Before the ten links below this #0, and regardless of anti-Nazi propaganda—the Western religion of our times—, we must ask ourselves: What really is National Socialism? An article by Martin Kerr explains it admirably well:
(This last article mentions a series of real dreams. An American repeatedly dreamed that Hitler appeared to him. That series of recurring dreams shows, in my opinion, that Rockwell has been one of the noblest Americans that that distant land has produced.)
Editor’s note: The following words from Nietzsche’s Zarathustra epitomise what I meant the day before yesterday when I mentioned that Hitler believed that overmanhood could only arise on Earth, and that his love for painting was much deeper than the average racialist can imagine (e.g., ancient painters like Claude Lorrain or modern ones like Parrish motivated me to take my vows in the priesthood of the sacred words).
______ 卐 ______
Behold, I teach you the overman!
The overman is the meaning of the earth. Let your will say: the overman shall be the meaning of the earth!
I beseech you, my brothers, remain faithful to the earth and do not believe those who speak to you of extraterrestrial hopes! They are mixers of poisons whether they know it or not.
They are despisers of life, dying off and self-poisoned, of whom the earth is weary: so let them fade away!
Once the sacrilege against God was the greatest sacrilege, but God died, and then all these desecrators died. Now to desecrate the earth is the most terrible thing, and to esteem the bowels of the unfathomable higher than the meaning of the earth!
Once the soul gazed contemptuously at the body, and then such contempt was the highest thing: it wanted the body gaunt, ghastly, starved. Thus it intended to escape the body and the earth.
Oh this soul was gaunt, ghastly and starved, and cruelty was the lust of this soul!
But you, too, my brothers, tell me: what does your body proclaim about your soul? Is your soul not poverty and filth and a pitiful contentment?
Truly, mankind is a polluted stream. One has to be a sea to take in a polluted stream without becoming unclean.
Behold, I teach you the overman: he is this sea, in him your great contempt can go under.
I’m in full agreement with Mauricio. Even if the Führer were a black-haired “Mediterranean” I would still venerate him as the Greatest Man. His courage, gravitas, persistence, eloquence, wisdom, nobility and kindness were exemplary of a specimen of the highest calibre, and once you get to grips with racial psychology you realize that all those virtuous traits could only materialize in a man of pure Nordic blood.
Every time when someone implied that there is a self-contradiction in Hitler being a Nordicist with brunet hair I always responded that hair colour is just one of many racial characteristics of an individual, so he would still be mainly Nordic even if he had dark hair, and that this would only show that you can support the cause of perfection selflessly despite yourself not being as perfect.
As most people I too found that his personality and Weltanschauung are far more important than his physical features, but after accidentally finding out the truth I cannot sit anymore and watch baseless lies being spread about him often driven by malicious mockery.
So let’s look at the actual evidence.
Black-white photos aren’t of any use in determining the colour of his hair, because everything except for the fairest hair appears dark on them. But in determining forms and shapes they are helpful, and they tell us something really important.
If we look closely we can observe he used some kind of hair-dressing product to shape his hairstyle. You cannot see the look he had naturally. These products were at the time oil based with wax, and were known to darken blond hair with several shades.
When reading Hans F. K. Gunther’s Rassenkunde des deutschen Volkes I was pleased to see that he makes very similar observations when discussing Nordic hair, namely that 1) Any other shade of blond that isn’t the lightest will appear dark on the photos of that time, and 2) Oily or wet blond hair will appear dark.
This also explains why we don’t have many more testimonials describing him as blond: it didn’t appear as striking due to the side effects of the hair-dressing product. The only person we know of describing him as blond is Lothrop Stoddard, a eugenicist who probably had been used to paying special attention to details and precision:
There are certain details of Hitler’s appearance which one cannot surmise from photographs. His complexion is medium, with blond-brown hair of neutral shade which shows no signs of grey.
Another piece of real, and undisputable evidence is a painting by Heinrich Knirr who is the only artist ever to paint Hitler from life. He also painted photocopies of course, but one painting we know with 100 per cent accuracy not being a photocopy and made in excellent light conditions is Der Führer (1937). He painted two examples of this. One was brought to London by J. von Ribbentrop and is now at the British imperial war museum. It shows him with light to medium blond hair, with the hair dressing product on!
The other version of the painting was exhibited at the Grosse Deutsche Kunstausstellung that year, and had been kept in Germany, so it ended up destroyed in the war and there is only later colourizations of it circulating on the internet:
There is no trace [!] of the other version that had been displayed at the 1937 great German art exhibition. It was presumably wrecked by bombs, looted or destroyed by victorious allied troops. —The Art Newspaper
The version kept in Germany had been black-and-white photographed before it got destroyed and there is a colourized version circulating of it on the internet, his hair being colourized brown of course. I have seen it being often used as a counterargument so many times. So it is very important to emphasize: it’s a colourized version of a black-and-white photo. This version of the portrait was never even captured in colour, so it cannot be used as evidence for his actual colouring.
Somebody also showed me a few strands of hair from his hairbrush, sold at an auction. Curiously, the hairs were also blond. We should in general be cautious with items from auctions, but because they corroborate the other two pieces of evidence we have, I think it’s highly probable that they are real. And if we also consider that his actual hair colour is always overlooked by literally all historians, I highly doubt forgers would know about him actually being blond and use blond hair strands in a world where everyone “knows” he had dark hair. If we look really closely these hair strands also look like they have some residual hair-dressing product left on them at certain parts, where they appear thicker, which is consistent with his daily habits.
What about colour photographs?
Colour photography back then was still in an early stage of development which makes it an unreliable tool for determining colour.
Blond hair consists of mainly yellow with some red/orange undertones. In the context of photography, Yellow light = Red light + Green light. We can see the problems Agfacolor had with its sensitivity to green and red light. But now that we understand what’s missing from the old Agfacolor photos, it is not difficult to imagine how they would look if captured with a modern camera.
Hammering this supposed self-contradiction in Hitler’s worldview was started as early as the Second World War (see, e.g., Soviet propaganda poster below). Most historians who are of course by default anti-Nazi either don’t care or actively participate in keeping alive these lies. None ever dare even mention the evidence that contradicts the mainstream convictions which are built on zero evidence. So it is our job to show the real evidence.
Propaganda poster ridiculing Hitler for his alleged dark hair being in contradiction with the Aryan ideal.
However we’re not trying to argue that he did all of what he did out of selfishness or self-worship, or that his Nordicism was only motivated by his own self-image. We are only striving for historical accuracy as we regularly do so regarding important historical figures. Like the Heroes of Homer, Alexander or the Roman patricians, there is no reason to soften this case when the Führer is more significant than all of the aforementioned combined.
Everyone ought to know the truth because the lies have been repeated many times. Adolf Hitler deserves not only to be remembered, but to be remembered accurately, without falsification.
Let us take the problem of pornography. Pornography cannot be banned anywhere unless it is banned everywhere. To ban pornography, anywhere—and thus everywhere—would require global governance.
The beginnings of global systems of governance such as the UN and Interpol allow us to tackle the global problem that is the trafficking in child-abuse imagery on a global scale.
Ultimately, I am not a white nationalist, I am a white globalist: I want a white globalist imperium. However, that imperium would consist of self-governing vassal states. To the extent that these vassal states or client states do not cause any global problems, the Global Imperium would leave them alone. However, once a vassal state starts causing global problems, then the legions are sent in to subdue them.
______ 卐 ______
Editor’s 2 cents:
This is precisely what Adolf Hitler attempted. For having lost, look at the grotesque state Europe is in now. By the way, I fixed a few typos of my article about my visit to Europe this year, and the revised PDF can be read here (I’ll delete the now-obsolete PDF later today).
Hitler’s real sin, to the Christo-conservative, was he meant it, and he put himself on the line and truly intended to win to the cowards and snobs and money worshippers (the eternal right). These are unforgivable because they show up their fine empty words.
I read a quote from Lothrop Stoddard who had met Hitler, describing his hair as “blond-brown”. I became more convinced that the mainstream narrative is false when I encountered a painting by Heinrich Knirr who is the only artist ever to paint Hitler from life.
One painting in particular which we know with 100% accuracy is not a photo copy and was made in excellent lighting conditions is the Der Führer 1937. He painted two examples of this, one of which was exhibited at the Große Deutsche Kunstausstellung that year, and the other was brought to London by J. von Ribbentrop.
The one kept in Germany was destroyed in the war and there are only later colourisations circulating on the internet available, but the other one at the British Imperial War Museum shows him with light to medium blond hair.
“Blood mixture and the resultant drop in the racial level is the sole cause of the dying out of old cultures; for men do not perish as a result of lost wars, but by the loss of that force of resistance which is contained only in pure blood”.
“The application of force alone, without moral support based on a spiritual concept, can never bring about the destruction of an idea or arrest the propagation of it, unless one is ready and able ruthlessly to exterminate the last upholders of that idea even to a man, and also wipe out any tradition which it may tend to leave behind”.
I gradually became aware that the Social Democratic press was directed predominantly by Jews; yet I did not attribute any special significance to this circumstance, since conditions were exactly the same in the other papers. Yet one fact seemed conspicuous: there was not one paper with Jews working on it which could have been regarded as truly national according to my education and way of thinking […].
In regard to the Jewish problem, do not the two Christian denominations take up a standpoint today which does not respond to the national exigencies or even the interests of religion?
As an holocaust affirmer, I agree with Greg Johnson in his article yesterday about the so-called Holocaust. But I am referring only to historical facts, not to a putative ethical assessment. For example, in the comment thread holocaust denier Scott said that zero Jews had been gassed: something that contradicts what, over time, revisionist Mark Weber acknowledged about Treblinka.
As far as an ethical assessment is concerned, my position is peculiar.
I would disagree with Hitler if the German chancellor’s mindset is accurately portrayed in Johnson’s article, in that I don’t believe that Jews alone caused the fatidic WW2. Now I blame the Anglo-Saxons more, especially the US, after having assimilated not only Brendan Simms’ biography of Hitler (quotes from its first chapters here), but also John Mearsheimer’s realism.
On the other hand, for reasons of transvaluation of values I like Mauricio’s words, “We need more Holocaust Affirmers”: something that is still not noticeable in healthy quantities in discussion threads on racialist forums such as Counter-Currents, or even on the ghost town that my website has become—precisely because I have shifted paradigms! (JQ => CQ).
