web analytics
Categories
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.

Categories
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.

Categories
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.

Categories
2nd World War Hellstorm Holocaust Salvador Borrego

On Allied criminals, 3

by Salvador Borrego

Worse than 5th century Attila
 

When the bombing of German residential areas was at its height, wounding thousands of women and children, Pope Pius XII requested that the Allied powers designate a German city as a ‘hospital city’ where the wounded could be cared for and sheltered from the bombing. Churchill did not deign to reply. By contrast, in 452 the dreaded Attila, king of the Huns, was looming over Rome, and Pope Leo I (called the Great) went out to meet him and said something to him. It is not known what, but Attila retreated unharmed.

Visibly more intractable than Attila, the ‘civilised’ Winston Churchill made decisions without the slightest trace of humanity, one might even say with complacency. For example, on learning that German Red Cross seaplanes were rescuing pilots floating in the waters of the English Channel, he ordered them to be fired upon. The rescue was of German and British pilots, but Churchill felt that the German airmen could return to combat. What about the British? If they were saved, they would be taken prisoner, so that they would be of no further use to Britain. Their lives did not matter.

Savage warfare was also fought at sea. Just one example: the German submarine U-156, commanded by Captain Werner Hartenstein, sank the 20,000-ton British-flagged armed merchant cruiser ‘Laconia’. When Hartenstein realised that there were many shipwrecked survivors, more than 200 Englishmen, including civilians, he began to rescue them and called two more submarines to help him. At the same time, he radioed his position on marine frequencies in English for help from the British Navy. The three submarines would not fire and identified themselves as the Red Cross.

Meanwhile, the castaways continued to swell, crowding the U-boats’ interiors and decks, and the submarines were towing several lifeboats. As the U-boats were struggling to care for the shipwrecked, several American tetra-motors finally appeared, but to their surprise, they were dropping bombs on the three U-boats, which were forced to submerge.

Did London think it was more ‘profitable’ to sink a submarine than to save its shipwrecked sailors? Of the 811 Englishmen on board the Laconia, 800 were saved. And of the 1,800 Italian prisoners on board, only 450 could be saved.
 

Hess’ offering peace—a ‘war crime’

After defeating France and the British expeditionary army, Hitler made two peace offers to Britain, asking for nothing in return. Churchill responded contemptuously. Then Rudolf Hess, head of the National Socialist Party and Hitler’s successor after Goering, made a risky flight to England to give more impetus to a third peace attempt. Churchill would not allow him to speak to the King and imprisoned him as a ‘war criminal’. He was later tried at Nurenberg and sentenced to life imprisonment. At the age of 93, aged and infirm, he was asphyxiated with a wire and it was called ‘suicide’. His remains were buried at an unknown location.

For centuries it had been customary for a white-flagged peace emissary to be listened to and then returned to his home territory, whether anything or nothing was approved. It was more practical for Churchill to declare him a war criminal, even though Hess took no part in the war. His flight took place on the eve of the German attack on the USSR.

Incidentally, Churchill, so ‘gentlemanly’, sympathised with Stalin (whom Roosevelt called ‘Uncle Joseph’), and before the war he watched impassively as the USSR took over fifteen Asian countries, with fifty million inhabitants and five million square kilometres, to subject them to communism. And during Stalin’s mass purges of opponents or mere suspects, Churchill played them down as ‘not entirely unnecessary’. The secret is that in the world there is one entity with two arms: the right one in Wall Street and London, and the left one in Moscow. The two have merged into Liberalism and savage Neoliberalism, heading towards World Government, which in turn is innocently presented as Globalisation.
 

Eleven million inhabitants thrown out of their homes and territory

This happened as a result of German provinces being given to Poland and the USSR, according to Churchill’s decision.

In the Atlantic Charter, signed on 14 August 1941 by Roosevelt, Churchill and Stalin, it was specified that none of the three belligerents would seek territory from the defeated. But at the end of the war, it was stated that this pact did not include Germany. As a result, several provinces in eastern Germany were to be ceded to Poland and the USSR. Their 15 million inhabitants were to be thrown out, with only the clothes on their backs.

Of those 15 million, four million managed to flee months before the end of the war, due to the invasion of Soviet troops, who had been supplied with extra vodka by the Jewish commissar llia Eherenburg and the slogan to ‘humiliate German women’ using mob rapes.

It remained, then, to displace eleven million inhabitants. The Russian writer Solyenitsin writes that ‘the savagery committed by the Soviet troops seemed to be a decoration won in combat’. Some towns occupied by the Red Army were temporarily retaken by German troops, and they witnessed so many crimes against the civilian population that press correspondents from neutral countries such as Switzerland, Sweden, Spain and even France were called in as witnesses. Geneva’s Le Curier reported on 7 November 1944 that there were scenes that were hard to believe if you did not see them. A caravan of women and children trying to escape had been crushed by the tracks of Soviet tanks. The enemy raped girls as young as seven and women as old as 80, and those who put up desperate resistance were hanged and still raped. In small villages, not a woman or girl or old man was left alive. There had been numerous suicides. An estimated 1.5 million girls and adult women were raped.

On 28 December 1944, when the savagery of the Soviets had been fully established, Pope Pius XII publicly condemned it, but no one seconded him. The mainstream press hushed up the whole thing or alluded to it only tangentially in brief notes.
 

Churchill authorised the ‘transfers’

On 15 December 1945, Churchill reiterated in the House of Commons: ‘Expulsion is the method which, so far as we can foresee, will prove most satisfactory and lasting. And I am not concerned with these mass deportations which, under modern conditions, are now more practicable than ever.

Already the Earl of Mansfield had prepared the ground for Churchill in the House of Commons with the following ‘reasoning’: ‘There is no reason why we should look with undue consternation on the inevitable sufferings which may be inflicted on the Germans in the course of these transfers’.

Since such transfers were more difficult in the middle of winter, as there were no vehicles on land and the displaced persons were forced to walk long distances on foot, the German navy wanted to help. On the liner Wilhelm Gustloff, 10,500 people were crammed onto the ship on 30 January 1945. It was a ship identified as a Red Cross ship, as it was carrying women, children and wounded. Yet it was torpedoed and sunk by a Soviet submarine. Almost all died in the icy waters.

Twelve days later the hospital ship Steuben, with 3,608 civilians on board from East Prussia, which the Allies were cutting off from Germany to give to the USSR, met the same fate. Days later, a third hospital ship, the Goya, was also sunk with 6,667 civilians on board. Together, the three sinkings killed 20,000 adults and children, thirteen times more than those who died in the Titanic tragedy of 1912. Captain Marinesko, commander of the submarine that carried out two of the three sinkings, was declared a hero of the Soviet Union.

But, of course, as the English Earl Mansfield had said, ‘There is no reason why we should look with undue consternation on the inevitable sufferings which may be inflicted on the Germans in the course of the transfers’.
 

A dismayed US senator

When the mass expulsion was already in full swing, a group of US senators went to observe what was happening. They saw how people were forced to leave their homes, their furniture and their land. They could only take what they were wearing. Mr Eastland then reported to the US Senate: ‘It is one of the most horrible chapters in human history. Words are incapable of adequately describing what is going on there. The virtue of humanity and the value of human life are the most sacred possessions of civilised man. Yet they are today the most trivial thing in East Germany. Conditions prevail there which defy human comprehension’ (4 Dec. 1945).

Another who was also dismayed was the British MP Evans, who denounced in the House of Commons that the expulsions ‘are a great tragedy, indescribable and revolting. Is it for this that the souls of the brave, of those who did not return, of those who could not grow old, have died in this war?’

Moreover, a British officer, a witness to the expulsion, said: ‘The greatest horror in contemporary history is taking place in East Germany. Many millions of Germans—mostly women and children—have been thrown on the roads and are dying by the thousands on those roads from starvation, dysentery and exhaustion’ (14 Nov. 1946). Summing up what he had seen in turn, US Congressman Mr Eastlan declared: ‘It is a crime of genocide’.

It was remarkable, at the time, how unanimous the international news agencies were in silencing or ignoring the protests in Britain and the United States about the cruelty of the expulsions.

From his point of view as a geographer, the American Isaiah Bowman—who participated in the San Francisco Peace Conference when the transfers were taking place—said: ‘One’s territory evokes personal and group feelings. For a people, it is in its soil that the traces of its past reside. A people endows their territory with a mystical nature where the echo of its ancestors resounds. The authors of old deeds speak to their people from their graves dug in their soil. The landscape is essential to the concept of home’. This is how this scientist saw the tragedy of the millions of Germans forced to lose the soil of their ancestors, and that nine million adults and children could hardly be accommodated in West Germany.

Even in the House of Commons in London there was criticism of such expulsions as inhumane, to which Churchill responded as follows: ‘Since seven million Germans died in the war, there is now sufficient space to receive at least as many displaced people from the eastern territories, thus restoring everything to its former equilibrium’. Not even Attila used to make such ‘transfers’!

Categories
Bible

The enemy

Categories
Judeo-reductionism Martin Kerr

2021 thread

Harold A. Covington

Noting that the longest article in the PDF American Racialism we recently published is by Martin Kerr, yesterday I discovered some words by Kerr about Harold Covington, published in the comments section of The Occidental Observer, which are worth quoting:

It is disturbing to see that an attempt is being made to rehabilitate the deservedly poor reputation of Harold Covington. I had hoped that after his long-awaited death in 2018, the memory of him would quickly and mercifully fade away. Sadly, I can see that my hopes were in vain.

No one did more to harm the cause of pro-White advocacy than Covington. From the mid-1970s until his death, he did everything he could to weaken, harm and destroy that cause. Earlier on in his benighted career he devised a two-part modus operandi.

He attacked whatever pro-White leader who was receiving the most public recognition at any given time. He only attacked those who were trying to do something. Those who limited themselves to writing books or articles he left alone. But those who were in the public arena, actively trying to build a pro-White movement, he attacked relentlessly and ferociously. Among those he sought to undermine and destroy were Dr. William Pierce, David Duke, Matt Koehl, Ben Klassen, Kevin Alfred Strom, Dr. Edward Fields, Will Williams and—towards the end of his life—Richard Spencer. I am sure that there are others whom I have forgotten about.

The rustic Covington wanted to become the alpha male of the tribe, but instead of earning that position the hard way he resorted to very dirty tactics, inconceivable in a true Aryan.

Covington was a pathological liar, as anyone who knew him personally can attest. He would lie simply for the sake of lying, even when there was no advantage to it. But in his efforts to sabotage White leaders and their organizations, there is no falsehood or calumny, no matter how despicable or outlandish, from which he would shrink. Typically, he would accuse White leaders of murder, homosexuality, alcoholism, race-mixing, theft, corruption, collaboration with the FBI and/or ADL and Jewish or other non-Aryan ancestry. He never provided an iota or proof for any of his accusations: how could he, since they were completely imaginary in the first place? Instead, he would issue new and similar attacks against anyone who sought to challenge his lies.

I am ashamed to say that when I read Covington’s tetralogy and got excited about this revolutionary scenario, I was unaware of the novelist’s terrible flaws. But from that discussion thread I would like to respond to what Edmund Connelly said:

C.T., thank you for taking the time to write a thoughtful reply. I would, however, like to take exception to this claim: “[I]n the West there are more traitorous whites than subversive Jews.”

Numerically, you may well be right, but the equation ends up wrong because you cannot equate one White with one Jew. All the evidence shows that a tiny number of Jews can sway whole gentile societies, so you have to weigh specifically what each subversion Jew (redundant, I know) accomplishes. How many goys would it take, say, to equal one Sigmund Freud? Or a Norman Lear? Jewish gurus wreck havoc among gentile nations in untold millions of lives. That’s what makes them so destructive. While there are far too many White useful idiots, it is, I would maintain, their manipulation by Jews that starts the train wreck in motion.

In 2021 I had already responded to what Connelly said in his article, but now I would like to respond to what he said directly to me, quoted above. First of all, it should be noted that, as a good white nationalist, Connelly lives under the assumption that the Jews are the primary cause of our misfortunes. I believe it is us.

Connelly’s argument would make sense if the Jews were capable of subverting the Islamic world—even though in Israel they are surrounded by them—which they obviously can’t. Nor are they capable of subverting India or China. They weren’t even capable of subverting Whites before the advent of Judeo-Christianity. We can imagine what would have happened if a Jew wanted to subvert Sparta, Republican Rome before the Punic Wars or the Viking peoples! They only managed to get their Trojan horse in when Constantine handed over the Empire to his bishops, many of Semitic origin. All this I have said many times before, but it bears repeating because here lies the huge difference between the POV of this site and the Judeo-reductionism of white nationalism.

Connelly assigns, in the quote above, superhuman powers to the Jews, but what happens to the Aryan could be analogised to a physical accident.

Let’s imagine we fall off a motorbike and terribly scrape our arm. Without proper care, the arm becomes infected with microbes. Judeo-reductionism would be analogous to saying that microbes are the primary aetiology of our infection. I say that the primary aetiology is the accident. Without the accident and poor care of the arm, there would have been no opportunistic infection. The microbes are secondary or even irrelevant.

Likewise, without the treachery of Constantine and other Aryan emperors who followed him (see Deschner’s first volume on the history of Christianity in the featured post), Jewish ideology wouldn’t have infected the West for 1,700 years. The West would be as immune to subversive Jewish ideas as China, India or the Islamic world. But the worst thing is that through Christianity and ‘neo-Christianity’ (see again the featured post), each generation of whites recreates the biker crash, so to speak. They aren’t allowing the body to heal!

Worse still is that white nationalists themselves are party to this ill-treatment of the infected body as they are incapable of repudiating Judeo-Christian morality. This too, I have spoken at length on this site and it isn’t worth repeating except to invite new visitors to read the books and/or PDFs in the featured post.

Categories
2nd World War Hellstorm Holocaust Salvador Borrego

On Allied criminals, 2

by Salvador Borrego

STRANGE RITUAL IN DRESDEN

 
The bombing of Dresden is a strange case, with no military explanation. It occurred when the Allies had already won the war, two and a half months before the unconditional surrender was signed. All the more so because Dresden had no military objectives at all. The case is all the more inexplicable because Dresden had a population of 600,000 and then became congested with thousands of women and children fleeing the savagery of the Soviet army invading eastern Germany.

It was in these circumstances that it was bombed on 13 February 1945. There were 3,250 Allied tetra-motor flights, involving 33,000 aircrew and mechanics. Squadrons flew 5,500 kilometres and tens of millions of dollars were spent to drop 5,000 explosive and 400,000 incendiary bombs.

Women, with their children, were turned into human flares; some were thrown into the Elbe River, but they still burned because water does not extinguish the fire of liquid phosphorus. According to low estimates, a quarter of a million women and children perished. According to high estimates, such as David Irving’s, it was half a million, far more than the two atomic bombs that killed 155,000 Japanese. Was it a ritual bombing, straight out of the Old Testament? According to Exodus chapter 29, the Jews say that Yahweh asked them to burn animal flesh because the smell of burning flesh was very pleasing to him. In Dresden, the smell of burning meat rose thousands of metres high.

One of the phases of Winston Churchill’s personality was that in the conduct of the war on land, he left Marshals Auchinleck and Montgomery, and General Desmond Young, completely independent. The fighting in the air, on the other hand, was a war of his own, conducted with special care to cause as many casualties as possible among the German civilian population. As soon as the residential area of one German city was devastated, he had already set his sights on achieving ‘victory’ in another city, large, medium or small. Sir Arthur Harris, the bomber commander, was similarly determined.

The English historian Veale considers that Churchill and Harris went from civilised warfare to barbarism. In the House of Commons, Churchill announced on 21 September 1943 that ‘to put an end to Nazism there will be no extremes of violence to which we will not resort’ (F. J. P. Veale, The Crime of Nuremberg, 1954).

Categories
Homer Literature New Testament

Resistance to NT criticism

See the video uploaded today interviewing Richard C. Miller here.

Mimesis criticism is a method of interpreting texts in relation to their literary or cultural models. Mimesis, or imitation (imitatio), was a widely used rhetorical tool in antiquity. Mimesis criticism looks to identify intertextual relationships between two texts that go beyond simple echoes, allusions, citations or redactions. The effects of imitation are usually manifested in the later text by means of distinct characterisation, motifs, and/or plot structure.

As a critical method, mimesis criticism has been pioneered by Dennis MacDonald, especially in relation to the New Testament and other early Christian narratives imitating the ‘canonical’ works of Classical Greek literature.

Categories
Autobiography Child abuse New Testament Summer, 1945 (book)

The will not to know


Mexican José Barba Martín, born in 1937, spent two decades studying philology in the United States. He earned a master’s degree in Romance languages at Tufts University, a doctorate in Romance languages at Boston College and, finally, a doctorate at Harvard University in Hispanic literature. Barba was one of the victims of the powerful Catholic paedophile Marcial Maciel. Decades after Maciel abused him, Barba, along with other victims, began a campaign to expose the abuses. Because of his persistent activism, he has been called ‘José Barba: the man who defied two popes’.

Yesterday I saw a video interviewing Barba where he said, at this point in the interview (my translation), that the abuses committed by Maciel were not only sexual, ‘that he did not abuse only through the body, but through the soul: through a system that will take over the psyche; from children, adolescents, young people until the moment when one is no longer master of one’s own words, and then not even of one’s thoughts’.

Barba is not an apostate from Christianity; just a critic of the Catholic Church, even critical of two popes—John Paul II and Benedict XVI—who protected paedophiles in the Church. But what strikes me about Barba is his almost complete lack of insight into his words I have just translated. Barba has failed to realise that the very teaching of the doctrine of eternal damnation, which comes right from the Gospels, is abusive to the souls of children. (Those who have seen the film Angela’s Ashes, or read the autobiographical memoir of the same title, remember that class in which a priest terrorises Irish children with horrific hellish imagery.)

Since I have spoken to Barba several times in Mexico City, I would like to add something to what I wrote about him in my January 2022 article, ‘On Alberto Athié’. As an autobiographer, I keep records of a few encounters with acquaintances. Little of my many diaries appear in my eleven autobiographical books. But from time to time I can exhume, from those diaries, some anecdotes for publication on this site.

On 30 March 2018 Barba came to my house and what I told about him in the article ‘About Alberto Athié’ happened. The following year, on 2 November 2019 to be exact, I met Barba in the café of the old Librería Gandhi that the intellectuals of the Mexican capital used to frequent (now the old bookstore is closed). Barba was talking, in Latin, to one of my chess-playing friends but when I sat down at their table they switched languages and spoke to me in Spanish. As the Gandhi Café closed relatively early, we then moved on to a restaurant.

Barba mentioned the book I had lent him the previous year when he visited my house, Summer 1945 by Tom Goodrich, but didn’t say a peep about its contents. Apparently, the erudite man didn’t experience the slightest cognitive dissonance with the holocaust perpetrated by the Allies, as narrated by Goodrich. Although he mentioned nothing of the book’s content, he commented, as a good thing, the impeachment of Donald Trump planned by the Democrats.

The Catholic Barba is a liberal philo-Semite even though he has no Jewish background, and that night he called Dutch politician Geert Wilders an ‘extremist’. When I pointed out that, according to the Jew Ron Unz, a whole constellation of conservative authors on the Second World War had been cancelled, Barba said that perhaps these authors had been victims of McCarthyism! (and recommended me a book on McCarthyism). I was flabbergasted. Unlike the chess-playing friend who accompanied us, Barba couldn’t even conceive that he had in front of him an Other ideologically speaking: someone who was reasoning from a completely different POV.

In the Gandhi Café, before going to the restaurant, I told Barba about Solzhenitsyn’s 200 Years Together; then, at the restaurant, I told him about the contents of the book. When I got home, I sent him an email with the link to 200 Years Together, as well as a link to Unz’s article.

On June 4, 2022, I saw my chess friend and Barba again, this time near the park where, as a young man, I used to play chess. I talked to him for a long time but I was shocked that, once again, Barba couldn’t conceive of the existence of a creature ideologically different from him. Barba is one of those old-fashioned men who believe that we younger people see them as repositories of ancestral wisdom. But I don’t see him that way. The religious manner in which he spoke to those present, without first inquiring whether they were atheists or not, could only mean that he was treating us as if we were his pupils. There was a moment when Barba mentioned the alleged deeds of Jesus’ apostles, and I replied that to me that was literary fiction.

Barba reacted by saying that this was extreme scepticism, and I was perplexed because Barba had read Misquoting Jesus: The Story Behind Who Changed the Bible and Why by Bart Ehrman. How could Barba have been unaware that the fundamentalist Christian Ehrman became an atheist after his New Testament research? The fact that Barba gave four copies of Ehrman’s book to his Catholic friends, in another occasion, gave the impression that he wanted to convince them of a more sceptical approach to the historical Jesus. But Barba not only swallowed the aforementioned story from Luke’s book as real history, he did something that puzzled me even more.

When I asked him if he was familiar with the field of critical NT studies that started in the Enlightenment, he said he was (Ehrman himself is part of that field). But Barba didn’t seem to realise that New Testament studies had moved several exegetes to lose faith since the seminal works of Reimarus, who flourished in the 18th century, and David Friedrich Strauss, who flourished in the 19th century. I could not believe that the very learned Barba, who reads the NT in the original Greek, would ignore facts relating to authors whose books he has given as presents!

And it is not a case of senility, for when I last saw him near the park of old chess friends, Barba was perfectly lucid. It is a matter of being locked in a theological bubble to the extent of being unable to hold a friendly discussion with the unbeliever in front of him. In ‘On Alberto Athié’ I omitted that Barba ignored my argument that women have less cranial mass than men—and that’s why, in chess, they compete against each other, parallel to the men’s tournaments so that men don’t massacre them in the science-game. Similarly, Barba ignored or didn’t know, that there are scholars who believe that the Acts of the Apostles is a religious novel rather than real history.

I could write pages and pages about my latest disagreement with Barba. But I don’t think I need to. Perhaps I will do so in the comments section if someone asks me for more detailed information about those disappointing meetings. What I am getting at is that scholarship is not wisdom and that someone can be highly respected in the media—like Barba—and yet be enclosed in such a bubble that he dissociates the existence of the dissenter in front of him. It is not that I want to convince Christians like Barba that the NT is fiction. It is simply the inability to communicate the fact that there are scholars who believe it is fiction that alarms me!

All this sheds light on what I was saying about the holocaust perpetrated by the Allies: something that normies, even when confronted, are unwilling to know as Barba did when I lent him, for a year, Goodrich’s book.

Alberto Athié, Barba and Fernando González wrote the book La voluntad de no saber: Lo que sí se conocía sobre Maciel en los archivos secretos del Vaticano desde 1944 (The Will Not to Know: What was Known about Maciel in the Vatican’s Secret Archives since 1944). Published in the context of Benedict XVI’s visit to Mexico, this book reveals the Vatican’s documents on the Maciel case demonstrating that, for more than sixty years, the highest authorities of the Catholic Church knew about the criminal conduct of the founder of the Legionaries of Christ.

But these guys have another kind of will not to know. They lack the will to know that several New Testament scholars say that the NT accounts are pure fiction, including the Acts of the Apostles, or that what the Establishment would have us believe about WW2 is rubbish. Likewise, millions of Westerners don’t want to know that the fact that we have different brains from women refutes feminism and the dogma of equality.

The way Barba treated me the few times I saw him is the way the normie treats the dissident: simply ignoring everything he says.

Categories
Correspondence

Dear César,

I read your Salvador Borrego excepts shared yesterday on Allied criminality and thought sadly of Hitler’s magnanimous optimism and grace towards his reluctantly engaged enemies, more a beautiful, radiant Sun personality than quite enough of a Lightening one, as Savitri describes it. Certainly there should be no tolerance of historical national pride for modern Anglo European countries. By coincidence this week I had been reading a copy of F.J.P. Veale’s Advance to Barbarism in the background having just finished Ulrich Merten’s The Gulag in East Germany: Soviet Special Camps 1945-1950. I have a copy of Savitri’s Hitler-dedicated devotional poems and laments arriving shortly.

As I am accustomed to a few times a week, I checked in at the Unz Review. I rarely find anything of interest that I want to read there, always put off by the Christianity and the standard conservatism, and with little to no interest in internal American politics and current affairs.

Andrew Anglin’s titles and crass, irreverent writing style jar with me, as does any support of Third Worldism or complimentary affection for non-Aryans. I saw there was a fairly recent article discussing ‘Anglophobia’ with a photo reference to the BLM vandalism and removal of British statues, such as a figure of Winston Churchill, and the American confederacy and founding fathers monuments. I had no interest in reading that as I imagined it would be full of self-pitying excuse-making and a defensiveness regarding neochristian miscegenators and classical liberal friends of Judaism, small-town rural Trump supporters and Bible belt conservatives nostalgic for the 1950s, and all our unpunished war criminals.

I hate their ignorance and their smugness, yet more confident boors convinced that they are good people, acting steadfast as their own defence lawyers, just like all the terrible, cruel, lazy acquaintances and cowardly, dispassionate friends across my own life who have always been convinced instinctively that they are good people, and will not hear otherwise or accept fault for anything.

All these ideologues of the right-wing have beyond anyone else is a superficial awareness of race at all. [Editor’s emphasis] If appalling action can’t be denied altogether then we are told only that it doesn’t matter, and that whites—always in a big equivocated line—have nothing to be ashamed of. So very much of society is lost to me, so dispassionate and feral and moronic; all these proud good people and their pathological face-saving.

It’s the same with Patriotic Alternative, who occasionally send a newsletter to my email box. They have a recent campaign browbeating their audience with moralist propaganda.

Today’s letter informed me that a 98-year-old Second World War veteran has been forced out of his home into a temporary shelter at the same time as the debilitating long-term government immigration policy increases exponentially, all hostile aliens granted preferential accommodation and fast-tracking into the benefits system. Much is made of his war veteran status. I don’t deny that the government’s cruelty towards any very elderly man would be completely unacceptable, just as everything else they do to us is completely unacceptable, but I wish there was no patriotism and respect for these veterans among nationalists, and indeed no support of the modern British Army either, given its sole operation in unnecessary anti-white puppet wars, and its subversive presentation, and the readiness with which it could be turned on the citizens.

I found myself wondering what this old veteran had done in the war, what crimes he may have committed or covered for, and what he may have turned a blind eye to, or just gone along with and never reflected on at all, and been praised for then, and been praised for now, and at all times in between, having served a murderous traitor alliance above the wellbeing of his own European folk, utterly devastating a far superior society with infinite cruelty, and damning the future, razing European hope. What he did do (or didn’t do), for Jews, capitalist Christians and the competitive warmongers of greedy Anglo-Saxon empires.

I don’t see any hope for these people. Their hideous pride cannot be knocked from them. [Editor’s emphasis] When the global economic system does fall apart, in the true onset of an openly collapsing environment, I dread what they will do, as inimical to the health of their own people as any immature leftist movement, or any activism on any matter, another subset of normal people filled with that vast unemotional ignorance and all the brute carelessness of the orthodoxy. I forever hope that they remain disorganised, and most certainly never bring themselves to a position of power. I know they will make it dangerously worse as everything becomes unmanageable.

Having bought some 2×4 gravel-board planks, I’m dedicating the next few days to designing and building a couple of garden chairs from scratch. Something long-lasting as plastic chairs are flimsy and unattractive. I went for a long walk into the Mistley woods today with Abby. A large, beautiful, hilly woodland.

The centuries-old trees were awe-inspiring, stretching numerous and tall into a thick leafy canopy, natural collonades of elms and hazels and ash trees and the giant desiccated trunks of ancient English oaks, and I appreciated that opaque softness to the misty air, and the brilliant white sun in a pale off—white sky falling into the pastel clearings in straw—hued beams, from between dark rainclouds in pleasing chiaroscuro, an abundance of subtle green shades to the deeper foliage and a coldness and freshness to the forest air, up and down hills and beside little freshwater trickles, away from people and everything urban and modern, the only sound being the creaking of branches, the chirps and calls of birds high above, and occasional rustling in the leaves; and that intangible natural sound beyond placement that one only experiences in the very depths of woods when anything of human imposition is no longer present.

Perhaps the private sound of the woods themselves, essentialized. There were black and white cows sheltering in the gloom among the chestnut trees at the edge of the lower meadow. Some young rabbits grazed near the blackberry brambles. A cricket hopped across our path and into the ferns. I relish time in the woods as a somehow sacred feeling. Relaxing as much as the only experience that brings me genuine psychological healing, rarely present in my life…

I’ve gone on for far too long. I’m not sure if you’ll ever have the time to read this. I’m very bad at laconic thought, getting worse the more isolated I feel—and I acknowledge that I am in true physical actuality in total alienated isolation and under thick environmental pressure—knowing that I am always on my own with my thoughts and yearning to get them all out of the way in one go each time. Aside from Abby, who doesn’t really get me, much as she’s also increasingly hostile and frustrated, you’re the only person I’m in conversation with at all, and I’m sure I offload far too much. The silence seems to kill me, and then I just type too much. I’ll leave this here.

I despise the society, and the huge, sprawling mobs of cold, desensitized, destructive people, the multitudinous rabble of subhuman slave beasts with European skins, none of whom give a shit about each other. I wish I was strong enough even to hate them more effectively.

In all my life in this country I have met no more than two single solitary people genuinely worthy of brotherly love, honour, and respect, both unconnected men, both long dead at their own hands, and with long tearing grief on my part, realising over cruel spans of pain that I can no longer find human racial compassion here, in a nation of some money and no love.

I have never met a family in this country worth saving, though so much I had used to wish I could, that wracked hope gone only these last five months. Maybe they still exist. If not by now, it seems I will never get to know if they are there. You are literally the only friend who does not wound me and turn me away. A distant warmth. The only friend at all, and I know no one else but family torturers, and my only circle of unrelated acquaintances a fierce string of condemnatory professional adults, paid well for their work. I am scared to push my luck with you.

Best regards,

Benjamin