web analytics

Tag: Adolf Hitler

Categories
Art Degenerate art Table talks

Uncle Adolf’s table talk, 187

the-real-hitler
 
15th June 1943, midday

Intellectual and artistic poverty—Only decadent art is harmful—Teutonic nostalgia—The need of open spaces.
 
The industrialisation of a country invariably provokes an opposite reaction and gives rise to a recrudescence of a certain measure of romanticism, which not infrequently finds expression in a mania for the collection of bibelots and somewhat trashy objets d’art. It is a phenomenon which recurs with each fresh migration from the land to the town. It is not the museums and the picture-galleries which attract these newcomers, but the vaults which foster the liking for the mysterious, like the blue grotto of the nymphs. The process of readjustment takes fifty or a hundred years.

Unfortunately, the period of economic and industrial progress in Germany coincided with a period of artistic hesitancy and poverty. One cannot, in justice, blame the masses, when one remembers the artistic junk with which the big industrialists filled their houses. But the latter were people of intelligence, and them I blame greatly.

The masses are still attracted by somewhat trashy art, but that has nothing in common with artistic degeneracy. If I am asked whether I am prepared to condone this, my reply is that I will condone anything which does not lead to artistic depravity.

The admiration for what we sometimes call chocolate-box beauty is not of itself vicious; it gives evidence, at least, of artistic feeling, which may well become later the basis for real taste. Permanent injury is done only by real depravity in art. It is perfectly true that we are a people of romantics, quite different from the Americans, for example, who see nothing beyond their sky-scrapers. Our romanticism has its origins in the intense appreciation of nature that is inherent in us Germans.

Properly to appreciate such artists as Weber, Ludwig Richter and the other romanticists, one must know Franconian mountains, for that is the background which gives birth to romanticism in both music and painting; and, of course, the stories and legends of our folklore also make a potent contribution.

The only romance which stirs the heart of the North American is that of the Redskin; but it is curious to note that the writer who has produced the most vivid Redskin romances is a German.

One thing the Americans have, and which we lack, is the sense of the vast open spaces. Hence the particular characteristics of our own form of nostalgia. There comes a time when this desire for expansion can no longer be contained and must burst into action.

It is an irrefutable fact that the Dutch, for example, who occupied the most densely populated portions of the German lands, were driven, centuries ago, by this irresistible desire for expansion to seek ever wider conquest abroad.

What, I wonder, would happen to us, if we had not at least the illusion of vast spaces at our disposal? For me, one of the charms of the Spessart is that one can drive there for hours on end, and never meet a soul. Our autobahns give me the same feeling; even in the more thickly populated areas they reproduce the atmosphere of the open spaces.

_____________________________

Consider obtaining a copy of the complete notes
published by Ostara Publications.

Categories
Beethoven Berlin Mozart Music Table talks

Uncle Adolf’s table talk, 188

the-real-hitler

24th June 1943, evening

The vibrant pulse of Berlin—Vienna the home of music— Mozart—Slav blood and German blood—Beethoven—For and against Vienna—The new capital of the Reich—A remark of Treitschke.
 

In Berlin, I think, people work harder than anywhere else. I know of no other city in which it would have been possible to complete the construction of the Reich Chancellery in nine months. The Berlin workman is unique as a swift and efficient craftsman. There is nothing to touch him in Munich or Vienna, where the infusion of foreign blood—Polish, Czech, Slav, Italian—still has an influence.

When one speaks of Vienna and music and proclaims Vienna to be the most musical city in the world, one must not forget that at the time of our great composers, Vienna was the Imperial city. She was an attraction for the whole world, and was thus the city which offered artists the greatest scope and opportunity. In spite of this, how shabbily the musicians were treated there! It is not true that either Beethoven or Haydn had any success there during their lifetime. Mozart’s Don Juan was a failure there.

Why then did Mozart go to Vienna? Simply because he hoped to get a pension from the Emperor, which he never obtained. Mozart’s family, it has been established, came from Augsburg; he was therefore not an Austrian but a Swabian. The whole blossoming of our music in Vienna is not due to the town; such things do not spring from their environment, but from the genius of a race.

Really creative music is composed partly of inspiration and partly of a sense of composition. The inspiration is of Slavonic origin, the art of composition is of Germanic. It is when these two mingle in one man that the master of genius appears. In Bach’s music it is the composition which is marvellous, and he certainly had no drop of Slav blood in his veins. As regards Beethoven, on the other hand, one glance at his head shows that he comes of a different race. It is not pure chance that the British have never produced a composer of genius; it is because they are a pure Germanic race.

Do not for a moment imagine that I am hostile to Vienna. I criticise with equal vigour everything in Berlin which displeases me. My task is a far greater one, and I do not think in terms of Vienna or Berlin.

It is perhaps a blessing in disguise that I was for so long a Stateless person; for it has taught me the tremendous value of a unified Germany.

Treitschke once said: “Germany has cities, but she possesses no capital.” To that I will add that she must, and she shall, have one. I shall take care that no town in the Reich can rival the capital.

I have examined certain projects for Vienna, but they demand a financial backing from the Reich which I do not consider should be accorded to any city but the capital of the Reich.

Any other decision would be wrong. Vienna must, of course, be cleaned up and cleared of slums; and this will be done. I have already cleared the Jews out of the city, but I should like to see the Czechs go, too. Whatever new construction may be undertaken in Vienna, it would be folly for her to try to surpass the existing glorious monuments of the Imperial City.

_____________________________

Consider obtaining a copy of the complete notes
published by Ostara Publications.

Categories
Art Music Richard Wagner Table talks

Uncle Adolf’s table talk, 189

the-real-hitler

 

1st March 1944, midday

A nursery for film actors—Futility of the art critics—Weber’s Freischütz and Bizet’s Carmen.
 

It is often said that among our film actors we have none capable of playing certain parts—that, for instance, of the hero. This type of artiste, they say, is non-existent. I have never heard such nonsense. But to find them, you must, of course, look for them. Producers make the mistake of seeking always in the same old circle—the stage and the theatrical agencies. If they would look elsewhere, they would soon find what they want. One has only to think of the splendid types of manhood to be found even now, after five years of war, in our regiments.

Some years ago, before the war, I passed a camp of the Labour Service at Bergdorf. Immediately my car was surrounded by a crowd of bronzed and laughing young men. I remember remarking to one of my companions: “Why don’t our film producers come to places like this in search of talent? In a year or two it would be possible to transform one of these lads into an accomplished actor, even if it were just for one particular part for which they are seeking a star.” In this respect Leni Riefenstahl has the right idea: she scours the villages in search of the peasant types she requires.

In the nature of things, the opinion of an art critic must not be accepted as an irrevocable and unassailable truth. His criticism is, after all, only the expression of his own personal opinion.

When in ten different newspapers ten different critics give their opinion on one and the same work, ten separate personal opinions emerge—unless, of course, they have previously received instructions from interested parties. Has such an opinion any value? I doubt it. We are too prone to forget that the ancients disregarded the art critic. They judged a work on its merits, as they saw them, which, after all, is the natural method of selection. Art criticism, as it has developed since the beginning of the nineteenth century, means either the death of a work of art, since the critics never cease to tear it to pieces; or the death of the press, since the public could have no faith in a press in which the critic of each individual newspaper gives a completely different story on exactly the same work.

If we were to be deprived of art critics, we should not lose very much! One single critique signed with a well-known name may destroy the aspirations of an artist for as long as twenty years.

Examples are not lacking. How many of the artists whom we admire greatly today were previously castigated by the oracles of the times! What is true of painters is true of artists in other fields.

Hoffmann was sufficient gravely to prejudice the chances of success of Der Freischütz. And yet this work, with its deep harmonies, had all the ingredients which should have appealed to the romanticism in Hoffmann. Think of Wagner and how he was torn to bits for ten years by the critics! Had there been no one who appreciated him, it is questionable whether he would have continued with his work. The same thing happened with Carmen. And now the critics who tore these masterpieces to shreds are completely and utterly forgotten, and the works live on.

_____________________________

Consider obtaining a copy of the complete notes
published by Ostara Publications.

Categories
Arcadia Beauty Table talks

Uncle Adolf’s table talk, 190

the-real-hitler
 
23rd March 1944, midday

Charm of the Rhineland—And of other parts of Germany—The marvellous countryside of Bohemia and Moravia.
 

I saw the Rhine for the first time in 1914, when I was on my way to the Western Front. The feelings which the sight of this historic stream inspired in me remain forever graven on my heart. The kindness and spontaneity of the Rhinelanders also made a profound impression on me; everywhere they received us and feted us in a most touching manner. The evening we reached Aachen, I remember thinking that I should never forget that day for the rest of my life; and indeed the memory of it remains today as vivid as ever, and every time I find myself on the banks of the Rhine I re-live again the wondrous experience of my first sight of it. This is no doubt one of the main reasons—quite apart from the unrivalled beauty of the countryside—that impels me each year to revisit the Rhineland.

There are other parts of Germany, apart from the Rhineland, which give me intense pleasure to visit—the Kyffhaeuser, the forests of Thuringia, the Harz and the Black Forest. It is most exhilarating to drive for miles through the woods and forests, far away from the throng.

One of my greatest delights has always been to picnic quietly somewhere on the roadside; it was not always easy, for our column of cars would often be pursued by a crowd of motorists, eager to see their Fuehrer off duty, and we had to employ all sorts of ruses to shake off these friendly and well-meaning pursuers; sometimes, for instance, I would drive up a side-turning, leaving the column to continue along the main road. Our pursuers would then overtake the cars of the column one by one, and, failing to find me, would go ever faster in the hope of overtaking me farther on. In this way we managed occasionally to snatch a few hours of peace and tranquillity.

On one occasion, I remember, a family out gathering mushrooms came suddenly on our picnic party. In a few moments these kindly folk had alerted the neighbouring village and the whole population was surging towards us, filling the air with their shouts of “Heil.”

It is a great pity that Germans know so little of their own country. Since 1938 the number of beauty spots within the boundaries of the Reich has increased considerably. In addition to Austria, we have the wonderful countryside of Bohemia and Moravia, which is a closed book to all but a few Germans.

Some of them may have heard of the virgin forests of Bohemia, but how many have ever seen them? I have a collection of photographs taken in Bohemia, and they remind one of the vast forests of the tropics. To visit all the beauties of his country, a German today would require taking a holiday in a different district each year for the rest of his life.

Categories
Arthur Schopenhauer Friedrich Nietzsche Pedagogy Philosophy Science Table talks

Uncle Adolf’s table talk, 191

the-real-hitler

16th May 1944, evening

Research and instruction—State encouragement for free research—The two tasks of research worker and teacher—Kant, Schopenhauer, Nietzsche.

 

The theory that independent research and instruction are two fields of activity which must be indissolubly related is false. Each has an entirely different function, each calls for men of a different type, and each must be approached by the State from a different angle.

Research must remain free and unfettered by any State restriction. The facts which it establishes represent Truth, and Truth is never evil. It is the duty of the State to support and further the efforts of research in every way, even when its activities hold no promise of immediate, or even early, advantage from the material or economic point of view. It may well be that its results will be of value, or indeed will represent tremendous progress, only to the generation of the future.

Instruction, on the other hand, should not, in my opinion, enjoy a like liberty of action. Its liberty is limited by the interests of the State, and can therefore never be totally unrestricted; it has not the right to claim that same degree of independence which I most willingly concede to research.

The attributes demanded of a successful teacher and a research worker are fundamentally different, and are seldom to be found together in the single individual. The man of research is by nature extremely cautious; he never ceases to work, to ponder, to weigh and to doubt, and his suspicious nature breeds in him an inclination towards solitude and most rigorous self-criticism.

Of quite a different type is the ideal teacher. He has little or no concern with the endless riddles of the infinite—with something, that is, which is so infinitely greater than himself. He is a man whose task it is to impart knowledge and understanding to men who do not possess them and who, therefore, are generally his intellectual inferiors; and in consequence he is a man who is often inclined to be pedantically dogmatic.

There are many men endowed with a genius for research who are useless as teachers, just as there are brilliant teachers who have no gift whatever for research and creative work; yet all of them, in their respective spheres, make contributions of outstanding value to the sum of human knowledge.

I do not agree with the idea that liberty of research should be restricted solely to the fields of natural science. It should embrace also the domain of thought and philosophy, which, in essence, are themselves but the logical prolongation of scientific research. By taking the data furnished by science and placing them under the microscope of reason, philosophy gives us a logical conception of the universe as it is. The boundary between research and philosophy is nebulous and constantly moving.

In the Great Hall of the Linz Library are the busts of Kant, Schopenhauer and Nietzsche, the greatest of our thinkers, in comparison with whom the British, the French and the Americans have nothing to offer. His complete refutation of the teachings which were a heritage from the Middle Ages, and of the dogmatic philosophy of the Church, is the greatest of the services which Kant has rendered to us. It is on the foundation of Kant’s theory of knowledge that Schopenhauer built the edifice of his philosophy, and it is Schopenhauer who annihilated the pragmatism of Hegel. I carried Schopenhauer’s works with me throughout the whole of the First World War. From him I learned a great deal.

Schopenhauer’s pessimism, which springs partly, I think, from his own line of philosophical thought and partly from subjective feeling and the experiences of his own personal life, has been far surpassed by Nietzsche.

_____________________________

Consider obtaining a copy of the complete notes
published by Ostara Publications.

Categories
Ancient Rome Christendom Communism Jesus Martin Bormann St Paul Table talks

Uncle Adolf’s table talk, 192

the-real-hitler
Night of 29th-30th November 1944

Jesus and Saint Paul—Christianity, a Jewish manoeuvre—Christianity and Communism—National Socialism, the implacable enemy of everything Jewish.
 

Jesus was most certainly not a Jew. The Jews would never have handed one of their own people to the Roman courts; they would have condemned him themselves. It is quite probable that a large number of the descendants of the Roman legionaries, mostly Gauls, were living in Galilee, and Jesus was probably one of them. His mother may well have been a Jewess.

Jesus fought against the materialism of his age, and, therefore, against the Jews.

Paul of Tarsus, who was originally one of the most stubborn enemies of the Christians, suddenly realised the immense possibilities of using, intelligently and for other ends, an idea which was exercising such great powers of fascination. He realised that the judicious exploitation of this idea among non-Jews would give him far greater power in the world than would the promise of material profit to the Jews themselves. It was then that the future St. Paul distorted with diabolical cunning the Christian idea. Out of this idea, which was a declaration of war on the golden calf, on the egotism and the materialism of the Jews, he created a rallying point for slaves of all kinds against the elite, the masters and those in dominant authority.

The religion fabricated by Paul of Tarsus, which was later called Christianity, is nothing but the Communism of today.

Bormann intervened. Jewish methods, he said, have never varied in their essentials. Everywhere they have stirred up the plebs against the ruling classes. Everywhere they have fostered discontent against the established power. For these are the seeds which produce the crop they hope later to gather.

Everywhere they fan the flames of hatred between peoples of the same blood. It is they who invented class-warfare, and the repudiation of this theory must therefore always be an anti-Jewish measure. In the same way, any doctrine which is anti-Communist, any doctrine which is anti-Christian must, ipso facto, be anti-Jewish as well.

The National Socialist doctrine is therefore anti-Jewish in excelsis, for it is both anti-Communist and anti-Christian. National Socialism is solid to the core, and the whole of its strength is concentrated against the Jews, even in matters which appear to have a purely social aspect and are designed for the furtherance of the social amenities of our own people.

The Fuehrer concluded: Burgdorff has just given me a paper which deals with the relationship between Communism and Christianity. It is comforting to see how, even in these days, the fatal relationship between the two is daily becoming clearer to the human intelligence.

_____________________________

Consider obtaining a copy of the complete notes
published by Ostara Publications.

Categories
Third Reich

What is national socialism

Source: Metapedia

tio-adolf-venadito

National Socialism is the opposite of international finance capitalism, i.e. the opposite of globalization. Under National Socialism, engineers would not lose their jobs to outsourcing, and great industrial cities would not be disintegrating and turning back to farmland. There would be no such thing as Goldman Sachs, or the Federal Reserve, or big box stores full of merchandise from China. If China were National Socialist too, the Chinese economy would not depend on exports. Instead of a globalized economy, there would be independent national economies. Countries would generate capital internally instead of depending on foreign investment. International trade would still exist (you could still drive a Honda if that’s what you want), but it would be a fraction of what it is now. The financial system would be simple and straightforward; there would be no such thing as “derivatives”. The economy would be based on industry and education, not on finance, insurance, real estate, casinos, and prisons.

There would be no dumbing-down policy in the schools or anywhere else.

There would be no TSA pat-downs. No such thing happened in the Reich, nor could it happen. An obscenity like that would be inconceivable. When you go through security at an American airport, the Zionists literally have you by the balls. Under National Socialism, the Zionists would not be running things, with all that that implies for both foreign and domestic policy.
Instead of dying, the oceans would be flourishing. On land, desertification would be reversed. The “cancer industry” would not exist. The environmental and psychological causes of cancer would be addressed, and cancer would be rare. There would be no need to argue about how to pay for health care, because most people would normally stay healthy without “health care” as we know it today.

Students would not have to go into debt to get an education.
Under National Socialism, cities would not be full of drunks and homeless people. There would be no such thing as multiculturalism, political correctness, or affirmative action. Schools would not teach kids to listen to hip-hop. First world countries would not turn themselves into third world countries. Just the opposite: National Socialism represents the gentrification of the world.

I did not know most of this until recently.

Like most people, I grew up believing that National Socialism was a Very Bad Thing. I thought it was all about war and exterminating people. If that were true, then of course it would be a Very Bad Thing. But in fact that is not what National Socialism is about.

When I was in the 9th grade, my world history teacher gave me an extra credit assignment. She asked me to read The Rise and Fall of the Third Reich by William Shirer, and write a report on it. That was a pretty stiff assignment for a 9th grader. I read the book all the way through and wrote a report, but the report was not very good. She gave me an A, but in my own mind I knew I did not deserve an A. Some of what I wrote was cribbed from Encyclopedia Britannica. My teacher expected a little too much from her star student. At that age I was not quite ready to read a book of that length and density, hold it all in my mind at once, and write a paper about it. I guess that’s where this page is coming from. Fifty years later, I am still working on that assignment. Anyway I believed everything in the book. And why not? It never occurred to me that my teacher might be misinformed, or that mainstream historians such as William Shirer might be lying. I accepted what they told me.

Since then I have discovered that what happened in Germany in the Hitler era was very different from what they tell us. On this page I am going to present some of the facts that my world history teacher should have taught me. This is what every high school student should know about National Socialism.

The question “what is National Socialism” can be approached in two ways: (1) what was Hitler’s original idea? and (2) what happened in the Third Reich?

Categories
Kevin MacDonald Red terror

An April 20th postscript


This is a postscript to the entry celebrating the 125th birthday of Hitler that has been just published on my main blog, The West’s Darkest Hour.


Kevin MacDonald

MacDonald is the only white nationalist that I respect. His work on Jewry provides the scientific basis to understand the problem. But I cannot respect other nationalists.


Brad Griffin (penname: Hunter Wallace)

A few days ago Hunter Wallace, the admin of Occidental Dissent wrote apropos the Glenn Miller shootings:

Upon reflection, the term “self detonating lone wolf vanguardist” and the damage that these people routinely inflict on the White Nationalist movement encompasses virtually all of the recent incidents which I wanted to address. What is a “self detonating lone wolf vanguardist”? In his book Blood and Politics: A History of the White Nationalist Movement from the Margins to the Mainstream, Leonard Zeskind depicted the White Nationalist movement as being torn between “two political trends” which “vie for strategy hegemony”…

So we have a well-known Southern Nationalist using the categories (“self detonating lone wolf vanguardist”) of Zeskind—a Jewish president of a pro-Jew hate group—in order to categorize silly vanguardists? A Jew that in his article Wallace quotes at length to “understand” radical nationalists?

On the same article Occidental Dissent’s admin spoke in high terms about Christianity: “Southern Nationalism should emphasize Christian morality in order to attract the sort of people who can relate to their neighbors…” And in another recent thread he added:

In Southern Nationalism, there is a consensus that Christianity is our religion and provides the moral foundation of Southern culture, which we want to preserve, as well as a consensus that religious minorities will be tolerated. There is no such cultural consensus in White Nationalism. In fact, there is even a debate on basic moral questions like whether murder is immoral, which puts into stark relief the lack of a common culture.

Since Wallace received positive feedback from the commenters, one can assume that southern nationalists are completely unaware that Christianity has been more toxic for the white race than the Jewish problem itself.


Franklin Ryckaert, and Greg Johnson

Ryckaert at Counter Currents quoted Johnson’s article about Hitler on April 19, 2014:

“…he (Hitler) wished to reduce fellow Europeans, specifically Slavs, to colonized peoples, which contradicts the basic principle of ethno-nationalism. The North American New Right stands for ethno-nationalism for all nations, and we reject the totalitarianism, imperialism, and genocide of the Old Right.”

This is exactly the reason why genuine white nationalists should reject the man. I tried in vain to explain that to Carolyn Yeager, an inveterate Hitler worshipper. To try to express white nationalism in Nazi terms is indeed a “burden” that should be avoided. White nationalism is simply ethno-nationalism for peoples of European descent. I define ethno-nationalism as the endeavor to have a state for the [sic] own ethnic group that promotes the interests of that ethnic group. Ethno-nationalism should also be the right for all other races and ethnicities. In principle there need not be hostility between the various racial or ethnic groups, if this basic right is universally accepted.

Johnson responded:

Well put. It was precisely Yeager’s fundamentalist Hitlerism that caused the [sic] her break with Tanstaafl, who is a real White Nationalist, and the destruction of The White Network. Tan apparently had a superhuman ability to deal with Carolyn’s obnoxious personality, but when matters of principle were at stake, he pulled the plug. Let’s hope he finds more worthy outlets for that truly admirable level of disinterested idealism.

Johnson omits to say that he was angry with Carolyn Yeager because she was the first notable voice in the movement to tell a truth: that out-of-the-closet homosexuals are noxious for the pro-white movement.

As to Ryckaert, has he read The Gulag Archipelago? Even though Solzhenitsyn actually fought against the Nazis before being taken to the Gulag prisons you cannot escape the feeling by reading the Archipelago that the Germans were saving the invaded Soviet Union from the bad guys. All this talk by Ryckaert and Johnson about “Slavs” in the abstract misses the point: the SU was a Jew-led genocidal system that should have been conquered by fanatic, genocidal anti-Semites. Kind of Newton’s second law of motion about the behavior of objects for which all existing forces are not balanced.

Can’t these guys see something so obvious? “To live now and not to know this work [The Gulag Archipelago] is to be a kind of historical fool” —W.L. Webb. Ryckaert and Johnson are historical fools. (Keep in mind that you must have read it; not only secondary or tertiary sources about the book, to understand why the SU should have been destroyed.)

Furthermore, about Glenn Miller’s silly shootings this month, Greg Johnson seems to be on the same page of Hunter Wallace. At VNN forum Johnson recently wrote:

“Don’t quote me out of context. What Breivik did was stupid, crazy, and evil, and I made that clear.”

Isn’t comparing Breivik with Miller like confusing a smart Viking with a silly redneck? I won’t go into detail here but on VNN Linder has recently nailed Johnson’s self-righteousness (see e.g., here). Linder also quoted a recent exchange that, incidentally, supports the line of criticism I did in my main entry about this memorable April 20th:

Concerned White Man posted on April 17, 2014:

So Greg is not a fan of Yockey’s vision, and he uses worn out liberal phrases, like “self-determination”? You learn something new here everyday. The Germans were genocidal? And the West doesn’t represent imperialism? This is unbelievable from a “white nationalist” perspective.

Greg Johnson answered on April 17, 2014:

If you have nothing better to offer than point-and-splutter and snarkiness and “scare quotes,” you will not be allowed to comment again.

Of course: like the Jew-controlled media, Johnson has had a long history of censorship in his webzine for those even a little to the right of his POV.

Hitler, Rockwell, Pierce

But what do I think of events like the Glenn Miller affair? As always, listen to the (“vanguardist”) William Pierce, whose stature will never be reached by either “white nationalists” or “southern nationalists”:

Can you imagine our enemies acting in such an immature and undisciplined way? When the Jews want to hurt a country—Iraq, for example—they don’t express their hatred for Iraqis by setting off a truck bomb in front of the Iraqi embassy. They very carefully make a long-range plan to get one of their creatures elected President, and then they use the powers controlled by the President to inflict really serious damage on Iraq. If the Clinton administration became angry at China, say, the government would not send a squad of U.S. Marines to shoot up a Chinese restaurant in Washington. And Janet Reno wouldn’t show her opposition to letting Americans purchase firearms by ordering FBI agents to throw bricks through the windows of gun stores or to spray-paint hateful graffiti on the headquarters of the National Rifle Association.

The reason America’s internal enemies are winning now is because they not only use their heads to make plans, but they also exercise self-discipline. They keep their feelings under control. When Madeleine Albright began her murderous bombing of Serbia this spring [1999], every Jewish organization in America came out with strong statements of support for the bombing. It obviously was something the Jews had been thinking about for a while. But they did not act prematurely and foolishly by doing something like shooting up the Serb community center in Chicago. They understood that such an action would not cripple the Serbs or even weaken them; it would only put them on the alert, make them angry, and generate public sympathy for them.

I’ll recap what I just said. Random acts of violence don’t make sense now. Temper tantrums are not helpful. What we need now is self-discipline, not self-indulgence. It’s good for us to remember now the old, old rule for people who want to get rid of a king. The rule is: kill the king with your first stroke; don’t merely wound the king, because if you do he surely will kill you.

Hitler, Rockwell and Pierce must be our guiding stars. Forget the suckers.

Categories
Democracy Ethnic cleansing Francis Parker Yockey George Lincoln Rockwell Kevin MacDonald Mainstream media

Führer anniversary

Or

Rockwell’s numinous call vs. white nationalism

Now that I gave up “white nationalism”—because it was an effete, neo-Christian, non-genocidal and anti-Nordicist pseudo-movement (Golden Dawn is a real movement)—what better homage to the martyr of the Second World War than remembering a call onto the real path revealed to George Lincoln Rockwell the year I would be born:

During this period, Rockwell had an experience about which he has never written and which he related to only a few people. Always a skeptic where the supernatural was concerned, he was certainly not a man to be easily influenced by omens. Yet there can be no doubt that he attached special significance to a series of dreams that he had then. The dreams—actually all variations of a single dream—occurred nearly every night for a period of several weeks and were of such intensity that he could recall them vividly upon waking. In each dream he saw himself in some everyday situation: sitting in a crowded theater, eating at a counter in a diner, walking through the busy lobby of an office building, or inspecting the airplanes of his squadron at an airfield hangar.

And in each dream a man would approach him—theater usher, diner cook, office clerk, or mechanic—and say something to the effect, “Mr. Rockwell, there is someone to see you.” And then he would be led off to some back room or side office in the building or hangar, as the case may have been. He would open the door and find waiting for him inside, always alone—Adolf Hitler. Then the dream would end.

hitlerOne can most easily interpret these dreams as a case of autosuggestion, but in the light of later developments Rockwell considered them as a symbolic summons, a beckoning onto the path for which he was then still groping, whether that beckoning was the consequence of an internal or an external stimulus.

Cited in “Rockwell: A National Socialist Life.”
 

“Because it was non-genocidal…” I said above. What better example to show what is wrong with American white nationalism that a recent interview of Kevin MacDonald by Luke Ford.

In the You Tube interview we can listen that Ford asks MacDonald if he sees similarities and differences between the white nationalist movement in America and National Socialism in Germany. MacDonald responded after 1:10:23, “The white advocacy movement, as I see it, is not exterminating anybody. It is simply going to assert our interests within the democratic form of government that we have… It doesn’t advocate conquering Mexico, you know—anything like that. There are lots of differences.”

Asserting white interests within US Democracy? Democracy—the worst form of government from the racial viewpoint that has ever been tried? Has MacDonald read what Hajo Liaucius said about the United States (cf. my forthcoming PDF)?

MacDonald’s stance is identical to what other notable white nationalists and southern nationalists believe. The latter fancy themselves as “sane, moral, wholesome, reasonable people” whose Christianity prevents them from becoming “silly vanguardists” of the revolutionary type. Their politics are actually church-picnic stuff with no future after the dollar collapses.

Conservative-religious types aside, in his summary of his latest book, New Right vs. Old Right, Greg Johnson rejects “the Old Right’s party politics, totalitarianism, imperialism, and genocide” in favor of “the metapolitical project of constructing a hegemonic White Nationalist consciousness within a pluralistic society.” Take note that Johnson’s “pluralism,” which reminds me Alex Linder’s non-fascist libertarianism, is incompatible with racial hegemony in Sparta, the Gothic and Visigothic societies, and the Third Reich.

Back to the Ford interview. MacDonald also said that repatriation of non-whites could be performed if a white nationalist reached the US presidency but nothing “short of gas chambers and genocide.”

A single example, related to “not conquering Mexico” will suffice to show how difficult such an apparently noble task would be.

“It is inexcusable that, having power,
you do not want to dominate.”

—Nietzsche

Here in Mexico a non-Jew, Emilio Fernando Azcárraga, the mogul who owns Televisa company, has married a Jewess. This means that in the future the largest multimedia mass media in Latin America will be run by a Jewish family. Do you imagine an ethnostate within the US that expels the brown Mexicans without being demonized 7/24 by the Latin American media? Since presumably Jews will be expelled too in MacDonald and Johnson’s non-genocidal scenario, you can imagine how the Jewish lobbies would press through their powerful media urging Latin American civil societies and governments to build nuclear weapons for their “defense” against the racists that took over the North.

In other words, even without genocide after a North American ethnostate starts expelling the mudbloods, the Rubicon would have been crossed with no way back. There is no credible way to triumph in that scenario except by conquering a potentially nuclear subcontinent that, if forever unconquered, would simply repeat the cycle of what the Jews did in America after a brainwashed West ganged up on Germany.

Starting with Mexico, “Latin” (or more accurately Mestizo) America must be conquered right after the Jew-controlled media starts rising hell in Mestizo America after the expulsion of non-whites. I am not alone in this view. Just compare today’s Christian and Neochristian white nationalism with what Francis Parker Yockey wrote in 1953 in his essay “The Enemy of Europe”:

For the purpose of demonstrating with the utmost clarity the elements of the two world-outlooks in this period of Western history between the Second and Third World Wars, a paradigm is appended.

In that paradigm Yockey dramatically contrasted the cultivation of soldierly virtues in healthy western societies with the cult of bourgeois virtues and the worship of Mammon. More specifically, he compared the virile attitudes of “war and conquest” with the ethno-suicidal “pacifism, non-imperialism and the preparation of the coloured populations for ‘self-government’.”

New_Right_vs._Old_RightIf Yockey were alive today what would he think about “white nationalism”? What would he say about Greg Johnson’s manifesto, recently published in a book with a foreword by MacDonald himself?: “I do not want anything to do with gun-toting armies of one. The only gun I want to own is made of porcelain” (emphasis Johnson).

George Lincoln Rockwell’s numinous series of dreams with Uncle Adolf, not this effete pseudo-movement, should be our call.

Categories
George Lincoln Rockwell Homosexuality Mainstream media Real men William Pierce

Rockwell, Pierce, Hitler

I’ve seen enough specimens of white Untermenschen in my life to understand that skin color alone is unfortunately not enough…

—Panina

Andrew Hamilton’s latest piece includes stupendous quotations that I can quote again apropos my provocative views that most humans are “Untermenschen,” including those whites who are behaving like the blond Eloi before the Morlocks.

Hamilton wrote:

♣

 
We have been without genuine freedom of speech or association for so long that we don’t even know what they mean anymore. Ordinary whites are completely clueless. They’re anti-white racists and neo-communists because that’s what the System tells them to be. From morning to evening and birth to death that’s all they hear. They’re denizens of Oceania.

White racialists, an iconoclastic subset, think it means addressing a miniscule audience on a tiny website or individual blog, or organizing six people for a street protest—until a writer or activist is taken down by the System, at which point remaining racialists gleefully join the Left-wing mob in kicking the helpless victim to a bloody pulp. He didn’t get it! He said the wrong things! He acted the wrong way! I have witnessed this unedifying spectacle again and again over the decades.

Any given Counter-Currents article I write will be seen by roughly 1,000-2,000 people. Seen by (i.e., clicked on), not necessarily read or agreed with; only a small number will actually read a piece with some degree of sympathy and understanding, or have a seed planted that will eventually take root and grow, which is the best one can hope for…

The situation is especially strange in that in addition to theoretical access to a worldwide audience of English readers, market forces—supply and demand—are in my favor. I fill an unmet need. In a genuine marketplace of ideas there would be some demand, certainly more than there is now, for suppressed facts, information, and opinions. But this natural demand is not there. The absence of a greater positive response is like the dog that didn’t bark in “Silver Blaze,” alerting the perceptive observer that something was seriously wrong. (“I had grasped the significance of the silence of the dog, for one true inference invariably suggests others,” Sherlock Holmes noted.) In our case the primary culprit is disparate power, and the refusal of elites to play by the rules.

Conversely, those who hate my race—and I mean hate it—broadcast their hatred repeatedly, many times daily, to billions of people worldwide: a distinctly unnatural state of affairs in an ostentatiously “anti-racist” culture. Thousands and thousands of people make exceptionally good livings doing this. They monopolize not only the mass media of communications with their racist and totalitarian bile, but educational systems, governments, legal systems, and other institutions as well—everywhere. This, also, is not natural. It is exceedingly strange.

Such a lopsided disparity of power can have only one possible outcome in terms of who wins, who loses, and why. Therefore, I never scratch my head, stumped, wondering blankly: “Why are whites doing this to themselves?” I’d be dense, dishonest, or willfully blind to express such puzzlement…

As one man long ago observed:

The fundamental error of the right wing—that sweet reason will change the world and save us from the Jewish tyrants.

Rockwell

Reason is still an infant in human affairs, a precious and rare development found in the mutational brains of an infinitesimal minority of Homo sapiens. And even the few geniuses able to exercise genuine, independent reason are almost entirely incapable of acting in accordance with the dictates of that reason—which is one of the reasons so many of them end up as failures in a world which does not appreciate them or their reason.

It is FORCE, POWER, STRENGTH which rules the world, from the ebb and flow of the tides to the decision of your neighbor to join the Rotary. Only a negligible fringe of oddball humans change their mind as a result of being convinced by a superior argument. The overwhelming masses, including the mass of today’s “intellectuals” [emphasis added], change their minds only in order to CONFORM. In other words, the minds of the vast majority ALWAYS bow to the strongest opinion—the opinion which brings rewards and avoids punishment.

The right wing examines its reasons and arguments and facts and finds them true and good—as they may be. They then become outraged [or hopelessly befuddled] when the slobs next door cannot see and appreciate this rightness and, very probably, throw them out of the house for preaching “hate.” But this is only as things are. The slobs will hold whatever opinion seems to show the most strength and WILL TO POWER. They are completely, hopelessly female in their approach to reason and always, ALWAYS prefer strength to “rightness.”

This is a “secret” the Jews learned long ago.

Another voice from the past:

Things are very bad indeed, but they are far from hopeless. Only a people or a nation that gives itself up for lost is truly and irrevocably lost. There is a bloody and terrible ordeal ahead of us, and many will perish—but our race can still be saved, and that, in the long run, is all that counts.

WilliamLutherPierce

Do not be discouraged by the indifference of the people around you. Remember, the great mass of people have always been like that and always will be. When the Christians are ahead they cheer for the Christians, and when the lions are ahead they cheer for the lions. They have no understanding or concern for anything but the present and for what they see as directly affecting their comfort, welfare, or security.

But the masses do not make history. [Again, “the masses” includes academics, intellectuals, and high-IQ and socially successful people generally. It is not a class thing.] That is and always has been the task of the few. Those few must embody in themselves a majority of will and determination. They must know what they want and be willing to do whatever is necessary to achieve their goal.

Today the old order of things is crumbling into ruin, and the world will never again be restored to what it was before. But a new order will eventually emerge from the wreckage of the old.

It is only too late to save the present order from final collapse. It is not too late to begin building the new.

How many are “the few”? Here’s the assessment of a formidable achiever, also deceased, whose judgment on such matters cannot be taken lightly, much less dismissed out of hand:

“In my view, when there are nine thousand men in a country who are capable of facing prison from loyalty to an idea, this idea remains a living one.”

For conceptual purposes, this might be adopted as a provisional benchmark since, implicitly, the reference is to a minority existing amidst a hostile majority in a Jewish-Leftist state. It imparts concrete substance to the idea of “the few” whose task it is to embody within themselves a majority of will and determination.

Of course, the speaker was probably referring to an extraordinary level of commitment, on the order of an Anders Breivik or Timothy McVeigh. Even so, he added:

“And as long as a man [i.e., presumably one man] is left to carry the flag, nothing is lost. Faith moves mountains.”

The-answer-to-1984-is-1933

Each of the three men just quoted was an optimist. They said so explicitly and their words and deeds bore them out. Yet each “failed.” I qualify “failed,” because in a larger spiritual sense (as far as white survival is concerned) they were all successes given the insurmountable odds they faced.

Moreover, the battle in which they were engaged still rages. It is world-historical and spans generations. The outcome has yet to be determined.