This specific chapter of Sparta and its Law has been moved: here.
If you want to read the book Sparta and its Law from the beginning, click: here.
Tag: Adolf Hitler
by Stanton
A casual comment on the Addenda merits reposting here:
As I have written before, the difference between Adolf Hitler and Soviet leaders, and now all white western leaders, is love. Hitler loved his people and wanted a better culture, a better nation to serve his people. Hitler worked tirelessly towards that end. Former Soviet and current white, western, leaders hate their people and work tirelessly to destroy them. That fundamental difference explains the current policies seen in action throughout western civilization versus the lost policies of National Socialism. At their foundation, current policies are constructed by a people of hate. One only needs read their “holy” book to see the virulent hatred they display towards all outsiders.
Until white people and leaders relearn this love, a love of themselves, their race, their people, the destruction of white culture will continue. The white man doesn’t need to fight or revolt, he needs to love. The white man needs to love himself, his race and his culture. Until that happens all other efforts will be for naught. It is such love that will serve to diminish the virulent hatred foisted on them by the people of hate.
If you fear writing sympathetically about Adolf Hitler and of National Socialist Germany then you are committing the sin of allowing Jews and their lickspittles to set the agenda; not only for your writings but for your own private thoughts.
Are you really that timid? Do you wish to be remembered as men who had actually achieved manhood?
There are two alternatives only: National Socialism… or International Socialism. We have all seen the merciless and bloodthirsty destruction the latter has brought to humanity.
Categories
Wuthering Heights
How would we have felt if, as children, our father returned home with a boy of an alien ethnic group and forced it into our bedroom as a new “brother”? How would we have felt if, after resenting this betrayal and picking on the unfortunate intruder—as children usually do—, our father sends us, not the intruder, to a boarding school?
Forget every film you have seen to date: because that’s how the real Wuthering Heights novel began.
In his travels Mr. Earnshaw finds a homeless boy. Once more, forget every Hollywood image because the skin of this boy was similar to that of “a little lascar.” Mr. Earnshaw decides to adopt him and name him “Heathcliff.” Brontë describes Heathcliff as “dark-skinned gypsy in aspect.” Naturally, Mr. Earnshaw’s legitimate son, Hindley, finds himself robbed of his father’s affections and becomes bitterly jealous of the little lascar. (The poor intruder was not even a half-bro or an illegitimate child of Mr. Earnshaw with a gypsy woman.)
Every single critic of the novel, even the most conservative, seems to have missed the racial aspect of this drama.
I would go so far as to suggest that, once the ethno-state is established Wuthering Heights will be picked as one of the classics to symbolically convey the tragedy of pushing, against the legitimate heir’s will, an illegal alien that after some time hostilely takes over the entire family estate and starts hunting down key Anglo-Saxon characters in a life dedicated to revenge (such is Wuthering Heights’ plot—gypsies are so good at that…).
Furthermore, the real Wuthering Heights is no love story at all. The 1939 adaptation with Lawrence Oliver is as detached from the original story as, say, Disney’s Pinocchio from the original, and far more sinister, Carlo Collodi tale. Catherine and the gypsy are the polar opposite of heroine and hero. The first Catherine is precisely an early embodiment of the contemporary out-group altruism that has been destroying the West since we committed the blunder of empowering women.
The drama of the novel only ends when—after the deaths of Mr. Earnshaw, Catherine Earnshaw, Isabella Linton, Edgar Linton, Hindley Earnshaw and Linton Heathcliff, the son of the gypsy who dies as a result of the abuse perpetrated by his father—Heathcliff finally dies and the second Catherine can, at last, reclaim a life together with her first cousin: the survivors.
Only pure whites survive at the end of the drama.
And how come no one has done such obvious reading of this classic of English literature, that the tragedy only ends when the gypsy dies?
Wuthering Heights ought to be presented to European-descended peoples as the perfect metaphor of what Europeans have been self-inflicting in the last decades: importing millions of hostile “gypsies” to displace the native “Hindleys.” In fact, in the novel Mr. Earnshaw, whose Christian, altruistic fondness for the gypsy boy would cause havoc, reminds me the proverb “a dog that wags its tail for strangers and barks at its own people.”
Mr. Earnshaw, whose altruistic fondness for the gypsy boy would cause havoc, reminds me what these Swedes are doing not with a single family, but with their entire nation: a deranged Christian sense of compassion à la St Francis transmuted into secular, runaway liberalism.
The drama of Wuthering Heights was located, of course, in the Yorkshire manor. But presently this is happening by means of non-white immigration into every white heartland; Sweden, just one of the most notorious examples.
Reread Brontë’s novel to understand the Swedes!
Categories
Why I hate Christianity
“What a certificate of mental poverty it was for Christianity that it destroyed the libraries of the ancient world!”
Categories
Hugs in white nationalism?
by Benjamin Noyles
Starting with what to my understanding is the origin of a recent dispute, the appearance of RPN (Canada) President, Sebastian Ernst Ronin, on The White Voice (79:00). Sebastian: “Matt Heimbach is within the White Nationalist community, or Ethno Nationalist community, is a staunch Christian… He will always frame his perception of the world as a Christian”—this forming part of his wider argument that there needs to be an intellectual street fight where differences of opinion are hashed out in blunt terms. In a follow up Traditionalist Youth Hour – 2013-06-24 hosted by Matt Parrot and Matt Heimbach, this was also identified as the source of contention, and so will begin with that.
Both parties have completed a consensus on the “debate”—I don’t think Heimbach would actually disagree with Seb’s point that he is a Christian first, and that it is ideological.
I believe these are some examples that go some way to proving this with previous statements such as “I hate Hitler”; “if a Jew converted to Christianity, I would accept him as a brother in Christ”; (29:00) “I have more against a White Pagan than I would a Black Christian” (32:00). Rather than these being just differences of opinion, I will give Matt the benefit of the doubt that this is part of a thought out and consistent belief—it is polite society to go on that assumption, otherwise how would anybody expect to be treated seriously?
If these comments have been repudiated by supporters as naive folly, then for exactly that reason we should not be carving words of what are called “leaders of the New Right” in gold. I think this is where some people don’t seem to understand the discussion, which hinges on the supposed infallibility of the Hug Box. In my opinion, any change in opinion by such persons is incremental and should they stumble on truth it will be used in such a way as to not be correctly seized upon. It is just wood, hay, and stubble.
Matt Heimbach is a nice Christian kid, and I mean that obviously. I don’t think he drinks, but I would take him to Burger King (and it would be on me). He also has balls, he is trying to make a point, and he looks like an intelligent man—however, those things acknowledged, it still doesn’t help in the slightest. I have a legitimate concern that this thinking is deeply, deeply flawed. It is 100%, subverted race treason, and it is the sort of thing that some point down the line will blow up in everyone’s faces. At that juncture there is nothing personal about that, but it is a fundamental concern.
This is where all the white knights come in. Even though on the face of it this should be an honest and frank exchange, the following is the “unwritten rule” of the “new” White Nationalist movement: Any criticism of a “figure” who identifies as a white racialist in such a time as this where “we” are in numerical weakness—is in itself divisive and counterproductive.
The basis of this position is the argument that we must preserve harmony at any cost, so they do everything possible to reduce friction, despite friction being the concomitant of motion. You would think that a living and expanding movement has a certain quota of difficulties as the result of its life and activity. There is only one human society that has no disagreements; it is called a graveyard. Under this system, inside the “Hug Box”, everybody is a winner, but the penalty is sterility and lack of achievement. The question is who really benefits from this? When you have a situation where instead of embracing criticism you have people reacting emotionally, what is it exactly that they have to hide?
Calling somebody out is not a curse—if it is false the individual only has to dispel that claim. If this criticism cannot be dispelled, then it was justified in the first place. Defection of the kind we have seen is clearly done with the deliberate intention of drawing “personal attacks” —because it has to be asked, “Why are you beyond criticism?” This can produce unkind assertions to the contrary.
I believe that [Matt] Parrott correctly summarised Ronin’s position as follows: “He doesn’t want a group hug, he wants to defeat the various factions of the Ethnic (sic) Nationalist community, and come out victorious.” Knowing Seb, this may very likely be his exact intent and strategy. If this is so, it would seem to be a reasonable tactical progression towards the very objective that Parrott himself identifies.
The truth of the Hug Box is that it is an ugly, poisonous, rubber spiked commode. Why did an “attack” on the views of an individual incite a community response? On the face of it this is strange as the only thing the New Right culture does is debase and criticise—it is in its stated mission. I remember Jonathan Bowden defined as the “critical analysis to revive inegalitarian cultural forms that have been dispriveledged” for what purpose?
“First the fight – then pacifism.” – AH
(Read it all, here.)
Or:
On the Supreme Court & homo marriage
This is my response to Mr. Deutsch’s comment in the previous post:
Yes: at midnight I glanced thru it and the one that Matt Parrott wrote on Sebastian Ronin, and also Andrew Hamilton’s take on the Nazi film “Victory of Faith,” so I didn’t pay special attention to Greg Johnson’s article on homo marriage. He doesn’t want to say that the Supreme Court decision is a marker of how corrupt, evil and degenerate Western culture has become. He even uses Newspeak words like “gay” that I would never dare to use.
Let me put it this way:
Since the 1960s the whole Western culture, and I mean the whole Western culture including so-called conservatives, started to shift to the Left.
Imagine a river that took a very wrong turn to the Left. Those who fancy themselves “white nationalists” are deceiving themselves, for in some way or other they are navigating that river too.
In the previous entry that features the painting about the Horatii family I stated that I would like to be a revolutionary, and that most “white nationalists” are mere reactionaries. But sometimes they’re not even genuine reactionaries who want to change the course of the river toward the Right: they simply navigate the Lefty River as many other liberals and conservatives do.
I even stopped listening to Harold Covington’s revolutionary radio shows when he introduced two women as co-speakers. You can imagine how diluted Hitler’s voice would have appeared in the 1930s had he added the voices of women during his inflammatory speeches… In other words, nowadays even revolutionaries are, in some ways, navigating that Lefty River.
To be perfectly honest, I feel uncomfortable with the female voices in the “white nationalist” blogosphere. There are some subjects (cf. the entry “Lycanthropy” in this blog) about which you cannot speak out with brutal honesty if a cute Little Red Riding Hood, however intelligent or committed to the 14 words, is present. I actually believe that a genuine white or ethno-nationalist movement should be a Boys only Club, with Little Reds in a completely separate location, as in National Socialist Germany.
Going back to Greg Johnson’s article on the recent Supreme Court ruling. I don’t see it as a specific Johnson problem. I see the big picture from above, like a pic on the river taken from the air. What Johnson did is fairly common in the “white nationalist” movement. In this Lefty River that every nationalist navigates in some ways, may I remind you that Robert Stark and Tom Sunic didn’t ask tough questions to James O’Meara during their respective interviews of this homosexualist.
No, you cannot deliver a speech like the one that Himmler delivered about faggotry if Little Reds or non-Lycanthrope males are present. Their Aryan female pity completely overwhelms their sense of morality and not even “nationalists” would tolerate sending the fags to the concentration camps. In our Empire of Yin, as Takuan Seiyo called today’s West, even pro-white activists—think of the site Alternative Right—have become so feminized, that their sense of pity is undistinguishable from that of our Fair Ladies. Compared to Commander Rockwell all of them are, in one way or another, navigating the Lefty River, increasingly distancing themselves from the Yang side of the Aryan psyche.
That’s why, as implied in my previous entries, our only hope is the convergence of currency and energy catastrophes that will wipe out both the current anti-white System and the feminized males in the movement.
My pedagogy is hard. What is weak must be hammered away. In my fortresses of the Teutonic Order a young generation will grow up before which the world will tremble. I want the young to be violent, domineering, undismayed, cruel. The young must be all these things. They must be able to bear pain. There must be nothing weak or gentle about them. The free, splendid beast of prey must once again flash from their eyes. I want my young people strong and beautiful.
That way I can create something new.
—H.V.
Categories
Anglos and Hitler
Brian boru:
The behaviour of the British and Americans in their wars to destroy Germany and all that was best in Europe has put them beyond the pale forever.
The truth surrounding Hitler and his catastrophic betrayal by the Anglos is what one finds at the deepest level of the rabbit hole. Unfortunately many on the right are unwilling to venture that deep.
Perhaps this is because the truth is so utterly depressing. Hitler overcame such incredible odds and came so close to freeing the Aryan soul from its Jewish chains, only to be struck down one step from the finish line. I can think of no other feat in western history that rivals it. His success was so critically important, his defeat was our greatest tragedy.
Reflecting upon his legacy inspires me and also fills me with despair. Seeing the growing number of people who are beginning to understand and support him give me hope.
Ciaran:
He was a visionary, and a statesman—but no general. Jewish power is based on the slander, and inversion of real history about the events of the Twentieth Century. Hitler and the Nazis are the Trojan Horse, used to colonize the very minds of Western Whites.
Hitler and the Nazis were not evil. You are blaming the victims. How dare you? They made a lot of mistakes—but Hitler was the last White Man that tried to defend his own people.
Every single time any one of you allows a lie to stand—you collude with our murderers. You may want to get rid of Hitler et al—but to allow the slander to stand is simply nothing more than laziness, and cowardice. How dare you?
Telling the truth about the real events of the Twentieth Century does not “keep White Nationalism in a ghetto”—it’s the laziness and timidity and cowardice that does that.
The Worst Generation fought against people who had done them no harm, actively participated in the Civil Rights dismantling of the Constitution and Bill of Rights, and did nothing to resist the 1965 Immigration Act, “Women’s Lib”, and the absolute degradation of the culture. The Worst Generation went along with everything, while they wallowed in what’s turning out to be rather short-term affluence.
The worst Generation did immense, civilization-wrecking harm. They set the stage for our genocide. They did wrong—for a host of reasons. And one wrong enabled another.
I’d like to ignore Hitler—but I’m not allowed to. The Jewish Media parades his demonized corpse around 24/7. I challenge any of you to turn on a radio, a TV set, open a magazine, or website, and not have poor old Adolf thrown right in your face. His name is invoked in the weirdest, and most unrelated situations. We will never be free of Hitler until we stop caving to the monstrous and fallacious demonization of Hitler.
This generation should be called out for what they’ve done. They should be ashamed of themselves. The ones that are around can still vote. Their shame should be held up as an example to future generations. The Founding Generation will feel repulsion of the deeds of the Worst Generation.
Adolf Hitler and the soldiers of the Reich did not bring death and destruction. Talmudic Jewry, and their vile Shabbos Goy sell-out whores, did that.
Refusing to accept this alienating and self-obliterating lie is what sets us free.
Flattering the soldiers of World War II as “The Greatest Generation,” is one of Satan’s most beloved and successful tricks—cosseting human vanity. If that generation, and the succeeding generations, get hung up on that meme, that fraud, that con job, then it becomes more and more difficult to assess, with each passing day, the true, real-world legacy of that generation. Why do any of us want to lock ourselves into a mythos, created by our enemies, that leads directly to our dispossession and genocide, simply to flatter old men?
When I challenge these oldsters—and every last one of them is a Christian—I tell them:
“I know it’s terrible to have to accept the fact that the ‘biggest’ event of your life was a terrible, horrible mistake. But you are going to have to deal with this when you face God—so get used to the idea now. Think about how you will account for this…”