THE WEST'S DARKEST HOUR – Page 2 – (The site of the priest of the sacred words)

On Allied criminals, 4

Post author By C .T.
Post date September 18, 2023

Semantic juggling to get 900,000 prisoners killed

Eisenhower was supreme commander for political reasons. He seems to have been left with the temptation to win a battle himself, even if it was after the war was over and against unarmed prisoners.

Dwight David Eisenhower, commander of the Allied armies, was more a politician than a general. President Roosevelt promoted him from lieutenant colonel to major general in short order, without regard to service or rank. Eisenhower was the grandson of Jacob and Rebecca, a Jewish family that emigrated from Germany to the United States in the 18th century.

Both General Patton (American) and General Montgomery (British) were more competent than Eisenhower and performed more professionally from the Normandy invasion until the Allied victory in Germany. Perhaps that is why Eisenhower wanted to fight a ‘battle’ that he conceived and conducted himself. And so, at the end of the war, he agreed that one million German prisoners would not be treated as prisoners but as ‘unarmed enemies’, a classification invented by him to violate the Geneva and Hague Treaties regarding prisoners.

The one million German prisoners were not interned in concentration camps, nor in the many already empty barracks, but in eighty barbed-wire camps, completely in the open, with no sanitary facilities, no kitchens or canteens.

When it rained, the camps turned into quagmires. Scarce food was thrown at them as if they were dogs. Deaths were increasing due to pneumonia, pleurisy, gangrene, typhus, dysentery, etc. The International Red Cross wanted to bring them 100,000 tons of food, but Eisenhower forbade it, claiming that the Red Cross had no jurisdiction over ‘unarmed enemies’.

The 80 camps were scattered in Holland, Belgium, France and Germany. Some lacked water and prisoners drank their urine. Some cut branches from trees or dug holes in the ground for shelter, but this too was forbidden, and several bulldozers crushed the caves. Every day, several trucks hauled out scores of corpses. Some prisoners were so weakened that they fell into the improvised latrine pits and drowned.

Doctors James Mason and Charles Beasly of the US Medical Corps visited several of these camps, and in 1950 wrote: ‘Huddled together for warmth, behind barbed wire, was the most dreadful scene. Nearly a hundred thousand men, haggard, indifferent, dirty, haggard, staring into the void, their uniforms caked with mud, ankle-deep in the mud… These men had not eaten for days and the scarcity of water was their greatest problem, although only 180 metres away was the Rhine river running full to the banks.’

The Red Cross at least wanted to re-establish mail service, but Eisenhower refused. The US State Department disavowed Switzerland as a protective power for the POWs, in support of Eisenhower. Canada’s Prime Minister, Mackenzie King, then protested Washington’s agreement and was given no response. Instead, Eisenhower barred neutral observers from his eighty barbed wire camps.

General Montgomery, an Englishman, did not treat his prisoners as ‘unarmed enemy’, but as soon as they came under the jurisdiction of Eisenhower (who was the supreme commander), they were interned in the ‘enemy’ camps. According to partial reports, seventy thousand prisoners had died within two months, and the death toll was rising. Among the victims were even some women and children who did not want to be separated from their husbands or fathers, and they received the same discriminatory treatment.

A group of doctors from the US Medical Corps visited several camps and their report was on file at the National Archives in Washington. In one paragraph they said: ‘The most important killers were diarrhoea, dysentery, heart disease and pneumonia. Also starvation and exhaustion. The death rate was eighty times the normal average. Exposure to the elements, overcrowding in wells, and shortages of food and sanitary facilities all contributed to the excessive death rates.’

In July 1945, the French army took control of the camps in their area. Captain Julién took charge of Camp No. 11 and reported: ‘Muddy camp, populated by living skeletons, some of whom died on sight. Others huddled under pieces of cardboard to which they clung, even though the July days were hot. Women lay in holes in the ground with the oedema of hunger bulging their bellies in a gross parody of pregnancy. Long-haired old men looked on feebly. Children six or seven years old with black circles under their eyes from starvation stared with dull eyes’. Captain Julién immediately released 32,640 captives.

Eisenhower left command after seven months of forming his ‘unarmed enemy’ camps (November 1945). According to statistics, nine hundred thousand captives died. This was the greatest battle won by General Eisenhower, in which he did not need to fire a shot. Hailed by the international press and hailed as a hero in the United States, he was elected President for two terms, from 1953 to 1961.

Alfred M. de Zayas, an American jurist, says: ‘What can never be understood is how a nation like the United States, where not a single bomb fell, where not a single village was damaged, and which had no civilian casualties in the conflict, could instead devise a plan to exterminate the German population, as called for by U.S. Treasury Secretary Henry Morgenthau as early as February 12, 1933, in the Portland Journal, when there was not even talk of war, six years before the war began’.

There was, even before the war, an anti-German atmosphere, formed by international news agencies, books and violent statements from intellectual circles. Morgenthau (US Secretary of the Treasury) went so far as to call for depriving Germany of its industries to turn it into a country of shepherds. One year before the end of the war, a close friend of his, Theodor Kaufman (also a Jew), published the book Germany Must Perish!, in which he advocated the extermination of Germans by mass sterilisation.

Martin Kerr Newspeak Racial studies

‘Aryan’

is the correct and proper name of our race

by Martin Kerr

Before 1940 or so, the term ‘Aryan’ and the name ‘Aryan race’ were part of the ordinary vocabulary of every moderately-educated person in the English-speaking world. Following the Second World War, ‘Aryan’ fell into forced disuse and disrepute because of its association with National Socialist racial ideology. Winners write the history books, and ‘Aryan’ was one word they wanted left out.

An Aryan girl, member of the Nordic sub-race. All Aryans are not
Nordics, but all Nordics (of uncontaminated ancestry) are Aryans.

Instead, it was replaced by ‘White’ in everyday use, and by ‘Indo-European’ for use by historical and linguistic specialists. Most newspapers capitalized the ‘W,’ but at some point in the 1970s, newspapers stopped capitalizing it, and it became just ‘white.’

Now we are told by our would-be masters that the White race itself does not exist—that it is merely a ‘social construct’ designed to keep the colored races of the world suppressed.

Pretty neat trick, eh? First we are exterminated linguistically, then conceptually, and next—well, killing off the Aryan race can hardly be genocide, if it does not really exist in the first place—right?

An essential countermeasure to this genocidal design is for us to reclaim both our racial identity as Aryans—and the word ‘Aryan’ itself.

The following is the truth about the term ‘Aryan,’ which our racial enemies hate so much.

About 4,000 or 5,000 years ago there was a racially homogeneous collection of tribes who called themselves the ‘Aryans’ or something similar. The name means the ‘Noble Ones,’ and is related, for example, to the Greek words aristos (‘the best’) and arete (‘excellence in virtue’). In addition to being of one race or ethnicity, they all spoke the same language, and had common religion, legal system and social structure.

For reason of lamentable Political Correctness, in the post-1945 world scholars have chosen to speak of these people as the Indo-Europeans—but practically speaking, Indo-European and Aryan are interchangeable as racial designations.

There is much controversy about the precise location Indo-European homeland, but the consensus of informed opinion places it somewhere in Southeastern Europe (perhaps in the Danube basin) or Southwestern Asia (perhaps on the western steppes or maybe in Anatolia).

At some point in time there began a great outflowing from the Indo-European homeland. Some Aryan tribes moved east and south. The Indo-Aryans were that tribe or folk which crossed the Hindu Kush mountains and descended into the Indus valley, where they gave birth to the Classical Indian civilization. Others (such as the Mitanni) migrated to the area now known as Iran, where they created the ancient Persian civilization. Still others (such as the Tocharians), journeyed further eastward, towards the rising sun, venturing across the Takla Makan desert and into Western China.

All of these Eastern Aryans, over the course of time, intermarried with the more-numerous non-Aryan peoples whom they conquered. In consequence, they lost their distinctive racial identity, and became extinct.

But the Western Aryans, following the direction of the setting Sun, poured into Europe. The Hellenes conquered Greece; the Italic tribes conquered Italy. The Celts swept across Northwestern Europe, as far as Ireland. In Northern Europe, the Germanic peoples established their distinctive culture.

All of the nations and peoples of Europe, with the exception of the Basques in the west and the Finno-Ugric peoples in the northeast, are descended from the Western Aryans. (And the Basques and Finno-Ugrians are of related racial lineage, in any case.) Because the peoples they conquered were racially similar to them, intermixture between the Indo-European conquerors and the pre-Indo-European ‘Old Europeans’ allowed the Western Aryans to maintain their distinctive racial identity to this day.

The names ‘Ireland,’ ‘Iran,’ and ‘Armenia’ all mean ‘land of the Aryans,’ and testify to the extent of Indo-European or Aryan settlement. Among the ancient Hittites, possibly the oldest Aryan civilization, we find documents using the term nata ara to refer to non-Hittites. It means exactly what you think it means: ‘non-Aryan.’

In The Histories (circa 450 BC), Herodotus actually uses the word ‘Aryan’ to describe the Medes, who were an ancient people related to the Greeks, and who lived directly to the east of them. He writes:

The Medes were called anciently by all peoples ‘Aryans,’ but when Medea, the Colchian, came to them from Athens, they changed their name. Such is the account which they themselves give.

The first opponent that Julius Caesar faced in Gaul was the German king Ariovistus, whose name is a cognate with ‘Aryan,’ as is the Celtic given name Ariomanus.

In India, the Aryan tribes kept the name ‘Aryan’ as their specific ethnonym (also in Afghanistan), where it continues to be used today, long after the last drop of pure Aryan blood has vanished.

I surmise that the Eastern Aryans, being surrounded by multitudes of non-Whites in the lands that they conquered, and with whom the differed greatly, both in appearance and quality, tended to keep their identity as Aryans, whereas the Western Aryans more readily blended in with the racially similar Europeans peoples they conquered, and so lost their identity as ‘Aryans’ more completely.

Some scholars try to pretend that the term ‘Aryan’ only has value when used linguistically or applied to the Aryans in India. But the historic and prehistoric record is clear: ‘Aryan’ was a racial or folk designation long before it was appropriated as a narrow linguistic term.

Today, racially conscious White people throughout the world have proudly reclaimed this ancient racial descriptor as the proper name of their Race—and that is how it should be!

______ 卐 ______

For the endnotes and bibliography, see the original article.

Free speech / Free press Jewish question (JQ) Kevin MacDonald Painting

Blood libel

In his post on Tuesday, Kevin MacDonald said: ‘The “blood libel” is a reasonable belief given Ariel Toaff’s book on medieval Ashkenazi practices.’

His words caught my attention enough to read the afterword Toaff wrote in the second edition of 2008 of his book that caused a stir the previous year: Paque di Sangue (Passovers of Blood).

Yesterday I read the whole afterword and it seemed to me that MacDonald is right to consider Toaff a sound scholar. However, what Toaff says is something much more nuanced than the cartoonish way of looking at the issue, inspired by Christian imagery (see e.g., Hieronymus Bosch’s painting).

But it did Toaff no good to be not only a sound scholar but the son of a highly respected rabbi of Rome. He was cancelled as the vilest Goyim by the same forces that cancel us.

The Toaff scandal reminded me of yesterday’s article by Gregory Hood in American Renaissance, which opens with the words ‘The single most important cultural change of the last 10 years is not transgenderism, Black Lives Matter, or even social media. It’s the end of free speech.’

What Hood omits is that there never was, really, freedom of speech in the West. Alexis de Tocqueville was right from the start: you are allowed to speak only if you refrain from breaking the taboos of the unwritten law, even in the land of the famous First Amendment. So-called freedom of speech has always been a hallucination of those who have been sailing strictly within the waters of accepted discourse.

George Lincoln Rockwell Martin Kerr Matt Koehl New Order

Interview

with NEW ORDER Chief of Staff Martin Kerr

The goal is to apply basic National Socialist principles in an American context, taking into account America’s history, its racial and ethnic demographics, and its geography.

The following is an abbreviated and revised transcript of an interview between New Order Chief of Staff Martin Kerr and Rosmarie Macleod, host of the online broadcast The Voice of National Socialist Reason. This interview took place on November 4, 2018. Posted on Renegade Tribune, it is the first formal interview Mr. Kerr has given since becoming Chief of Staff in 2014.

______ 卐 ______

ROSEMARIE MACLEOD: Tell us a little bit about your background. How did you get involved in the Movement?

MARTIN KERR: I was born in Pennsylvania in 1952. May ancestors were of Scottish, English and German descent, and helped to settle the state. When I was three or four years old, our family moved to New Jersey. I grew up is a small White suburban community about 20 miles outside of New York City. I had a safe and comfortable middleclass existence. I attended public schools and the local Presbyterian church.

I first became interested in National Socialism in 1966, when I was 14 years old. I was aware, through reading the newspapers and watching the news on television, that American society was facing many problems, including racial unrest, the spread of communism and the war in Vietnam. It was also apparent to me that the solutions to these problems did not consist of those offered by democracy, capitalism or the churches—they were the very ones who had allowed the problems to arise in the first place! So I was casting about for solutions.

I read an interview with George Lincoln Rockwell and was very impressed by his honesty. Here was someone who was tackling the problems that we were facing—especially racial problems—in a direct and forthright manner. We didn’t use the term back then, but today we would say that he was “thinking outside the box.” I wrote to Commander Rockwell and asked him if I could join the American Nazi Party. Within a week I had received an answer in the mail, and I promptly signed up in the party’s youth wing, the National Socialist Youth Movement, which was the same as the Hitler Youth.

As you can imagine, my parents were unhappy with this development, and they prevented any further involvement by me in National Socialist politics for the time being. However, I kept my National Socialist faith, and by my junior year in high school I was attending meetings and demonstrations of the National Renaissance Party in New York City.

I was one on the founding associates when party commander Matt Koehl reorganized the NSWPP as the New Order in 1983. In Commander Koehl’s last will, he indicated that he wanted me to follow him as the leader of the New Order. I have been in charge of New Order operations since his death in October 2014. I formally re-affiliated with the NSWPP in 1971. From 1973 through 1977 I served with the Los Angeles Unit of the party. From June 1977 until 1984 I worked at the party’s national headquarters in Arlington, Virginia. My primary responsibility there was public outreach, in particular, editing the party’s written publications.

RM: Different people have different definitions of National Socialism. What does it mean to you?

MK: There are different levels to National Socialism. What most people understand by the term is its superstructure, that is to say its outward policies and form. In that sense, National Socialism is a dynamic racial movement that seeks to safeguard and advance the interests and welfare of White people both here in the US and worldwide.

Using Hitler’s Germany as a model, the New Order seeks to create a National Socialist state for White Americans. Now, it is not the case that we are trying to replicate the Third Reich on American soil, in the sense of copying it identically in every little detail. Rather, our goal is to apply basic National Socialist principles in an American context, taking into account America’s history, its racial and ethnic demographics, and its geography, as well as the unique character of the American personality.

But underneath this political superstructure rests the philosophical basis of National Socialism, which does not change over time, or from one country to the next.

National Socialism is a worldview, or a Weltanschauung, to use the German term. We believe that the Universe is governed by natural laws. For Man to be healthy and prosperous, he must first acknowledge that these laws exist; secondly, he must discern what they are; and finally, he must follow them. This process is true both for individuals and for our race as a whole.

My good friend and comrade Povl Riis-Knudsen, the Danish National Socialist, has devised a one-sentence definition of National Socialism that serves very well: National Socialism is the application of the laws of Nature to human affairs.

RM: What is the New Order? What separates it from other pro-White organizations?

MK: The New Order is a vanguard National Socialist organization. Our doctrine is derived directly from Mein Kampf and other Hitlerian sources.
Here is what we are not:

We are not White Nationalists;
• We are not White separatists;
• We are not Alt-Right;
• We are not Balk Right;
• We are not Christian Identists;
• We are not Satanists;
• We are not Identitarians;
• We are not National Bolsheviks or Strasserites

Our goal is to promote strict, hardline Hitlerian National Socialism, and not something else. We try to stay on good footing with other pro-White groups that are not National Socialist, and we wish them no ill will. Anything that moves White people in the general direction of National Socialism is worthwhile, in our opinion. But ultimately there is only one movement qualified to lead White people into the future, and that movement is National Socialism, embodied in North America as the New Order.

The New Order traces its organizational descent directly to George Lincoln Rockwell and the American Nazi Party, later renamed the National Socialist White People’s Party. When Commander Rockwell was assassinated in 1967, party leadership devolved to Matt Koehl.

As I mentioned earlier, Commander Koehl reorganized the NSWPP as the New Order in 1983. So our organizational history goes back some six decades.

Also, from our earliest days, commanders Rockwell and Koehl had contact with the remnants of the original Hitler movement in Germany, through comrades such as Arthur Axmann, Otto Remer, Gudrun Burwitz-Himmler, Bruno Ludtke, Hans-Ulrich Rudel, Winifred Wagner, Hans Baur, Florentine Rost van Tonnigen, Hanna Reitsch, Hans Severus Ziegler and others.

No other pro-White or National Socialist group has and organizational pedigree that even comes close to ours.

I mentioned earlier that we are a “vanguard organization.” Our predecessor, the National Socialist White People’s Party, was designed as a mass-oriented political formation. The New Order, in contrast, does not seek to recruit the masses of people into its ranks, or much less to solicit their support in elections.

Rather, we are looking for a small number of highly motivated, exceptional people—an elite—who are fully committed to the National Socialist cause.

RM: What is the New Order’s stand on religion?

MK: The New Order is incorporated in Virginia as a non-profit religious organization. Our leadership views National Socialism as our religion. For us, the tenets of the National Socialist worldview fulfill all of the spiritual requirements for a new religious faith. Sometimes people refer to this as the Hitler Faith or Esoteric Hitlerism.

Our critics sometimes claim that we worship Adolf Hitler as a “god,” but this is a misunderstanding or deliberate distortion of our belief. Our founder, Matt Koehl, put our perception of Adolf Hitler as follows:

There is but one Supreme Being, one Ultimate Source of all causation—one great Primal Power, infinite and eternal—which we recognize. We are all creations of this Power. Once in thousands of years, however, a singular and unique figure appears, whose special mission it is to declare anew the Divine Will and to redefine human history. In so doing, he himself becomes a universal symbol. In recent time, this extraordinary, providential figure appeared in the person of—Adolf Hitler. With his miraculous appearance, a new age on Earth has begun. That is why we honor and revere him.

Thus our attitude towards Adolf Hitler is not one of “worship,” as the term is commonly understood, but rather one of veneration.

So, this is our belief. But we do not attempt to force our religious insights on our followers. How somebody views the Divine is up to them, it’s a matter of personal conscience. Everyone has to find their own path to God.

We have as supporters people who are Christians, or Odinists, or atheists. We even have a few Buddhists. Savitri Devi famously embraced Hinduism. As long as someone is an Aryan and they support National Socialism, they are welcome in our ranks, regardless of religious conviction. Religious intolerance and persecution are un-Aryan.

RM: Does the New Order have a plan? What is its strategy?

MK: For obvious reasons, we are not going to reveal our strategy to the public in any detail, but I can speak about it in general terms.

Broadly speaking, there are two different strategic approaches that hardline pro-Whites have utilized over the years: the mass-approach and the vanguard strategy.

The mass-approach consists on enlisting as many people as possible into the movement as quickly as possible. It is characterized by public demonstrations, publicity seeking, a high media profile and public name recognition. Little or no attention is paid to building a solid infrastructure, nor in ideological development, nor in quality control concerning those recruited.

The mass-approach results in a lot of publicity and attention, and in a relatively larger membership. But the organizations that adopt this approach normally do not last long. They are filled with infiltrators and other troublemakers. The publicity that they receive is almost always negative. Their average existence is about two years, after which they disband or fade away, only to be replaced by similar dead-end organizations. This is not the approach that the New Order is taking.

Instead, we are pursuing a vanguard strategy. This is characterized by slow growth and consolidation, by intensive theoretical development, and by careful attention as to whom we recruit. We have small numbers, a low public profile, and little engagement with the media. We spend most of our effort and resources is building a solid infrastructure. Our public activities are limited. Their goal is to spread our message as far and wide as possible among the broad masses of our racial sisters and brothers.

We have encountered groups which claim that they pursue both strategies simultaneously, that is, a mass strategy accompanied by intenstive infrastructutal development. But realistically, given the limited resources that pro-Whites have at their disposal, you cannot do both at once; you have to choose one to focus on.

Our mid-range goal is to create a nationwide network of local National Socialist communities, which we term folk strongholds. We will have more to say about this in the future. However, as I said before, we do not intend to broadcast our plans to the public. We prefer to boast about our accomplishments after they have been made—not beforehand.

RM: How can people help out if they support the New Order and its beliefs? Where can people go if they want more information on the New Order?

MK: The basic level of affiliation to the New Order is that of Registered Supporter. An RS is someone who states that they are in agreements with our beliefs and who agrees to pay a monthly financial pledge to help support our operations. They have to fill out a registration form which includes a postal address. The New Order is an organization that is based in the real world. We have no Registered Supporters who are anonymous, or who are only known to us online.

If someone still wants to support our work, but they do not want to make the formal commitment of becoming a Registered Supporter, one thing that they can do is to subscribe to out print publication, the NS Bulletin. It has been published continuously since 1967.

Martin Kerr at the NSWPP headquarters in Arlington, Virginia, 1981.

‘As for the rest: weak Whites will die. Some will be too puny to withstand the storm which will break. Others will die the “second death” of genetic oblivion by mixing their blood with that of non-Aryans. Either way, both groups will perish. And it will be good.’

—Martin Kerr

Tags National Socialism

Autobiography Racial right

Grandma’s proverb

Post author By C .T.
Post date September 12, 2023

The documents my mother left in her study have been a veritable cornucopia of information for understanding not only her but the family. For example, among them I found a list of sayings that my maternal grandmother, my dear Yoya, used to say. I quote one of them: “Ves la tempestad y no te hincas” (‘You see the storm and you don’t kneel’).

It reminds me that, on both sides of the Atlantic, members of the racial right can see the storm currently ravaging the West. But they never kneel before their true Gods, the Aryan Gods, in repentance and asking mercy and forgiveness. On the contrary: they continue to fellate the god of the Jews, or rather, the Jews who wrote the New Testament insofar they obey its precepts for gentile consumption.

What prevents these so-called defenders of their race from thinking like the lad Magnus?

Tags Christian question (CQ)

George Orwell Racial right

The schizophrenic South

In his relatively recent article ‘The Schizophrenic South’ Jared Taylor said:

Earlier this month the Southern Cultural Center (SCC) invited me to speak at its second annual conference. This is a group of Christian Southerners fighting to preserve the Southern people. It’s motto is “Our Culture, Our Heritage, Our Land, Our People,” and the SCC means it…

I did my best, however, and began with something I have before done never in public: I talked about my mother. She was perhaps the last of an extinct species: a liberal who was a devoted Southerner and Confederate. She was an early feminist, an integrationist, and even a supporter of homosexual rights. None of this stopped her from believing that Robert E. Lee came the closest to divinity of all men who ever lived. She always stood for “Dixie” and looked daggers at anyone who didn’t.

It is very interesting to note that Taylor hadn’t previously spoken about his mother, whose ideology was clearly schizophrenic (to avoid confusion between the popular use of this term and the use given to it by psychiatrists, I prefer the Orwellian term doublethink).

What some Southerners commenting on Taylor’s blog and other racialist forums ignore is that their ideology suffers from doublethink, i.e., being anti-Semitic and at the same time worshipping the god of the Jews. Or advocating the 14 words and not seeing that capitalism is poison to our sacred words in that one cannot serve two masters (Mammon and the Aryan race) because one will end up hating one and loving the other.

But I am repeating myself what I have said a thousand times on this site and I better stop…

Jewish question (JQ) Racial right Videos Vikings

Magnus v. Nosferatu

As I bathed in the morning, Keith Woods’ recent article in The Unz Review on Elon Musk’s reaction to ADL subversion got me thinking (Twitter, now dubbed ‘X’ by Musk, suffers from the ADL-orchestrated advertising takedown).

Nowhere on the racial right have I come across an explanation of why American society obeys the Jewish subversion group ADL. While there are countless articles on the internet exposing the ADL’s subversion of the First Amendment, there is, to my knowledge, no explanation of why American civil society and the American state blindly obey them.

That is typical of the racial right: they are anti-Semitic but not exactly Jew-wise, insofar as that would imply a clear, transparent, distinct and Apollonian explanation of why everyone seems to be obeying the whims of the biblically chosen people.

I’ve already written about Keith Woods on this site, whom I branded as an imbecilic Irish with no conscience whatsoever about the CQ, and I don’t want to link to that brief post I wrote about him years ago. I don’t want to do so because his blindness, presumably based on his Catholicism, is the same blindness that afflicts all other conservatives.

My question should be addressed until grasping the incredible phenomenon of the elites—including the companies that fund Twitter / X—obeying the demands of ‘Nosferatu.’ (Hunter Wallace has called Nosferatu the ADL director, whose face is so repulsive that unlike Wallace and The Unz Review, I dare not even post a picture of him.)

I believe that the blindness of the entire racial right in addressing something so obvious—why the American elites obey Nosferatu—is because they are unable to see themselves in the mirror. It was the historical reality that the US was founded by self-conscious Aryans who had to imagine they were Israelites to build a city upon a hill that is behind all this insane deference to the will of a powerful advocate of Israel.

Even the most famous American neo-Nazi suffered from this blindness. If one pays attention to the quote from George Lincoln Rockwell in the previous post, bearing in mind my footnote on page 90 of Savitri’s memoirs, it will become clear that Rockwell was trying to make a good impression on the Christians who funded his organisation.

But you cannot save the Aryan race and at the same time obey the commands of the god of the Jews to the Gentiles (actually, the commands of the rabbis who wrote the New Testament for Gentile consumption). Think, for example, of the countless times that, when he was on Fox News, Tucker Carlson talked about the equality of men, and that skin colour was absolutely irrelevant. Carlson even invoked the idea of ‘God’—that is: the god of the Jews—in his proclamations, and did so several times in his Fox career while talking about racial equality.

What I’m getting at is that all this discussion about Musk and the ADL misses the elephant in the room: Why do American elites obey Nosferatu? Or put in my language, if the anti-Christian Vikings had conquered the entire American continent—not the idiotic Spanish and Portuguese; not the idiotic English and French—, would they now be obeying Nosferatu?

Magnus: ‘I think our Faith should prevail. No doubt at all. Our Gods will ultimately triumph over the Christian god [contempt in Magnus’s voice] who is a usurper, who has no meaning; is not real. One day not so far away the name Jesus Christ will be utterly forgotten’ (emphasis in Magnus’ voice).

What if the Gods of the Anglo-Germans on the American continent were, every one of them, Aryans like those of the Greco-Roman Mount Olympus or the Germanic Valhalla? What if Vikings like Magnus, not the Judeo-Christian Charlemagne, had been victorious in the medieval wars in which Christianity was forcibly imposed?

So fundamental is what I am saying that what emerges is not only the great limitations of Rockwell—but of Hitler himself!

The subject is deep and complex and would involve reading what I say about Charlemagne in our translation of Deschner’s book. Fortunately, my post ‘Old Town’, which I uploaded the week before my mother’s passing, sums up what I mean.

Tags Christian question (CQ)

Adolf Hitler Friedrich Nietzsche George Lincoln Rockwell Jesus Martin Kerr Savitri Devi

Hitler made us holy again

Address given at the 2016
JdF 127 Hitler Festival
in Detroit, Michigan
by NEW ORDER Chief of Staff
Martin Kerr

In the Table Talk, Adolf Hitler accepts as a matter of course that the figure commonly known as Jesus Christ was an actual historical person. He describes him as the leader of a popular revolt against the Jews of his time. Savitiri Devi, one of the best known and most eloquent of Hitler’s post-war disciples, felt otherwise. In her essay, Saul of Tarsus, she writes that based on her own extensive research, she believed that Jesus (whose name would have been Yeshua bin-Yusef al-Nazarini or something similar in his native Semitic tongue of Aramaic) was merely a fictional character from Christian mythology; that is, he was not an historical person.

It matters little to us today whether or not Yeshua was real, or whether he was as imaginary as Bilbo Baggins and Huckleberry Finn. But, of course, it does matter to the Christians, who have built up an elaborate if perverse theology based on his putative teachings. In fact, so important has he been to the Christian world that all historical dates are routinely calculated from the year that he was supposed to have been born. That practice started around the year 525 by a Christian monk named Dionysis Exiguus. Years after his birth were counted forwards and those before his birth were counted backwards. Traditionally, these designations have been known as AD for Anno Domini (or “Year of our Lord”) and BC or “Before Christ.” For reasons of Political Correctness, these old terms have now been replaced by CE (for “Common Era”) and BCE (“Before Common Era”).

But regardless of what initials are used, the basic method of calculating and enumerating the years of the calendar has remained unchanged, because Jesus—real or not—is held to be someone who “broke history in half.” In the Christian conception of things, there is an absolute rift between what came before him and what came after. In the conventional wisdom, Jesus changed everything.

______ 卐 ______

In the 1880s, a towering intellectual figure arose in Germany to challenge the accepted dispensation: the philosopher Friedrich Nietzsche. In his autobiography, Ecce Homo, Nietzsche suggested that it was he, Nietzsche, who was the one who would break history in half. Through a process which he called the “transvaluation of all values,” Nietzsche sought not just to supersede Christianity, but to reverse it. Thereby he would lay the foundations for a new European super-civilization. I imagine that in Nietzsche’s scheme of things, future historians would date all history from his, Nietzsche’s coming, and not from the advent of the one whom our Norse ancestors called the “Pale Christ.”

Nietzsche, we note, was completely ignored during his lifetime, except for some cursory interest that he aroused in philosophical circles, which had a negative, dismissive view of his work. That he grandiosely described himself as the man who would break history in half is widely viewed either as sarcasm on Nietzsche’s part, or else as a psychological defensive mechanism to protect his ego from the rejection he suffered from his colleagues.

Perhaps there is a modicum of truth to both of these explanations, but I feel at the heart of things, Nietzsche was being fiercely serious. He recognized the full import and significance of his teachings, even if his contemporaries did not. Today, we National Socialists recognize him as one of the earliest “fragments of the future,” someone who was not the “last of yesterday,” but rather was one of the “first of tomorrow.”

______ 卐 ______

As it turned out, neither the Christian savior nor Nietzsche was the one who broke history in half. The theology espoused by Jesus was merely a reshuffling of the older Semitic worldview, a prime feature of which was the belief that there is a dichotomy between spirit and matter. Spirit is pure and good, it tells us, while the flesh is impure and corrupt. Nietzsche, for all his genius, was unable to articulate a realistic, systematic alternative to the Christian worldview.

No, it remained to Adolf Hitler to be the man to shatter the dispensation that had held Aryan man in thrall for 2,000 years or more.

I do not know when the realization first entered the Führer’s mind that there is no division between soul and matter, but rather that our flesh is infused with and animated by our spirit, while spirit is given form by our bodies. It must have been at a very young age. Probably, it did not dawn on him all at once, but instead only emerged gradually as he matured intellectually. In any event, by the time that he sat down to write Mein Kampf, his basic worldview was already well-formed and complete.

Adolf Hitler believed that the universe was governed by natural laws, and that for man to be happy and successful, he must first acknowledge that these laws exist; secondly, he must discover what they are; and thirdly, he must live in accordance with them.

This is another way of saying that the universe runs according to the principles of Causality—that is, of cause-and-effect relationships—and that it does not operate on the basis of supernatural forces, or on the mental constructions and wishful thinking of intellectuals and ideologues, or on the religious fantasies of theologians.

But at the same time, he knew that the human soul or spirit was a reality. His consistent use of religious language and imagery, plus specific comments recorded in Table Talk, reveal the Führer to be a deeply religious man, even if his spiritual outlook was diametrically opposed to that of Christianity.

Rather than believing that Man is born as a sinful being who can only be rescued from eternal hellfire and damnation by accepting the good lord Jesus as his personal savior, Adolf Hitler believed that Man was born into a state of grace with the Natural Order. In the Hitlerian worldview, we are all holy beings at birth. It is through being raised with false beliefs, and thrown into a society out of synch with the Natural Order, that we lose our state of natural grace and holiness.

Matt Koehl once discussed the Christian conception of original sin with me, contrasting it to the Hitlerian outlook. “If you look at a newborn baby in its cradle, what do you see?” he asked. “The Christians see an evil being born in sin, and doomed to Hell and torment without the intervention of their savior. But as a National Socialist, I see an innocent and holy being, born into a state of harmony and grace with the Natural world.”

This is the Führer’s great gift to Aryan man—and, indeed, to the whole world: he has restored us to a state of grace with the Natural Order. Hitler made us holy again, and only the Gods have the power to sanctify.

______ 卐 ______

As Aryans, we may be endlessly, sincerely, and profoundly thankful on a personal level for such insights. But unlike the Christians, as National Socialists, we are committed not just to our own personal salvation, but to the salvation and resurrection of our Race.

How do we incorporate our fundamentally religious perception of National Socialism into the practical work of building Adolf Hitler’s earthly movement? We struggle with these issues today—but we are not the first to have raised such questions.

Our great forbearer, George Lincoln Rockwell, wrestled with this question as well. During the final year of his life he prepared to transform his tiny, noisy band of political dissidents into a mighty mass movement. In a passage from his book, White Power, he gives us his thoughts on the future religious or spiritual orientation of the movement:

National Socialism, as a PHILOSOPHY, embodies the eternal urge found in all living things—indeed in all creation—toward a higher level of existence—toward perfection—toward God.

This “aristocratic” idea of National Socialism—the idea of a constant striving in all Nature toward a higher and higher, more and more complex, and more and more perfect existence—is the metaphysical, supernatural aspect of our ideal.

In other words, concepts of social justice and natural order are the organs and nerves of National Socialism, but its PERSONALITY, its “religious” aspect—the thing that lifts it above any strictly political philosophy—is its worshipful attitude toward Nature and a religious love of the Great gifs of an Unknown Creator.

Christianity, for instance, is a far higher thing than its rituals, the words of its prayers, or any of its creeds. It is a SPIRITUAL STRIVING toward the believer’s ideals of spiritual perfection.

National Socialism is the same sort of striving toward even higher and higher levels here on this earth, while Christianity is striving toward a future and later life not of this earth.
For the ordinary “soldier” in our “army”, building and fighting for Natural Order—National Socialism—it is sufficient that they respect and obey the laws and doctrines established by the lofty ideals of our philosophy with merely an instinctive love of those ideals, perhaps not with the complete understanding of the highest forms of our philosophy.

But just as the greatest Christian leaders have been those not preoccupied with details and rules but rather those who were “God intoxicated” with the highest ideals of the religion, the leaders among our National Socialist elite must share this fundamentally religious approach. For them the true meaning of our racial doctrine must be part of their idealistic “striving toward God.” [1]

Through total identification of ourselves with our great race, we partake of its past and future glories. When we contribute in any way, especially by self-sacrifice, toward helping our race along the path toward higher existence, we reach toward God—the Creator of the Master Race.

In short, while the mechanics and rules of National Socialism, as codified and set forth here, are sufficient for most of us, for the few idealists ready and willing to sacrifice their very lives in the cause of their people, National Socialism must be a very real religious ideal—a striving toward God.

We should all keep Commander Rockwell’s words in mind as we go forth into the world in the coming Jahre des Führers 127. We should endeavor to bring every single racially conscious White person into our Movement. But at the same time, we must maintain the ideological purity of our Cause by seeing to it that only those with a clear understanding of the spiritual, religious character of our worldview become Movement officers. And this is especially true with members of the senior leadership corps.

In this way, we will guarantee that we, too, are “breaking history in half,” in keeping with the Führer’s mission.

HEIL HITLER!

_____________

[1] From White Power, chapter XV, pp. 455-457.

Tags Christian question (CQ), Genuine spirituality, National Socialism, Nature

Adolf Hitler Autobiography Degenerate art

Degenerate Xtian art

Now that I have been tidying up the study left by my late mother, I have found a wealth of documents of great interest to the autobiographer. She used to collect postcards and photographs of the countries she had visited and had some splendid postcards of Florentine art, including the famous sculpture sculpted by Michelangelo (which I also saw in Florence, though when I was travelling alone). You can’t contrast that Aryan art more with the degenerate Christian art that we also see in the photographs that my mother collected in other of her travels, in Spanish-speaking countries. For example, compare the grotesquely dressed ‘virgins’ with the nudist statuary of the Greco-Roman world!

There are things I have already said but they are so important that I never tire of repeating them. In his famous Civilisation series of 1969, Lord Clark put the image of the Greek Apollo and then contrasted it with an African mask and another image from an early medieval Irish religious book, and said that the most conspicuous thing was that, in the latter, the classical glory of the human figure disappeared. What we are left with, I would add, is an irrelevant little man full of self-destructive guilt because white people abandoned their beautiful Aryan Gods to worship a god that hated them: the god of the Jews.

I was about to throw away the photographs of this entry—degenerate art—when it occurred to me that I’d better upload them to a new blog post, and explain why I wanted to throw them away.

Since Julian the Apostate in the 4th century c.e., among European rulers only Adolf Hitler tried to transvalue Judeo-Christian values to our true values, already intuited by Renaissance artists. It is known that the Hitler of his famous speeches couldn’t speak so openly about these issues, but with his close friends he opened his heart. What I would give to listen to his after-dinner talks!

At least in this recording we can hear Uncle Adolf when he spoke in his normal voice instead of the pompous videotaped declamations that made him famous, when he couldn’t criticise Judeo-Christianity as fiercely as he did in private.

Tags Christian question (CQ)