing from the original version of the Bormann Collection signed by Picker. Finally, a trivial sentence is inserted at the end of the document, which is also missing from the transcript given to the client. It is also unacceptable that Picker occasionally mixes his observations and comments with the interview transcripts, so that Hitler’s statements are not clearly distinguished.
Update of April 25:
I completely forgot to add the footnotes—:
Ibid., doc. 11, 13. 12. 1941, p. 80.
Document 65 of this issue, see p. 150.
Picker, Hitlers Tischgespräche doc. 165, p. 406.
Ibid., Doc 49, p. 151; Doc 50, p. 154.
—that will be properly added in the book, once I can relaunch my Daybreak Press.
In his comment on this site today, Fredrik said: ‘Bolton was always my favourite new right/neo-fascist writer, he’s up there with Michael O’Meara and Kevin Alfred Strom. Sadly it seems like he’s sold out, becoming somewhat of a trad catholic, similar to how Spencer became a Biden shill. Thankfully his old essays and books are still available online’.
Kerry Bolton, as we have said on this site, has PhDs in theology and history of theology. He never fully crossed what we have called the psychological Rubicon (who has crossed it?). I also asked in a recent post whether Bolton knew the real history of Christianity, or the studies that show that Jesus didn’t even exist. (Keep in mind that the evangelist Mark invented the story of the first gospel just after the Romans destroyed Jerusalem: which makes me think he was a Jew who was mad at the Romans.)
Regarding O’Meara, it’s a pity I didn’t save a snapshot of one of his comments in the comments section of Counter-Currents, but I remember years ago, on one occasion, he said that if the West is to reassert itself in terms of forming a White Republic, it would have to incorporate Christianity (say, like the novels of the late Harold Covington).
As for Strom, who unlike Bolton and O’Meara is anti-Christian, I reproduced here his series on a new religion for whites. But we differ from Strom in that he subscribes to the belief that Jewish subversion is the primary cause of our misfortune. It’s hard to sell that idea to a Latin American like me, who sees lots of brown people every day as soon as he opens the door to the street, as the Inquisition in New Spain kept Jews and cryptos (‘judaizantes’ they called them here) at bay. And yet, the Spanish and Portuguese (the Portuguese also imported the Inquisition to Brazil) committed the greatest sin Europeans could commit: miscegenation. In other words, Strom ignores that the Christian question, not the Jewish question, should be considered the primary factor in white decline.
I feel rather foolish in reiterating this argument hundreds of times on this site. But it is clear that white nationalists, even those as erudite as Bolton, O’Meara and Strom, haven’t been honest enough to see the stark truth.
Postscript:
I recently reproduced two long articles by Bolton, which both add up to some 15,000 words, because they shed light on US-Russia relations these days. In conjunction with what we have also been saying about John Mearsheimer (see the latest article in The Occidental Observer, which also mentions him), both provide a different POV to the lies of the Western media.
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?
Or
A response to an anonymous commenter
It is doomed because it provides a self-righteous and self-serving worldview where the US and Christianity seldom appear in the dock (only the Jews). My recent experience in the comments section of The Unz Review is that racialist Christians are a lost cause. One Christian went so far as to blame Hitler for the Hellstorm perpetrated on the Germans by the Allies (which includes the country of the commenter in question).
Patriotardism applies even to the American I have considered the noblest of all. As Bolton said in the long article I have reproduced this morning: ‘Yockey was not well received by American National Socialist George Lincoln Rockwell, who condemned “Yockeyism” as “dangerous” and “evil”.’ Bolton added:
The cultural front remains pivotal to the expansion of American global hegemony, the spreading of cultural pathology being far more insidious and intrusive than bombs or even debt, as Yockey was among the first to warn, while much of the rest of the “Right” including Rockwell’s American Nazis aligned themselves with the US Establishment vis-à-vis the USSR and American hegemony.
This thing about the ‘cultural front’ and the ‘expansion of American global hegemony’ reminds me of something. Although he is another patriotard, I have recently been linking to the lectures of John Mearsheimer because his view of relations between states is—unlike the liberal hallucinations—very realistic. See for example what Mearsheimer says about his country’s hegemony in minutes 22 to 28 starting here.
What strikes me about Kerry Bolton’s essay, which was published a dozen years ago, is that Yockey was more Cassandra than our contemporary Bolton about Russia’s relationship with China:
He saw a resurgent Islam as providing a bloc that diminished World Zionism without augmenting “Russian-Chinese power.” Here Yockey was significantly in error in seeing China-Russia as a bloc. There was no Sino-Soviet bloc during Yockey’s time, and there is not one now, despite a temporary pragmatic alliance. The US and China will more likely form a bloc to contain Russia, just as they did during the 1970s. Such a conclusion is within the scope of cultural morphology, although the Russo-Chinese conflict only became apparent shortly after Yockey’s death… The world situation as it now stands has changed since Yockey’s time, but Yockey’s analytical method remains legitimate, even if it leads to conclusions regarding Russia, China, and the US that differ from Yockey’s own.
Now, after what just happened in Ukraine thanks to Putin’s decision, we see that Yockey—who died in 1960!—had a perfect grasp of international relations. He also understood what the US represented. Surprisingly, Bolton, who is a couple of years older than me, is based in New Zealand and holds doctorates in Historical Theology and Theology. Is he aware of the real history of Christianity, or that Jesus didn’t even exist? I don’t know if he is still a Christian but yesterday, at Occidental Dissent, a commenter said:
Most White people are Christian whether they practice or not. It is the foundation of Western society from Rome on. Henrik and Lana are extremely respectful towards the Faith and I will stand with any Pro White pagan as my brother and sister. The moment you go anti-Christian you are either a plant or a bad actor who I have no use for.
The problem with this way of thinking is that it never answers the serious accusations that for a century have been made against the religion of our parents from the viewpoint of racial preservation. When has one of these guys ever deigned to say a word, for example, about the essay we have labelled the ‘masthead’ of this site, which is about the fate of ‘Western society from Rome on’? Robert Morgan has providential patience for arguing with the semi-normie Christians of The Unz Review. I don’t claim I have such patience, though I would like to say something about the Anon who a couple of days ago responded to me with these words:
Dr. Morgan, while wrong about Christianity, is right about one thing: Anti-Christian white nationalists will get nowhere in the US for the obvious reason that most American whites consider themselves at least nominally Christian.
These anti-Christian white nationalists do more than just silo themselves off in an echo chamber. They positively beg to be disliked with their insulting language about “a kike on a stick”, “that sky fairy you believe in”, “Christcuck”, etc. It’s hard to imagine a group more committed to self-sabotage.
You’d think they would know better. Their ideological forebears—David Duke, George Lincoln Rockwell, Tom Metzger and Harold A. Covington—did not make this mistake. They had enough education in history—which is the chief missing ingredient in white nationalism today—to know 1) that Christianity was more friend than foe, and 2) that attacking it would get them nowhere.
This portrays things like a photographic negative. If Christian ethics is the central aetiological factor in white decline, those of us who are aware of it mustn’t keep quiet: it is American Christians who must become apostates.
David Duke is a nominal Christian, isn’t he? Savitri Devi immediately realised that Rockwell was making a mistake in praising Christianity in his pamphlets, as we recently saw in instalment #13 of Savitri’s book. As for Tom Metzger and Harold Covington, old-fashioned racists that died not long ago, neither knew the real history of Christianity, of which we recently translated #141 of Deschner’s abridged books. Obviously, Anon hasn’t read a single line about Christianity’s real history either.
Even in the comments section of this site, this morning I had to repeat what I have said a million times because racist Americans, who don’t want to break with the double helix that’s killing them,* still don’t pay attention to what we have been saying. There is no excuse for this, as the books linked on the sidebar provide a comprehensive overview of a new paradigm in which the CQ—not the JQ—explains perfectly white decline.
___________
(*) By double helix I refer to their nation’s project—read ‘Bolton on Yockey’ that I posted today!—plus Christianity.
Bernhard Klassen (1918-1993), better known as Ben Klassen, was the high priest of the Church of the Creator, also known as Creativity. According to Metapedia in Spanish, Klassen was of Germanic descent, born into a Mennonite family in Ukraine before moving to the United States as a child. He maintained one of the central theses of this site regarding Christianity, urging Europeans to abandon it because its rise, according to Klassen, was due to a Jewish plot to demoralise the Roman Empire internally.
He also advocated an essentially atheistic materialist philosophy, shaped by racial socialism and eugenics. His ideals were the high cultures of Ancient Rome and Ancient Greece but why, unlike George Lincoln Rockwell, was Klassen unable to appreciate the greatness of German National Socialism? The aforementioned Metapedia article says that Klassen saw Nazism as a form of division for Europeans, as he thought it only looked after the interests of its own people at the expense of others, even if they were white peoples, and even led to fratricidal wars citing the Second World War as an example, and that Klassen therefore advocated instead a concept of ‘Aryan union’ or ‘Aryan empire’.
Did Klassen read the main texts of National Socialism? Was he aware that in the Master Plan East all the Nordic peoples of Europe could have enjoyed the privileges of the Third Reich (had Hitler won the war)?
I confess that I have barely read Klassen, though I have defended his memory against the slanders of the now-deceased novelist Harold Covington. But yesterday I stumbled across a couple of tweets from a friend quoting Klassen:
Whereas the Nazi movement took a harsh and hostile stance toward many of its White neighbors – the French, the Poles, the Czechs, etc., CREATIVITY, on the other hand, seeks to embrace and unite all the White peoples of the world…
Our mythos is the American scene of our White pioneering forefathers, Manifest Destiny and the Winning of the West, which we consider as the finest chapter in the history of the entire White Race.
The finest chapter, really? I find these quotes from Klassen deplorable and I think it’s time to read the book by a smarter American that I just downloaded from the net. I refer to Francis Parker Yockey’s The Enemy of Europe: the antithesis of the patriotard. But first I must read Kerry Bolton’s more recent essays on Yockey….
Before I resume reading Deschner’s book on the true history of Christianity, I would like to say something about the recent debate between Michael Jones and Greg Johnson. I was surprised that the latter said that Tucker Carlson had been influenced by Moscow propaganda, precisely what the MSM claims! Johnson also said that Russians and Ukrainians are ‘white’.
The word ‘white’ for Aryan had utility before Jews and southern Italians began emigrating in substantial numbers to the US. Today that word is meaningless in the mouths of people like Johnson, as it is obvious that a considerable percentage of Russians and Ukrainians are not ‘white’ as the word was understood by 19th-century Americans.
If there is one thing that emerges from Pierce’s and Kemp’s histories of the white race, it is that the Mongols left their genetic imprint on the Slavs (which is precisely why the SS Master Plan East involved conquering those regions for genuine Aryans). Recently we see in the media pictures of Biden, Putin and the Chinese Mandarin, Xi Jinping. See how Putin’s semi-broad skull, compared to Biden’s skull who looks like an Englishman from another age, is the middle ground next to Xi’s skull: the typical Asian brachycephalic. The reason for this is that Putin, like many other Russians, is not a pure Nordid as they were before the Tatar invasion.
I am also surprised that the Ukrainians haven’t understood the lesson of the Holodomor. As visitors to this site know, Jones annoys me a lot because the idiot says he wouldn’t mind millions of blacks staying in Europe as long as they convert to his religion! But at least Jones, in his debate with Johnson, pointed to Jewry as a major factor in the misnamed Russian Revolution, and in Ukraine after the coup that empowered the current government. How can it be, I was left wondering after listening to the debate, that the Ukrainians haven’t understood the lesson?
Here we see Genrikh Yagoda (right) in the company of writer Maxim Gorky. As deputy chief of the political police, the Jew Yagoda was one of the main commissars responsible for the struggle against the landlords in the field of collectivisation and dekulakisation. Note that the Holodomor, also known as the Ukrainian genocide or Ukrainian Holocaust, was the famine that devastated the territory of the Ukrainian Soviet Socialist Republic, Kuban, Yellow Ukraine and other regions of the USSR, in the context of the collectivisation of the land undertaken by the USSR, during the years 1932-1933, in which more people died of starvation than the six million Jews: the official (and exaggerated) figure with which the System demoralises us.
This is what happens when a people lack true information (how many Ukrainians have read Solzhenitsyn’s second non-fiction book?), and a minority, such as the Jewish minority, controls a large part of the Western MSM. But it is still striking that, after so many decades, the Ukrainians aren’t Jew-wise, otherwise they wouldn’t have the president they have. (Interestingly, in the debate Johnson said he had not seen the video of Zelenski dancing in women’s heels, posing as a homo, with the background of degenerate music.)
One could try to forgive the Ukrainians because they haven’t had good information. But it isn’t forgivable that people like Johnson’s sponsors keep sending him money, or that the moderator of the Johnson-Jones debate sided with Johnson!
Ignorance is no longer an excuse. Something must be rotten at the core of white nationalism to allow all this. And the key is provided precisely by Johnson’s opening speech in the debate. It is obvious that he is driven by Christian ethics, as he framed his little speech from the POV of the ‘rights’ of Ukrainians. Just compare that scale of values with what Savitri Devi set out in her book we recently published here, or with what the SS had planned for Ukraine if they had won the war.
A post-Christian consciousness has to be created in 21st-century racialism. And a good way to start creating it, something far away from the Christianity and neochristianity of the American racial right, is to read Savitri. When my Daybreak Press is once again up and running, the first thing I will do is to publish the English version of Souvenirs et Reflexions d’une Aryenne.
Or
How many Christians are there in the movement?
‘The woke ideology, liberalism and all leftist or progressive ideologies are the final and ultimate fruits of the invasive weed called Christianity. Our Führer was 100 per cent right when he called Christianity the very first bolshevism’.
Let us consider the thousands of comments by semi-normies in The Unz Review, or the hundreds of comments in American Renaissance or The Daily Stormer. If the racial right were red-pilled (instead of merely purple-pilled), posts like what we said yesterday about John Mearsheimer would have already received a lot of comments. But Andrew Anglin just wrote: ‘I have realized that I serve God Alone, and Our God demands that we crush idols. When Charlemagne was taming the heathens, he did not use pleadings and prose–it was all blood and fire’.
Of course, like most white nationalists, Anglin is wishfully ignorant about what William Pierce or Arthur Kemp have written on Charlemagne. For example, by ‘heathens’ Charlemagne meant those who refused to worship a Semitic god, in contrast to the Aryan Gods before the forced conversion of the Saxons. [1]
But Anglin’s is not an isolated case. Can someone tell me what per cent of the people in the American racial right are Christians? Half? More than half? This is fundamental since, if our diagnosis is correct—see epigraph above—the American racialist movement won’t get anywhere unless they become apostates.
Tomorrow I will post the last entry of the translation from French to English of Savitri’s book. Her book gives me the impression that, regarding Christianity, people like us have been preaching in the desert. However, thanks to my free time starting tomorrow, we will continue with the German-English translation of another book, that of Karlheinz Deschner on the criminal history of the Jesus cult that Anglin and company follow. And I would like to use this post to thank W.R. for his contribution today. Since those of us who believe that Christian ethics is the primary factor in Aryan decline are a tiny minority, even an occasional donation helps us to move forward.
___________
[1] In the above-linked article Anglin confesses that he doesn’t like to read. In addition to the two stories on the white race by Pierce and Kemp, I think he should read The life of Charlemagne by Thomas Hodgkin published by Ostara Publications, a racialist publishing house.
Although on racial and important historical events (Hellstorm Holocaust) professor John Mearsheimer is a normie, it is worth listening to what he has to say about great power politics (here and here).
This is where I see that the criticism of American white nationalism by the retired Canadian Sebastian Ronin is spot on. Even the foremost mind of the movement, William Pierce (1933-2002), suffered in some ways from patriotardism.
For example, in Who We Are Pierce omitted the history of his native country, and in his weekly podcasts he blamed the white shark (Jewry) without wanting to see the megalodon (the US): both trying to eat alive the white race. Unlike the patriotards, another American, Robert Morgan, who comments in the comments section of The Unz Review, exposes how Christian ethics was always behind the emancipation of blacks in America. I would add that Christian ethics was also behind the empowerment of Jews in the US: just look at the pro-Israeli philo-Semitism of the evangelicals.
And when it comes to great power politics in the international arena, things are much worse! What John Mearsheimer tells us is that the United States set out to become a regional hegemon, and Imperial Germany and Nazi Germany had to be destroyed in the process—the two World Wars…!
Listen to what he says linked above. Not to understand this is to understand nothing. The gap in Pierce’s book, his history of the white race, must be filled with this chapter by Mearsheimer. But except for Francis Parker Yockey and more recently Michael O’Meara, who used to publish on Greg Johnson’s Counter-Currents, no one in racialist forums has dared to weigh in on the matter.
In a nutshell, if you want to save the DNA of white North Americans, America delenda est.
I recently came across this quote by Robert Morgan: ‘This is why ass clowns like Gregory Hood and Jared Taylor utterly fail’. I replied to him in The Unz Review and he replied:
C.T.: ‘Hood and Taylor subscribe to Christian ethics’.
I think it’s more than ethics. The entire culture of the West has a Christianoid view of the world, and it infects all discourse. Though neither Hood nor Taylor are ostentatious about their Christianity (if they’re professed Christian at all), they absorb it from the culture at large. It’s present in everything they write.
Take Hood’s endorsement of the ‘solution’ of repatriation of negroes back to Africa, for example. The most remarkable thing about this ‘solution’ is that when it was tried it didn’t work! And one wonders, how could so many distinguished and seemingly intelligent men in the nineteenth century have thought it would work? And why do Taylor and Hood both even today continue to try to push this absurd narrative that it was a great idea, especially in light of its pathetic record of failure? These are real mysteries only partly explained by ‘Christian ethics’.
To expect that all these monkeys suddenly will voluntarily decide to depart for Africa is ridiculous, and should have always been denounced by any sane men as obviously crazy. It’s on the same order of craziness as a beautiful blond woman deciding to take a nude stroll through a negro ghetto at midnight and not expecting to be raped. In the latter case, we’d accurately say she’s just a whore who secretly wants to be raped. Applying this logic to the former, what does it say about the white race? That is, for some unfathomable reason, wants the negroes to stay?
C.T.: ‘And Kevin MacDonald has done it again: another apologetic article claiming that Christianity is compatible with racism has been published today in The Occidental Observer!’
In a vein similar to the above, what does the maniacal insistence on retaining Christianity say about whites, given its abysmal record in preserving the white race so far? To me, it seems obviously crazy; quite as crazy as the nymphomaniac blond. Either the white race is too stupid to perceive the problem, or it is, as I have speculated, following an unrecognized ‘group evolutionary strategy’.
The [TOO] article itself was gibberish, but some of the comments were interesting. In some ways it’s good to see so many coming out against Christianity in that webzine. It’s usually overrun with Christianity’s defenders, so maybe the tide is beginning to turn. Unfortunately though, history has shown that to oppose Christian lunacy for the wrong reasons can often be as bad or worse than not opposing it at all.
‘I think it’s more than ethics’, said the American Morgan. I would say that it is the massive blindspot that most American racialists suffer from. Morgan has been criticising Hood’s Christianoid view of the world in the comments section of The Unz Review. But anyone who hasn’t read last month’s critique of Taylor should do so now.
