Left, Sebastian E. Ronin’s latest pic on his Facebook page.
To save the white race, the United States, a country based on Christian ethics, must be destroyed. This was not seen by even the best men the US has produced, such as Rockwell and Pierce. Although both have been guiding spirits for this site, I now see that, by making concessions to Christianity in his second novel, where a Christian preacher appears almost as a saving hero, Pierce ‘cucked’ at the CQ.
I’m afraid to say that I was wrong and old Sebas was right. In 2015 I said: ‘The huge difference between Hitler and Pierce, and white nationalists, is that virtually all of them cannot break away from the grip of Christian axiology, atheists included’. Sebastian Ronin responded:
Not from their Amerikan identity, Pierce included (who, like most Murkan WNs, was simply a screeching patriotard beneath the racialist posturing). WN is fail because it has stemmed from the Murkan psyche. Nothing good and decent can stem from the Murkan psyche; it encompasses an ontology that is wretched and rotten. Once this massive blind spot is not only spotted, but accepted, then a realistic Ethno Nationalism may get underway.
By now it should be obvious, more than obvious in fact (just see what’s been going on in there), that the US is the spearhead in the Western project to exterminate the White Man. The obsession of the American white nationalists with the Jew is deciphered when we understand that they see the straw in another’s eye and not the beam in their own.
It is true that before this criticism we can spare Pierce’s Who We Are. But even in his first novel Pierce doesn’t put Christianity on the dock, and also puts American racists as the leaders of The Organization that eventually saves the fair race by exterminating non-whites.
In the real world, an exterminationist Organization that conquers the whole world, as the one that appears in The Turner Diaries, would only be possible if Americans apostatised from Christianity, secular Christianity and transvalued all its values. And as old Sebas said, the chances of that happening are virtually zero, even among so-called American neonazis.
More than forty years ago, in ‘Why the West Will Go Under’ published on National Vanguard (excerpted: here), William Pierce predicted everything that would happen today. I consider Pierce to be one of the extremely, extremely few three-eyed ravens to use the metaphor I use at the end of my eleven autobiographical books.
Four decades after his very wise words, a few racialists have begun to see glimpses of what Pierce clearly and transparently saw when whites thought that everything was great. The following are three posts from commenters of an article published yesterday on American Renaissance:
Commenter 1: There is no fixing this politically. You need to understand that right now. As I have said numerous times, it will take a Hitleresque type of ruthlessness to save the country and the white race. You want to keep playing fair with these people, then prepare to die.
Jared Taylor who runs that webzine has been trying for decades to play fair (remember that Taylor’s parents were fanatic Christians that moved to Japan to save the heathen).
Commenter 2: What I will never understand is just how many White people in the US, Canada, Western Europe, Australia and New Zealand support the extermination of the European peoples worldwide.
Has this guy read one of the three articles that we recommend in the comments section of the sticky post, that of Black Pigeon Speaks? (When I finish my review of Game of Thrones I will replace it with a passage from my eleventh book.)
Commenter 3: What if the nation has been sick from the inception and this end is fitting? Do we really want to save this horrid monster? We should not even attempt life support, let the USA die.
They are just beginning to glimpse things that the three-eyed raven had seen thanks to his precognitive abilities…
I would like to add something about what I said yesterday, in one of the comment threads, about one of the few videos that survived the YouTube thoughtpolice, in which we see William Pierce speak.
I don’t agree with everything the prematurely aged Pierce said there. For example, I don’t see anything wrong with some young people exclaiming 14/88 and giving Roman salutes. But we must understand that Pierce founded his association in the shadow of Rockwell, whom he admired. That Rockwell was murdered by one of his own group must have caused young Pierce great consternation.
Rockwell admitted every young Aryan to his ranks, and I remember very much an anecdote that he himself tells that he accepted a young lad who was practically homeless; he even entered their headquarters half-naked when he wanted to join the club. In time, this young man proved to be an excellent element for the group, and we shouldn’t criticise the commander for having accepted him.
The problem with this practice is that it is impossible to detect who the real deranged is; who will later become a traitor and a murderer.
It is unrealistic to ask people to be ‘winners’ and not ‘losers’ in life as Pierce demands in his video. As Trainspotter once said, so-called winners are pigs: bourgeois who, if they join a racialist organisation, they won’t go beyond what we see in AmRen meetings or the discussion threads of the webzine with the same name.
In other words, we either have would-be revolutionaries of unsound mind who in any moment can kill us (what happened to Rockwell, Tommasi or the most recent accident in Atomwaffen Division), or decadent bourgeois who won’t ever raise a weapon.
It is a huge dilemma, and the saddest thing is that there is no way to solve it today for the simple fact that the feminised bourgeois need to suffer horrors before growing a pair, as Pierce himself splendidly portrays in his novel when talking about the liberated zones. Only after the coming catastrophe will it be possible to find more and more people of sound mind who also will be useful to the cause.
Our only options are meta-politics although never condemn a lone wolf in our forums, which is why I just changed the subtitle to ‘Metapolitics because it’s not time to kill yet’.
Or what does the word transvaluation mean in my mouth
There is something that I must add to what I said yesterday in the context of the current approach among race realists, which can be summed up in the already quoted words of Michael O’Meara, ‘The historical course offered by myth, in contrast to the inherently passive determinism of scientific rationalism, is a choice for heroes, not bookworms or computer hobbyists’.
But first of all I must say that the great failure of O’Meara was not seeing in Hitler the hero who created the new myth, the story that supplants the Christian one. Michael was simply unable to see the greatness of the Third Reich. Among Americans only George Lincoln Rockwell, after he finished reading Mein Kampf, saw that Hitlerism was a new religion. William Pierce got off to a good start, calling Hitler ‘our leader’ in National Socialist World in 1968. But then he got carried away by the American way and, instead of using the swastika for the new religion he wanted to create after Rockwell’s assassination, he devised another symbol (which nobody uses anymore).
The tremendous mistake I see here is that the American population cannot make contact with a higher archetype, as the Germans of the last century did. Americans are not the chosen people to create the new religion because their materialistic culture is completely uprooted from the history of their race, so well described by Pierce himself in Who We Are.
Yesterday I said that what is called history must be rewritten since, if it came from the pen of Christians or neochristians, the only value that history books can provide is raw material that must be relocated in the numinous context of the fourteen words.
To give just one example. Recall what I have made of the work of Karlheinz Deschner, his criminal history of Christianity. Although the late Deschner was antichristian, his scale of values was clearly liberal, that is, neochristian: a pseudo-apostate to use my neologism. Deschner’s encyclopaedic knowledge had to be appropriated to turn his legacy around our point of view: the POV of the transvalued man. And the same must be done with the rest of the other historians.
Yesterday I also said that what galvanised men in National Socialism were its marches and events in the streets. From this angle, the only thing that imitated them well, other than Rockwell when I was a kid, was the Charlottesville event three years ago. However, regardless of whether the government ambushed those who demonstrated, the demonstration was schizophrenic because of the American flags they carried. It is as if the Nazis of yore had carried the symbols of the degenerate Weimar Republic on their marches instead of coming up with a new flag.
That the racialist movement that raises the American flag is schizophrenic is seen in its inability to realise that, with its three anti-white wars—the 1860s, the 1940s, and today’s cold war that is already turning hot—the United States has become Mordor, and that using its symbols is mind splitting.
As far as I know, the only contemporary racialist who has understood that you have to hate the US to save the Anglo-German DNA is the Canadian Sebastian Ernst Ronin. Even at that Rockwell failed when trying to mix the swastika with the stars and stripes flag. Don’t be fooled, white nationalists: Since the United States was founded as a worshiping nation of Mammon and the god of the Jews, it is unreformable. The United States can only be repudiated and put an entirely different political animal in its place.
If the American racialist movement were not charlatanic, its proponents would not only begin to rewrite history from Who We Are, but reject both materialistic comfort and Yahweh. They would also begin to learn Germanic languages and would even try to change their American accent to how it sounded in England in Jane Austen’s time. Furthermore, after the Revolution bonfires would burn the books of accepted wisdom, including Bibles, degenerate music and Hollywood movies; in addition to the destruction of churches and the public lynching of those who oppose it.
Mount Rushmore will be nuked and another American mountain will boast colossal granite sculptures representing Leonidas, Hermann, Hitler and that of the new American messiah who led the racial revolution (a man whose name we still ignore).
For the transvaluation of all Christian values to Greco-Roman values to be complete, public opinion won’t give a damn if, instead of nymphs, one or two generals of the ethnostate have had ephebes as cute as Björn Andrésen or Max Born when he was a teenager. (On the other hand, having sex between same-sex adults will be frowned upon as it was frowned upon in Greece and Rome.)
Since that’s impossible given the level of the inflated ego in today’s American nationalist, only a convergence of catastrophes that kills vast numbers of whites around the world will straighten the ways of survivors.
Now that I saw the title of the latest article of The Occidental Observer I couldn’t contain the feeling of what O’Meara said about bookworms and computer hobbyists compared to the heroes we need, including the new messiah whose name we ignore. Without soldiers and transvalued heroes the academy is useless. In other words, the first rightful steps were made in Charlottesville, not in the pieces that Kevin MacDonald publishes. Now we would have to do the same but without the enemy flag, devising a swastika flag for American consumption.
But demonstrating in the streets will be impossible as long as Uncle Sam lives. If the US government didn’t exist, whites would easily win a war against BLM and (((those who finance it))). But killing Sam will be impossible as long as Christians and neochristians dominate both conservatism and white nationalism itself. Without infinite hatred there is no revolution. And with the psychic toll that Christianity bequeathed to us, there will be no place for infinite hatred.
Curiously, American racialists have already heard about the keys to save the race in both Who We Are (transvalued academy as opposed to KMD’s neochristian academy) and The Turner Diaries (bloodthirsty soldiers). But they follow a different path because they insist on being slaves of parental and societal introjects, including the enemy flag.
Although white advocates acknowledge that Jews hate, they are unable to link the info between two elemental neurons and imitate them. Being children of the Christian and liberal ethos they really believe, even many secularised racists, that we should solve our problems without violating the command to love our neighbour. Otherwise they would have already amalgamated their selves with the spirit of the Diaries.
Mine is constructive criticism of white nationalism insofar, unlike destructive criticism, I point out the way that could potentially save them.
The US right-wing is dominated by liberal conservatism, a perverse ideology that prioritizes extreme individualism and selfishness over the public good and GDP [Gross Domestic Product] as the reason for existence.
That’s why taking measures that hinder individualism or economic growth are opposed.
In order to justify this ludicrous value system, liberal conservatism engages in denialism or ridiculous conspiracy theories to explain away the pandemic.
Facing up and admitting there’s a real pandemic would mean exposing their real ideological motivations.
They can’t state what they really believe—that their personal autonomy is more important than public health and they don’t care how many get sick and die as long GDP keeps growing—because that would be deeply unpopular. Thus, they descend into denialism and conspiracy theories.
On the flip side, the US left-wing is dominated by liberal progressivism, an equally perverse ideology that believes “racism” and “white supremacy” is the real virus and more important to fight than an actual pandemic that’s infecting and killing thousands of people.
That is why the US left-wing initially opposed closing borders and isolating foreigners when the virus first appeared—that would be “racism” and “xenophobia” and then decided to form huge crowds to protest white supremacy in the middle of a pandemic.
Liberal progrssivism does not have to devolve into denialism and crackpot conspiracy theories to minimize the coronavirus because they openly state they believe fighting racism is more important than fighting a pandemic.
Liberal conservatism also agrees that racism is the greatest evil so the progressive left receives no pushback or condemnation for such an insane belief. Also, the conservatives want an excuse to deny taking public health measures and the protests give them that.
Based Barsoomian added:
At the same time they are doing nothing to stop blacks from destroying the city and killing people on the streets.
Michael Tracey commented:
The US right-wing impulse to deny the severity of the coronavirus has never made any sense ideologically. In other parts of the world (India, etc.) it’s the total opposite (right-wing extra “tough” on the virus). This is just nihilistic, knuckle-dragging, know-nothing posturing.
My two cents:
That’s the United States. Half of the population having Mammon as their god to the point of devolving into crackpot theories, and the other half indistinguishable from the Jews regarding what the Talmud says: that the best among the Goyim must be exterminated.
In a video, yesterday I listened a few words from William Pierce that Hunter Wallace embedded in his site. I had not listened to Pierce for some time and it made me reiterate what I already knew: that the Pierce who spoke once a week on the radio and the Pierce of Who We Are are two Pierces. Similarly, the Hitler who spoke to the masses was not the same as the one who spoke to his friends in private.
Perhaps the reason the National Alliance doesn’t publish Who We Are (the equivalent of Hitler’s table talks) is for not showing the most authentic Pierce to ordinary people, as Who We Are touches on taboo issues for American white nationalists: Nordicism, anti-Christianity, exterminationism and the story worth investigating to understand the white man is the European, not the American.
There is another problem with Pierce’s referred speech. Like Hitler’s public speeches, it seems monocausal, and it contrasts sharply with the posts we’ve been collecting from Robert Morgan about the American Civil War, which show that a fanatic, suicidal anti-racism already existed in the US before Jews came en masse to this continent. But the bottom line is what Will Westcott said above: almost all Americans, on the right or left, are bad people in one way or another. The only way to save them would be precisely what
Morgan said five years ago:
In order to accept being called a racist or a Nazi with equanimity, normal American whites would have to reconcile that with their country’s history of being violently opposed to racism of any kind, from the Civil War forward. They would have to admit to themselves and to others that all of that blood shed in trying to stamp out racism had been shed in vain, and in fact, worse than in vain, in an evil cause. They would have to admit that their ancestors were evil, and that they themselves had also been evil before they saw the light and became racists.
It’s safe to say the chances of that happening on a mass scale are almost zero.
Five years ago, trying to communicate with the commenters of The Occidental Observer, Jack Frost said: ‘Although it might be possible to develop a racist interpretation of Christianity (e.g., what the Nazis tried), I’ve never seen a convincing theological justification of it. The fact that all major churches and 99%+ of all who today call themselves Christians reject racism ought to tell you something… You probably want to hang on to most of Christianity as it has been “traditionally” practiced in relatively modern times, while discarding only the anti-racism. Everyone who ever tried that has failed, but I guess you don’t see that as a problem. Then again, the cognitive dissonance issue is nearly as problematic. In order to accept being called a racist or a Nazi with equanimity, normal American whites would have to reconcile that with their country’s history of being violently opposed to racism of any kind, from the Civil War forward. They would have to admit to themselves and to others that all of that blood shed in trying to stamp out racism had been shed in vain, and in fact, worse than in vain, in an evil cause. They would have to admit that their ancestors were evil, and that they themselves had also been evil before they saw the light and became racists’.
Frost thus tried to argue with the Christian white nationalists of the US. Now let’s talk about a normie at the south of Rio Grande.
A guest at my home, a chiropractor, said this week that the covid-19 pandemic is an international conspiracy to force everyone to be vaccinated and implanted with a chip for social control purposes. What is the difference between this nutter and many who, in the white advocacy forums, advance the craziest conspiracy theories? Doesn’t this have to do that all these people, normies and nationalists, are like the Jew Andrew Solomon (i.e., they violate the Oracle of Delphi’s commandment, they don’t know themselves)? If they knew themselves they would know that many of their internal demons (read: conspiracy theories), and even the idea they have about the (non-existent) Hebrew god they worship, is nothing more than the shadows transferred from the parental image. Paleological thinking has not been completely surpassed in the West, not even among racialists. Even high IQ Jews commenting on racial issues grotesquely distort reality.
Consider Ron Unz for example. This Jew likes to brag that he is against the official narrative about World War II and the assassination of John F. Kennedy. Nothing could be farther from the truth, as most Americans believe that Oswald did not act alone. Furthermore, the overwhelming majority of books about the murder promote conspiracy theories, in addition to blockbuster movies like the filth filmed by Oliver Stone. What Unz doesn’t want to see is that no one reads what he calls the official Warren Report. Instead, they consume all the prolefeed for the proles on JFK with which the System has stupefied the Americans.
It is true that I no longer enter the sites of white nationalism, but I do click on the threads of the commenters when they link to this site. In one of these threads I saw that Jack Frost, who now comments under another pseudonym in Unz Review, accepts the official story about Caligula, which paints him as a monster. Let us remember what Evropa Soberana tells us in the essay that I have promoted the most on this site, which teaches us to understand JQ at its origins. I quote from the chapter ‘Rome against Judea; Judea against Rome’ in The Fair Race’s Darkest Hour:
Gaius Julius Caesar Augustus Germanicus (‘Caligula’)
In 38, Caligula, the successor of Tiberius, sends his friend Herod Agrippa to the troubled city of Alexandria, to watch over Aulus Avilius Flaccus, the prefect of Egypt, who did not enjoy precisely the confidence of the emperor and who—according to the Jew Philo of Alexandria—was an authentic villain. The arrival of Agrippa to Alexandria was greeted with great protests by the Greek community, as they thought he was coming to proclaim himself king of the Jews. Agrippa was insulted by a crowd, and Flaccus did nothing to punish the offenders, despite the fact that the victim was an envoy of the emperor. This encouraged the Greeks to demand that statues of Caligula be placed in the synagogues, as a provocation to Jewry.
This simple act seemed to be the sign of an uprising: the Greeks and Egyptians attacked the synagogues and set them on fire. The Jews were expelled from their homes, which were looted, and thereafter segregated in a ghetto from which they could not leave. They were stoned, beaten or burned alive, while others ended up in the sand to serve as food to the beasts in those macabre circus shows so common in the Roman world. According to Philo, Flaccus did nothing to prevent these riots and murders, and even supported them, as did the Egyptian Apion, whom we have seen criticising the Jewish quarter in the section devoted to Hellenistic anti-Semitism.
To celebrate the emperor’s birthday (August 31, a Shabbat), members of the Jewish council were arrested and flogged in the theatre; others were crucified. When the Jewish community reacted, the Roman soldiers retaliated by looting and burning down thousands of Jewish houses, desecrating the synagogues and killing 50,000 Jews. When they were ordered to cease the killing, the local Greek population, inflamed by Apion (not surprisingly, Josephus has a work called Contra Apion) continued the riots. Desperate, the Jews sent Philo to reason with the Roman authorities. The Jewish philosopher wrote a text entitled Contra Flaccus and, along with the surely negative report that Agrippa had given to Caligula, the governor was executed.
After these events, things calmed down and the Jews did not suffer violence as long as they stayed within the confines of their ghetto. However, although Flaccus’ successor allowed the Alexandrian Jewry to give their version of the events, in the year 40 there were again riots among the Jews (who were outraged by the construction of an altar) and among the Greeks, who accused the Jews of refusing to worship the emperor. The religious Jews ordered to destroy the altar and, in retaliation, Caligula made a decision that really showed how little he knew the Jewish quarter: he ordered to place a statue of himself at the Temple of Jerusalem. According to Philo, Caligula ‘considered the majority of Jews suspects, as if they were the only people who wished to oppose him’ (On the Embassy to Gaius and Flaccus). Publius Petronius, governor of Syria, who knew the Jews well and feared the possibility of a civil war, tried to delay as long as possible the placement of the statue until Agrippa convinced Caligula that it was a poor decision.
In 41, Caligula, who already promised to be an anti-Jewish emperor, was assassinated in Rome, which unleashed the violence of his German bodyguards who had not been able to prevent his death and who, because of their peculiar sense of fidelity, tried to avenge him by killing many conspirators, senators and even innocent bystanders who had the misfortune to be in the wrong place at the wrong time. Claudius, the uncle of Caligula, would become the master of the situation and, after being appointed emperor by the Praetorian Guard, ordered the execution of the assassins of his nephew, many of whom were political magistrates who wanted to reinstate the Republic.
This is the probable cause of the unprecedented historical defamation of this emperor: the texts of Roman history would eventually fall into the hands of the Christians, who were mostly of Jewish origin and viscerally detested the emperors. Since, according to Orwell, ‘he who controls the past controls the present’ the Christians adulterated Roman historiography, turning the emperors who had opposed them and their Jewish ancestors into disturbed monsters. Thus, we do not have a single Roman emperor who has participated in harsh Jewish reprisals who has not been defamed by accusations of homosexuality, cruelty or perversion. The Spanish historian José Manuel Roldán Hervás has dismantled many of the false accusations against the historical figure of Caligula (The Fair Race’s Darkest Hour, pages 59-63, italics added in this last paragraph).
Roldán-Hervás’ book is in Spanish. But English speakers who are interested in a view of the facts that sticks a little more to history than popular calumnies in the Judeo-Christian era can read the Wikipedia article on the Roman emperor. (Although Wikipedia is enemy territory, they sometimes write comparatively neutral articles. At least the lead paragraph of the article on Caligula, for example, does not describe him as a monster.)
I have said several times that to save the white race from extinction it is necessary to rewrite the history of the West, so I use the symbol of the weirwood tree and the raven that, unlike the normies, can see the past. Following the crow’s lead, it is not only necessary to reclaim the pagan emperors such as Caligula and Nero within a new narrative. Concurrently we must take down from the pedestal those figures that Christianity placed on top, something that I would like to illustrate with Charlemagne.
The only living historian for whom I have respect told me that he would rate Charlemagne well up in the top five most evil characters of European history. I recently acquired Thomas Hodgkin’s The Life of Charlemagne, which I recommend to those who have swallowed the Christian version of this evil man. If we keep in mind the message of the historical sections in The Fair Race, we will see that even after the Aryan apocalypse of the 4th and 5th centuries, there were still many Germanic tribes in the 6th and 7th centuries who refused to worship the god of the Jews. Charlemagne forced these uncontaminated Aryans to worship the enemy god: a historical milestone that, for the 3-eyed raven, has to do directly with the philo-Semitic state that the entire West is currently suffering. (We could imagine a parallel world in which at least part of the Aryan populations had not been worshiping, for more than a millennium, the volcanic demon that appeared to Moses in a desert.)
Christianity, or more accurately the secular ethics that was inspired by Christian ideals after the French Revolution, has hypnotised all whites, racists included. Rarely do I criticise William Pierce, the best mind the United States has produced. But it is about time to do it. The Frost quote at the top of this article nails it. After The Turner’s Diaries, the anti-Christian Pierce cucked with his second novel, Hunter, by putting a Christian preacher as the spark that could awaken Americans from their torpor. That’s a failure to grasp the crow’s view about the CQ!
Now that, thanks to the insight of the three-eyed crow I have broken with American White Nationalism, I have no choice but to start getting acquainted with German National Socialism…
Berlin, 1936
Hitler has been in power for three years, a period during which hundreds of kilometres of roads and thousands of houses have been built for the German people. In 1936 the Führer ordered to launch his most ambitious project: the architect Albert Speer would erect a gigantic city in the old centre of Berlin.
In the spring of 1936, Hitler was inspecting the construction of a highway alongside Albert Speer when he suddenly said: ‘I still have left for commissioning an important building, the most impressive of all’. At the time that was no more than a comment, because there were more urgent international policy issues to attend to. Hitler had decided to test England and France by sending German troops to the Rhineland region, whose control Germany had lost in World War I and which was to remain demilitarized under the Treaty of Versailles. London and Paris reacted with weak protests, and Hitler knew then that he might be on the hunt for new territory.
In June Hitler was ready to reveal to Speer his architectural plans for Berlin. The first thing he did was to warn him that he should skip the bureaucracy. ‘The city council is impossible,’ he said. ‘From now on, you make the plans’. Then he gave him two pieces of paper the size of two postcards and added: ‘Take these two drawings and when you have something ready, show it to me’. Hitler’s drawings depicted an enormous triumphal arch and an even larger vaulted hall, with a capacity of 180,000 people. These constructions would be located at the ends of a five-kilometre long avenue inspired by the Champs Elysées in Paris. ‘I made these sketches ten years ago and have kept them because I have never had doubts that one day I would build these two buildings. And that’s what we’re going to do now’, he confided to Speer, who left the meeting thoughtful and surprised.
The architect was thirty-one years old and, in just a decade, he had starred in a meteoric career: from an unemployed draftsman living from his father to a celebrated architect of the National Socialists.
Speer first saw Hitler at a rally in Berlin in the 1930s, and he was dazzled by his charisma, which led him to join the National Socialist Party and work there as an assistant. After Hitler’s rise to power in 1933, he was commissioned to reform the party headquarters in Berlin. His colossal style earned him immediate recognition. When Hitler saw his works, he commissioned him to reform the Zeppelin Field in Nuremberg and, before it was completed, assigned him the following task: rebuilding Berlin as Germania, the capital of the Third Reich that was to last a thousand years.
According to the Führer’s instructions, the works were to be completed by 1950. Speer had a vague notion of the dimensions Hitler was thinking of. To be sure, he enlarged the drawings and compared the size of the buildings with that of the people who appeared there. He also realised that the cupola Hitler had planned for the Grosse Halle was too flat and instead projected an enlarged version of St. Peter’s Basilica in Rome. The triumphal arch, to which the Führer had added a simple balustrade, ended up with a forest of columns.
After several months, Speer had his sketches ready. Out of respect for Hitler’s designs, he did not sign them and left the space blank for the Führer to do so, but Hitler declined the honour.
It didn’t take long for Speer to realise that building a five-kilometre version of the Champs-Elysées in Berlin, with the Grosse Halle on one end and the Arc de Triomphe on the other, was not so easy. Unless it was integrated into a more ambitious city project, the grand avenue would seem out of place. The plan quickly took on gigantic proportions. Speer decided to create two axes (north-south and east-west) that would intersect in the centre, near the Grosse Halle, and would have an airport at each of the four points. Around the city a ring road would extend, within which there would be other circular highways, forming rings. The access roads would come out of the centre, like the spokes of a wheel. The plan included the complete restructuring of the railway network, which would have only two main stations, Nordbahnhof (North Station) and Sudbahnhof (South Station). Areas with roads considered obsolete would be free for other purposes.
The project also included residential neighbourhoods, a university, a hospital area, new parks, and several subway lines. Hitler was delighted but, as the months went by, it became clear that he was particularly interested in Victoria Avenue, included in the north-south axis. In meetings where they talked about the project, he listened patiently to all the news and then asked: ‘Where do you have the plans for the Avenue?’ They saw each other several times a week, in the late afternoon, when the Führer had finished the work of the day, and they could spend hours hunched over pianos and models. ‘One day Berlin will be the capital of the world’, Hitler predicted, and imagined the visitors stunned and intimidated by the magnificence of those buildings.
Hitler had Speer’s office placed near the Reichstag, so that just by walking through a garden, he could go see him and also the thirty-meter-long model of Germania. This was divided into several modules mounted on wheels, so that the Führer could move them and enter the city. He also used to bend down to observe the model at eye level.
He delighted in imagining ministries, exhibition halls, and office buildings of major German corporations; also the new opera, the palaces and the luxurious hotels. ‘I was participating in that reverie willingly’, Speer later wrote. On one occasion, those responsible for air defence heard about the 290-meter-high Grosse Halle project. One of them warned that enemy planes would use the building as a target to attack Berlin, but Hitler ignored it. ‘Goering has assured me that no enemy aircraft could enter Germany. We are not going to let this kind of thing interfere with our plans’, he said. The leader and architect tried to keep the project a secret. Hitler feared the possible reaction of Berliners when they were told that at least 50,000 houses had to be thrown away to make way for new construction; but the mayor of Berlin, Julius Lippert, knew the plans and showed his opposition, which led to Hitler’s removal from office to move on.
The works started in 1939, with columns of workers moved to the centre of Berlin to demolish the buildings. The inhabitants of the area had to abandon their homes and were housed in houses that had belonged to the now expelled Jews. Speer had granite brought from Norway and Sweden, as he believed that this material would impregnate Germania with the magic of the Greek and Roman architecture (see YouTube clip above, ‘What did ancient Rome look like’) and give it an image of greatness and eternity. In 1941, Swedish stone producers signed an agreement with Germany to sell 10 million cubic meters of granite to it. This guaranteed supply for 10 years, but few deliveries were ever made. Just a year later, in 1942, the Third Reich announced that it could no longer receive granite. Germania’s work had been suspended and the workers were assigned to much more urgent tasks. The Germans paid for the purchases of the material, but left the granite stacked in the nations of origin with the intention of collecting it once they won the war.
To secure victory over the Allies, Hitler had appointed his favourite architect, Speer, as the new Minister of Armament. Thanks to his organizational skills, Speer managed to multiply war production by resorting to different methods, including the use of prisoners from concentration camps as slave labour. During the Nuremberg Trials, Speer denied having any news about the extermination of Jews or the concentration camps. At the end of the process, he managed to avoid the death penalty, but was sentenced to twenty years in prison, which he served in Spandau prison in Berlin. When he was released, Speer went to the Tempelhof airport and crossed the area that was intended to be Victory Avenue.
Had it not been for American intrusion in Europe, the Führer’s palace would have occupied an area of two million square meters. As I said, it had to be finished by 1950, the year in which Hitler had planned to start inhabiting it. Today’s white advocates could have visited it!
But due to the Americans Hitler had to commit suicide to prevent the humiliation at Nuremberg. The buildings were demolished. The granite blocks were never collected. After the war they were stored for years in different ports until, in the end, they were acquired by tombstone manufacturers. In this way, a large part of Germania, Hitler’s dream, ended in different European cemeteries. Thus Germania (like the moral of the whole white race) ended up turned literally into tombstones…
Let us now return to the issues at the beginning of this article. To understand this site, it is essential to remember the message of Soberana’s master essay on the surreptitious war that Judea waged against Rome during the Christian takeover of the classical world. It is also necessary to understand that, once Soberana’s vision has been assimilated (whom I have compared to the raven who sees the past as it happened), many so-called civilisation builders of the Christian era become monsters (for example, Charlemagne) and many monsters become murdered heroes (for example, the anti-Semite Caligula).
This transvaluation of values is only possible by seeing the past as it actually happened.
From this angle, which can also be seen in Pierce’s only non-fiction book, the so-called ‘barbaric’ invasions of the Germans in Rome that culminated in 410 AD were, in fact, Aryan invasions on a treacherous city that had been conquered by a Semitic cult. By transvaluing values, the ‘barbarians’ would now be the miscegenated Romans that had been brainwashed by the Semitic bishops to the extent of destroying their classical culture (the German incursions into Rome may have once again brought light into Europe had it not been for what Charlemagne would do centuries later).
The way Judea defeated Rome was very similar to the way Jews in the West have been acting since Napoleon emancipated them: by controlling the narrative with which whites see themselves. In the 4th and 5th centuries subversion was carried out through theologians and Semitic bishops who gained enormous power to educate princes from Constantine forward. From this angle, the imperial Rome of the last centuries is similar to imperial America since Jewry’s presence began to become evident in the media. Charlemagne’s favourite book was St. Augustine’s The City of God Against the Pagans, an ideology that Charlemagne used to genocide the Saxons and convert the Saxon survivors to the Semitic cult. Similarly, as Tom Sunic has written in Homo Americanus, the Americans’ initiative to intervene in World War II was, ultimately, a theologically motivated undertaking. I must quote from Chapter V: ‘In Yahweh We Trust: A Divine Foreign Policy’:
Homo Americanus (chapter excerpts)
It was largely the Biblical message which stood as the origin of America’s endeavour to ‘make the world safe for democracy’. Contrary to many European observers critical of America, American military interventions have never had as a sole objective economic imperialism but rather the desire to spread American democracy around the world…
American involvement in Europe during World War II and the later occupation of Germany were motivated by America’s self-appointed do-gooding efforts and the belief that Evil in its fascist form had to be removed, whatever the costs might be. Clearly, Hitler declared war on ‘neutral’ America, but Germany’s act of belligerence against America needs to be put into perspective. An objective scholar must examine America’s previous illegal supplying of war material to the Soviet Union and Great Britain. Equally illegal under international law was America’s engaging German submarines in the Atlantic prior to the German declaration of war, which was accompanied by incessant anti-German media hectoring by American Jews—a strategy carried out in the name of a divine mission of ‘making the world safe for democracy’.
‘The crisis of Americanism in our epoch,’ wrote a German scholar, Giselher Wirsing, who had close ties with propaganda officials in the Third Reich, ‘falls short of degeneracy of the Puritan mindset. In degenerated Puritanism lies, side by side with Judaism, America’s inborn danger’…
In the first half of the 20th century American Biblical fundamentalism resulted in military behaviour that American postmodern elites are not very fond of discussing in a public forum. It is common place in American academia and the film industry to criticise National Socialism for its real or alleged terror. But the American way of conducting World War II—under the guise of democracy and world peace—was just as violent if not even worse.
Puritanism had given birth to a distinctive type of American fanaticism which does not have parallels anywhere else in the world. Just as in 17th century England, Cromwell was persuaded that he had been sent by God Almighty to purge England of its enemies; so did his American liberal successors by the end of the 20th century think themselves elected in order to impose their own code of military and political conduct in both domestic and foreign affairs. M.E. Bradford notes that this type of Puritan self-righteousness could be easily observed from Monroe to Lincoln and Lincoln’s lieutenants Sherman and Grant…
Whereas everybody in American and European postmodern political establishment are obliged to know by heart the body count of Fascist and National Socialist victims, nobody still knows the exact number of Germans killed by American forces during and after World War II. Worse, as noted earlier, a different perspective in describing the US post-war foreign policy toward Europe and Germany is not considered politically correct… [in spite of the fact that] the American mistreatment of German POWs and civilians during World War II must have been far worse than that on Iraq after 2003.
Just as communism, following the Second World War, used large scale terror in the implementation of its foreign policy goals in Eastern Europe, so did America use its own type of repression to silence heretics in the occupied parts of postwar Europe… The American crusade to extirpate evil was felt by Germans in full force in the aftermath of World War II. Freda Utley, an English-American writer depicts graphically in her books the barbaric methods applied by American military authorities against German civilians and prisoners in war ravaged Germany. Although Utley enjoyed popularity among American conservatives, her name and her works fell quickly into oblivion…
In hindsight one wonders whether there was any substantive difference between warmongering Americanism and Communism? If one takes into account the behaviour of American military authorities in Germany after World War II, it becomes clear why American elites, half a century later, were unwilling to initiate a process of decommunisation in Eastern Europe, as well as the process of demarxisation in American and European higher education. After all, were not Roosevelt and Stalin war time allies? Were not American and Soviet soldiers fighting the same ‘Nazi evil’?
It was the inhumane behaviour of the American military interrogators that left deep scars on the German psyche and which explains why Germans, and by extension all Europeans, act today in foreign affairs like scared lackeys of American geopolitical interests…
A whole fleet of aircraft was used by General Eisenhower to bring journalists, Congressmen, and churchmen to see the concentration camps; the idea being that the sight of Hitler’s starved victims would obliterate consciousness of our own guilt. Certainly it worked out that way. No American newspaper of large circulation in those days wrote up the horror of our bombing or described the ghastly conditions in which the survivors were living in the corpse-filled ruins. American readers sipped their fill only of German atrocities. [Freda Utley, The High Cost of Vengeance (Chicago: Henry Regnery Co. 1949), p. 183]
Utley’s work is today unknown in American higher education although her prose constitutes a valuable document in studying the crusading and inquisitorial character of Americanism in Europe.
There are legions of similar revisionist books on the topic describing the plight of Germans and Europeans after the Second World War, but due to academic silence and self-censorship of many scholars, these books do not reach mainstream political and academic circles. Moreover, both American and European historians still seem to be light years away from historicising contemporary history and its aftermath. This is understandable, in view of the fact that acting and writing otherwise would throw an ugly light on crimes committed by the Americans in Germany during and after the second World War and would substantially ruin antifascist victimology, including the Holocaust narrative.
American crimes in Europe, committed in the immediate aftermath of the Second World War, included extra-killings of countless German civilians and disarmed soldiers, while tacitly approving serial Soviet genocides and mass expulsions of the German civilian population in Eastern Europe… As years and decades went by, crimes committed by the Americans against the Germans were either whitewashed or ascribed to the defeated Germans…
The exact number of German causalities during and after the Second World War remains unknown. The number of German dead varies wildly, ranging from 6 to 16 million Germans, including civilians and soldiers… It is only the fascist criminology of World War II, along with the rhetorical projection of the evil side of the Holocaust that modern historiographers like to repeat, with Jewish American historians and commentators being at the helm of this narrative. Other victimhoods and other victimologies, notably those people who suffered under communism, are rarely mentioned… According to some German historians over a million and a half of German soldiers died after the end of hostilities in American and Soviet-run prison camps…
The masters of discourse in postmodern America have powerful means to decide the meaning of historical truth and provide the meaning with their own historical context. Mentioning extensively Germany’s war loses runs the risk of eclipsing the scope of Jewish war loses, which makes many Jewish intellectuals exceedingly nervous. Every nation likes to see its own sacred victimhood on the top of the list of global suffering. Moreover, if critical revisionist literature were ever to gain a mainstream foothold in America and Europe, it would render a serious blow to the ideology of Americanism and would dramatically change the course of history in the coming decades.
My two cents
What Stalin and the Anglo-Saxons did in World War II produces a phenomenal hatred in me. For the second time in history since Charlemagne, the possibility of Aryan liberation thanks to Germania was crushed… by other Aryans. Today the United States, like the Judaised Rome since the times of Constantine, is the enemy to overcome. It is time to start preaching an infinite hatred for the new Great Whore that must be crushed in the coming apocalypse.
I call the people of the Americanised alt-right ‘Jew-obeyers’ because they have internalised the Christian prohibition to hate. I have recently learned that The Occidental Observer published an article on hate but let me guess: Did that article blame Christianity one hundred percent for the psyop against hating (remember I no longer read alt-right articles)? Instead of a conservative webzine like The Occidental Observer I prefer the words Kai Murros said about hate. Listen to Murros in a very short clip where a couple of bars of Parsifal’s music can be heard: here. Or what Alex Linder wrote:
Hate is not some useless organ like the appendix. It’s there for a reason. Why does Christianity do all it can to talk us out of necessary and functional drives? Well, the answer is that it’s a bit of software meant to disable our enemy recognition module. Christianity preaches blind love, and that love is murdering the West.
The Hollywood movie 1917, which I saw today, directed, co-written and produced by Sam Mendes, whose mother is Jewish, is poison to the Aryan race.
Of the most notable contemporary racialists, Richard Spencer’s voice is the least bad. I’m not saying it’s a good voice: it’s just the least bad. Let us listen, then, what together with Hollywood buff Mark, who never shows his face, Spencer said yesterday about Mendes’ movie.
The problem with Spencer is that he is very lukewarm. A truly fanatic priest of the 14 words would be furious not only against this new film, but against the entire film industry (with the exceptions of the 1995 and 2005 movies based on Jane Austen’s novels, of which I spoke this week.)
One of the problems with films like 1917 is that they are made with great craft and even art we could say. But that turns the film into an even more rhetorical poison, and therefore more dangerous, than a poorly directed film.
For me the seventh art, as a subject, is crystal-clear. As long as there are non-whites on Earth, every film must be propaganda: audio-visual spectacles that must have the imprimatur of a totalitarian Fourth Reich, as Yockey said in one of the quotations of The Fair Race: ‘L’art pour l’art values must be transvalued to Art practiced in conformity with the cultural task’. Of course, that was collectivist Germany, not libertarian, Mammon worshiper and Judeo-Christian America.
Compare the above way of seeing art—a priest’s POV—with the words of Spencer and the faceless Mark. Spencer said that 1917 ‘is valorizing WWI, and I think that is something that is extremely problematic’ (after minute 6:30, and he repeated these words after minute 34). Note the word ‘problematic’ and realise why, compared to me, I label Spencer as lukewarm. I’d simply say it’s Jewish poison for the Aryan mind. Mark added about the hero of the movie: ‘he defeated the villain, he defeated the foe… from the British side’.
Spencer also spoke of World War II but did not say a word about the Holocaust that the Allies committed on the Germans. I wonder if Spencer has read Hellstorm? This astronomic omission reminds me that Hunter Wallace wrote about Justinian I today in glowing terms about ‘reconquering the Western Empire’. These are words as deceiving as Sam Mendes’ visual art about the Great War. Does Wallace know about the Holocaust perpetrated on two Germanic peoples by Justinian I, the emperor of the capital of miscegenation, Constantinople? (see the final pages of the book I recently translated, Christianity’s Criminal History).
Just as in official history the Germanics that invaded the already miscegenated Roman Empire are presented as barbarians, in 1917 a ‘German is depicted as an insane maniac’, said Spencer around minute 36 and he added that the scene was ‘insulting to Germans’. Mark then said that in the film the German point of view is never represented, that it is taboo in Hollywood. I would add that, unlike one of Clint Eastwood’s films about WW2 where the Japanese POV is presented, the German POV continues to be taboo. Incidentally, both Spencer and Mark use the word ‘gay’ without realising that it is Newspeak to avoid.
Only until a few seconds before the 57th minute Mark said ‘I knew that the guy was a Jewish filmmaker’, something he should have said from the first minute. Then we hear, after 1:06, that the film is pro-Zionist and glorifies the two world wars that only favoured the Zionist Christians: wars that transvalued values in the US to a philo-Semitism based on the Schofield Bible. Spencer & Mark’s review aside, it is time to say a few more words about the American racialist movement.
George Lincoln Rockwell was the only one who understood racial reality. If he had not been murdered the journal National Socialist World, in which William Pierce and others collaborated, would have continued.
The wisest thing I heard in England the last time I visited the island was what Arthur Kemp told me: that William Pierce’s mistake had been not to form a political party. I recently talked about Pierce’s blunder, but degenerate music was only a tactical blunder. The fact is that Pierce committed something much more serious: a strategic blunder, not having followed in the footsteps of Commander Rockwell.
Only Rockwell tried to follow in Hitler’s footsteps. After Rockwell everyone else has been talkative, despite Pierce’s enormous intelligence (whom I cite so much in The Fair Race).
After the assassination of Rockwell, everything we have had in this continent have been impossible compromises with Christian ethics and the American way of life. The tremendous inertia of American Judeo-Christianity is such that, as a commenter said on this site today, the purported anti-Semite Andrew Anglin no longer speaks about Hitler. He now speaks about Yahweh and his son Yeshu, as the gods that the valiant visitors of The Daily Stormer must follow.
If white nationalism were a legit movement, everyone would be talking about Christianity’s Criminal History and the forthcoming revolution, although theoretically and patiently, waiting for the dollar to collapse so that the masses transit from happy mode to angry mode. But they are stagnated in the American way.
Recently Will Williams commented on this site. In 1992 Williams became Membership Coordinator for Pierce’s National Alliance, continuing with the Alliance until Pierce’s death in 2002.
Today I was about to read what Williams linked, ‘Ideology of the National Alliance’ but then I realised that not even they mention Pierce’s only non-fiction book, his story of the white race. This means that the ‘Alliance’ that Pierce left behind makes no hard copies for his book.
Although this vindicates my initiative to have an abridged version of Who We Are within The Fair Race, I cannot put all the blame on the National Alliance. Piece himself committed a great mistake when in the 1990s he used his savings to acquire partial ownership of a records company of degenerate music.
Before Americanizing his movement, Pierce was closer to German National Socialism.
The first issue of National Socialist World appeared in the Spring 1966 and was edited by Pierce. The publication was quarterly and would have a run of only six issues, the last one being in 1968. The publication had an appeal to a well-educated elite, each issue having over a hundred pages. Three thousand copies were initially printed and a promotional mailing was sent to libraries, news agencies, and some prominent right-wing politicians. The mailing generated a hundred and twenty subscriptions.
Had Pierce remained closer to the German movement of the previous decades, he wouldn’t have committed a gross blunder: spending his precious savings in a company of degenerate music. With that money he would have founded, instead, a publishing house. Presently, his legacy would appear backed by a house of more than half a century, and Who We Are wouldn’t be out-of-print.
It is important for us to understand that one person is not a Methodist and another a Catholic and a third a Marxist as the result of any rational process—at least, not in the vast majority of cases, although there are individual exceptions.
That is, one is not a Methodist because one sat down and studied the Methodist doctrine, compared it with other doctrines, and decided that Methodism was what made the most sense. One is a Methodist, generally, because one’s parents and neighbors were—that is, out of an entirely unreasoning desire to conform, to believe what one perceives that one is expected to believe. John Wesley undoubtedly was an exception to this rule, but very few other Methodists have been.
There has been strong resistance to accepting the implications of this important facet of human behavior. People seem to want to believe that we are all quite rational, when most of us aren’t. For our purposes, the implication of the fact that most people are governed far more by herd instinct than by reason is this: Insofar as the general public is concerned, truth cannot fight its own battles. As long as Norman Lear, the Jewish television producer, has more kilowatts for reaching the public than we do, it will be his view of history and, more important, his view of what is moral rather than ours which will be generally accepted and which will govern the political process.
This means that we can realistically expect our educational efforts to be effective with only a rather small minority of our fellow citizens. We cannot expect to make a partisan for our cause out of the average man or woman who perceives, even unconsciously, that our cause is not popular, no matter how many books or leaflets we may coax that person into reading. We win only two types of people: One is the person who is already alienated to a certain extent from Mr. Lear’s world and does not fully feel himself a part of the herd to which Mr. Lear is preaching with his cleverly designed television sermons. Unfortunately, in many cases people are alienated for reasons which are entirely or partly wrong from our point of view. That is why protest movements and revolutionary movements always pick up lots of defective people. On the other hand, alienation is certain to remain a growth industry, as they say, and one can hope to see many more essentially healthy people becoming alienated from the mainstream in the years ahead.
The second type of person we are able to win with an educational effort at this time is the person who is one of those rare exceptions to the general rule, a person who is strongly motivated by ideas as well as by instinct, and who has already been groping in our direction. Our effect with such a person is primarily to help him clarify his ideas and to lead him more rapidly to their logical conclusions.
This contrast between idealistic motivation and herd instinct tell us only part of the story as to why people behave the way they do. The rest of the story takes us into the realm of values. Consider your average man or woman, your ordinary White American: what, other than herd instinct, determines his behavior—in particular, the way he votes?
Well, he generally likes to be warm, dry, and comfortable. He likes to eat. He likes sex. He likes to feel secure. He likes to be entertained. He likes to own shiny things, such as automobiles, boats, houses, new golf clubs, and jewelry. And that’s about it. If these desires of his are gratified, then he is satisfied. If he thinks a politician will satisfy him, he’ll vote for the man.
Now, if this average citizen hears that Blacks are rioting and killing Whites somewhere 1,000 miles away he will be annoyed—if Norman Lear hasn’t already affected his mind too much and he still has healthy instincts. When he hears that hundreds of thousands of non-White aliens are pouring into the country, again he’ll be annoyed. All these things are, to a greater or lesser extent, perceived as threats at the instinctual level. They trigger his normal territorial or xenophobic reflexes. But unless the threat becomes very direct and very personal—unless the riot is in his neighborhood, unless a member of his immediate family marries a non-White, or unless he receives a special tax bill in the mail to provide welfare payment for more immigrants—the annoyance remains minor. It does not override his desire to be satisfied.
When it comes time to vote, if one candidate is in favor of forced busing or more boat people and a second candidate is against these things—and if all other factors are equal—then he’ll vote for the second man. But all the other factors are never equal. And if the pro-busing man has a nice smile and a warm personality that makes the voter feel more secure, while the anti-busing man wants to raise the charge for fishing licenses, say, and the voter likes to fish, then he’ll vote for the pro-busing candidate nine times out of ten.
That is why a state like Minnesota, which has one of the racially healthiest populations in the country, could keep sending a piece of filth like the late Hubert Humphrey back to the U.S. Senate term after term. Old Hubert could stand up in the Senate and support forced busing, forced housing, forced hiring, and everything else that most Minnesotans didn’t favor—except, of course, those Minnesotans already convinced by Norman Lear that they should favor those things—and then Hubert could make up for it all by going for bigger farm price supports than his opponent and by being, as they say in New York, a mensch. And the good folks of Minnesota would re-elect him.
Many people don’t like the view of human behavior I am presenting to you, because it is mechanistic; it reduces man to no more than another animal. And I’ll admit that it is an oversimplified view. But it is nevertheless a fact that man is an animal, and that fact accounts for 99 per cent of his behavior. In particular, it accounts for the way he votes. That’s why democracy is such a catastrophe.
I said the fact that man is an animal explains 99 per cent of his behavior, and anyone who wants to change the world in any way must take that fact into account. But it is the other one per cent of human motivation that I’m more interested in and that the Alliance is more interested in. It’s the other one per cent that explains why Earl Turner, the hero of The Turner Diaries, did the things he did.
Earl Turner was a man whose priorities were different from those of your average American voter. Earl Turner liked to be warm and dry and to have a full belly, just like everyone else. He enjoyed sex. And, presumably, he liked to own shiny things. But when Blacks killed Whites 1,000 miles away, it wasn’t just a minor annoyance to him. He had a larger view of the world and of his race and of his relationship to them. He could abstract what was a minor, personal threat to your average voter, and he could relate that abstraction to his view of the world.
When Earl Turner saw a racially mixed couple on the street, the sight did more than arouse a twinge of xenophobia or offend his sense of beauty. Unlike your average voter, he saw all the implications of that mixed couple. He saw mongrel children and mongrel grandchildren; he saw a race defiled. He saw a threat not just to himself, but to the whole upward course of life; a threat not just to his race, but to what his race could become.
And it was this that was important to Earl Turner: it was this that counted more than being satisfied, more than owning shiny things. And that’s why he didn’t behave like your average voter. His priorities were different.
Actually, there are two concepts here. First, Earl Turner had the capacity for abstraction, for taking an idea out of a specific set of circumstances and putting it into a more general context: for converting an idea into an ideal. That is a capacity which distinguishes our race from Blacks, in general, but it is still a capacity which relatively few Whites have to any significant degree.
And, second, there are values, the choice of which things count most. For most people the things that come first, even if they have the capacity for abstraction, are entirely personal. It is only for a minority within a minority that the long-range things are the ones that count. Only the very few can feel that it is more important that strength and beauty and wisdom prevail and become stronger and more beautiful and wiser with each succeeding generation than it is that any individual—or a million individuals—have full bellies.
In The Turner Diaries the real struggle was not so much one of a revolutionary band against the government as it was of one set of values against another set. Earl Turner and his Organization were the champions of a life-centered set of values, a set of values in which the central reality is not the individual, but all of Life: the Cosmos, in its entire temporal extension. Opposed to them were not only the values of the government and the media and the plutocrats, but also the individual-centered set of values of mass man, of the average voter. And in The Turner Diaries the life-centered values won, and those values then ruled. And the whole world was changed: its government, its racial composition, its art and industry, it life-styles, and all its priorities.
Human nature didn’t change—that is, the mentality and the values of the average White person didn’t change, because those are things which can only be changed over the course of generations, through the evolutionary process. But a different set of values, the values of an elite minority, gained precedence over the values of man. That’s what The Turner Diaries is all about.
And as I said earlier, it’s not a plan or a blueprint. The details—the bombings and assassinations, the nuclear war and its aftermath—are all fiction. But the struggle for dominance between the two sets of values portrayed in the book is not fiction. That’s real. And it is in this regard that Earl Turner’s Organization is the model for the National Alliance.
We are concerned, then, not only with education, with helping people clarify their thoughts and reach the proper conclusions, but also with embodying and institutionalizing a set of fundamental values and a view of the world. We are convinced that, unless our values prevail and rule, unless it is our world view which determines the shape of the future by setting men’s priorities and guiding them in their decisions, then there will be no future—that is, no future worth mentioning, because it will be a retrograde future, and our race will not be a part of it. And, in fact, the only valid reason why our race should survive is that it is the bearer of the values that we are determined shall prevail. For life loses its intrinsic value when its only motive is to increase its quantity, when its only goal is satiety.
The value of every form of life—of every race—of every individual—is not that it is an end in itself but that it is a means to a higher end. The value of a man’s life is not to be found in the degree to which he enjoys himself or in the amount of wealth or power he accumulates—and it especially is not to be found in the so-called good he does by making life more comfortable for others. It is to be found only in the extent to which he helps prepare the way for a higher, a more fully conscious life than his own.
Earl Turner understood that and acted accordingly and we must do the same.
____________
The above material has been excerpted from a portion of Pierce’s address at the Estonian House in New York City. The original title was ‘Whose Values Shall Rule?’ which appeared in the National Alliance Bulletin of June, 1980.
Since many people in the alt-right are true consumers of the soul-rotting junk that the Jews administer to us, I recently came up with a brilliant idea. Instead of visiting most of the sites of current white nationalism, I better read everything available on the internet that has come out of William Pierce’s pen.
Why? Because alt-right folks are not fit to tie Pierce’s shoelaces, not even fit to carry out his trash.
Left, Sebastian E. Ronin’s latest pic on his Facebook page.
