Tag: Adolf Hitler

The Jewish Question revisited

Post author By C .T.
Post date March 22, 2012
12 Comments on The Jewish Question revisited

Note of September 2017:
The first half of this post,
“Wuthering Heights,”
has been relocated: here.

In a recent radio podcast Mark Weber, a revisionist historian and current director of the Institute for Historical Review, said (ellipsis omitted between unquoted sentences):

Americans pride themselves of not having an ideology (“We are not fooled by fascism, communism or Nazism or any other ‘isms’”). Well, in fact, America does have an ideology. It has a kind of core idea and a core narrative of itself that is widely accepted by Americans, whether they call themselves conservatives or liberals. And it is so engrained in the American mentality that it is not often expressed very openly.

The core of the American ideology is in the birth certificate, as it were, of the United States of America, the Declaration of Independence. You all know that the Declaration of Independence lays out, I think, what Americans assume about what this country stands for, what it really means and in cases of doubt we turn back to it: “We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.” And to this end “Governments are instituted.”

Now that’s an essential kind of belief that Americans more of less accept. Liberals emphasize much more than conservatives the equality part of that. And conservatives tend to emphasize the point of individual life, liberty and the pursue of happiness. That is a very core kind of thing and with that there is a kind of narrative of American history.

The narrative of American history is that although it’s true that we didn’t have real equality when America was founded that is what we are aiming for: that’s our goal [emphasis in Weber’s voice]. And it is true that our founding fathers did not practice it well. But we are all trying to practice it. We are trying to reach that goal, that goal of real equality.

In his speech Weber also said that in keeping with that goal, in the past Americans decided that distinctions between Christians and non-Christians were not very important and stopped discriminating against the latter. Also, in keeping with the very same principle of non-discrimination, according to Weber the equality between women and men was enshrined. And the same could be said about how Jews and blacks got fantastically empowered in the US.

The social engineering that has transformed the West in general and America in particular has at its core this idea of equality and its corollary, the principle of non-discrimination as the most unquestioned, inviolable axioms of our moral universe. For example, Weber also noted that nowadays no conservative would ever dream of taking away the women’s right to vote. On the contrary: the equality commandment has now metastasized beyond unthinkable limits for our grandparents and, Weber pointed out, many are now saying: “Well, the next bastion is to make sure that gay people are equal too,” always in an endless pursuing of an amplifying spiral for an ever more encompassing equality.

This is a narrative “not only for liberals but of conservatives too,” who “may resist in one point but once it’s in place [women’s rights/affirmative action/Jews controlling the MSM] they don’t object it.” To boot, in the academia and in the mainstream media, including the film industry, this spiraling axiology is been made retroactive, and presently the world of my beloved grandmas is increasingly demonized precisely because even conservatives accept the narrative. Just compare this suicidal ethos that both liberals and conservatives subscribe with what I say in the manifesto: “We hold these truths to be self-evident: that men and cultures are created un-equal, and that only an ethno-state will save our race from extinction.”

Christianity and Secular Christianity are based on the inversion of the most vital values. An ethnostate, by definition, would not only revoke the non-discriminatory principle but transvaluate it. Discrimination would be, again, considered the most basic, commonsensical ruling principle of our society. Hence the Nietzschean call for an Umwertung aller Werte, or transvaluation of Christian values back to Greco-Roman values: the only way to place, again, axiology upright.

After listening to Weber’s speech several times, I found it impossible not to think in my recent posts where both Christianity and what we are now calling Secular Christianity are harshly criticized. Which brings me to the Jewish Question and, specifically, to my debate with the monocausalists about whether or not the Jewish problem is the only causative factor of Western malaise.

Five months ago Michael O’Meara published what has been perhaps the most controversial article at Counter-Currents, “White Nationalism is Not Anti-Semitism”, of which O’Meara commented in the discussion thread:

“I’m certain most people read my piece with a good deal of negative emotion. But re-read my piece without emotion and look at what I actually try to say.”

As to Jewish monocausalism is concerned, in the threaded discussion O’Meara said that he could make an equally convincing argument to “prove” that, say, Catholicism and Protestantism “were more influential in legalizing the formal de-Europeanization of the American people.” This, of course, reminds me Hitler’s criticism of Christianity. Readers of his table talks are always amazed by the fact that those who knew Hitler intimately often listened harsher words from the Führer’s lips directed against Christianity than against Judaism itself. See for example my latest post quoting Hitler’s private talks here.

Uncle Adolf had a point. For instance, it would be nonsense to say that Mr. Earnshaw loved Heathcliff and altruistically punished his eldest son “as a result of Jewish influence in early Victorian England” (even Kevin MacDonald would agree with me that that sort of behavior, however fictional, would qualify as “altruistic punishment”). And the same could be said about Catherine’s lasting infatuation with the dark-skinned gypsy. Both attitudes symbolize the westerners’ fondness for the “New Jesus,” what I am starting to call Secular Christianity. Or at least they symbolize what they are failing to do: an outright, revolutionary repudiation of the intruders and the traitorous elites. This is what Hindley intended in his early teens before his father irreparably damaged the emotional state of his most natural, legit heir by means of a series of altruistic punishments that ended in that the gypsy inherited the entire estate of Wuthering Heights. (Reread Brontë’s novel. The plot moved me to constantly swear, in exasperating soliloquies, against the deranged altruists of the Yorkshire.)

Yes: it is time for westerners to give up their self-destructive philo-Semitism. But Christianity and its secular incarnation that mandates us to love these later-day “gypsies” as the First Commandment must be torn to pieces too. Perhaps it’s suitable to end this post with the opening words of chapter 56, “Old and New Tables” of Thus Spake Zarathustra:

Here do I sit and wait, old broken tables around me and also new half-written tables. When cometh mine hour?

Umwertung aller Werte!

Tags Adolf Hitler, Christian problem (CP), Jewish problem (JP), Transvaluation of all values

Christendom Monologe im Führerhauptquartier

Hitler on Christianity (1941)

Post author By C .T.
Post date March 21, 2012
14 Comments on Hitler on Christianity (1941)

From David Irving’s web page:

The Table Talks’ content [originally written in shorthand] is more important in my view than Hitler’s Mein Kampf, and possibly even more than his Zweites Buch (1928). It is unadulterated Hitler. He expatiates on virtually every subject under the sun, while his generals and private staff sit patiently and listen, or pretend to listen, to the monologues.

The first excerpt is taken from what Hitler said in a night of July of 1941 (ellipsis omitted between unquoted passages):

Hitler’s Table Talk, 1941-1944

His Private Conversations

Part I

1941

When National Socialism has ruled long enough, it will no longer be possible to conceive of a form of life different from ours. In the long run, National Socialism and religion will no longer be able to exist together.

(On a question from C. S., whether this antagonism might mean a war, the Führer continued:)

No, it does not mean a war. The ideal solution would be to leave the religions to devour themselves, without persecutions. But in that case we must not replace the Church by something equivalent. That would be terrifying! It goes without saying that the whole thing needs a lot of thought. Everything will occur in due time. It is a simple question of honesty, that’s what it will finally boil down to.

The German people’s especial quality is patience; and it’s the only one of the peoples capable of undertaking a revolution in this sphere. It could do it, if only for the reason that only the German people have made moral law the governing principle of action.

The heaviest blow that ever struck humanity was the coming of Christianity. Bolshevism is Christianity’s illegitimate child. Both are inventions of the Jew. The deliberate lie in the matter of religion was introduced into the world by Christianity. Bolshevism practises a lie of the same nature, when it claims to bring liberty to men, whereas in reality it seeks only to enslave them. In the ancient world, the relations between men and gods were founded on an instinctive respect. It was a world enlightened by the idea of tolerance. Christianity was the first creed in the world to exterminate its adversaries in the name of love. Its key-note is intolerance.

Without Christianity, we should not have had Islam. The Roman Empire, under Germanic influence, would have developed in the direction of world-domination, and humanity would not have extinguished fifteen centuries of civilisation at a single stroke.

Let it not be said that Christianity brought man the life of the soul, for that evolution was in the natural order of things. The result of the collapse of the Roman Empire was a night that lasted for centuries.

The Romans had no dislike of the Germans. This is shown by the mere fact that blond hair was fashionable with them. Amongst the Goths there were many men with dark hair.

23rd September 1941, evening

To make death easier for people, the Church holds out to them the bait of a better world. We, for our part, confine ourselves to asking man to fashion his life worthily. For this, it is sufficient for him to conform to the laws of nature. Let’s seek inspiration in these principles, and in the long run we’ll triumph over religion.

10th October 1941, midday

Christianity is a rebellion against natural law, a protest against nature. Taken to its logical extreme, Christianity would mean the systematic cultivation of the human failure.

14th October 1941, midday

Special Guest: Reichsfuehrer Himmler

It may be asked whether concluding a concordat with the churches wouldn’t facilitate our exercise of power.

On this subject one may make the following remarks: Firstly, in this way the authority of the State would be vitiated by the fact of the intervention of a third power concerning which it is impossible to say how long it would remain reliable. In the case of the Anglican Church, this objection does not arise, for England knows she can depend on her Church. But what about the Catholic Church?

I’m convinced that any pact with the Church can offer only a provisional benefit, for sooner or later the scientific spirit will disclose the harmful character of such a compromise. Thus the State will have based its existence on a foundation that one day will collapse.

An educated man retains the sense of the mysteries of nature and bows before the unknowable. An uneducated man, on the other hand, runs the risk of going over to atheism (which is a return to the state of the animal) as soon as he perceives that the State, in sheer opportunism, is making use of false ideas in the matter of religion, whilst in other fields it bases everything on pure science.

That’s why I’ve always kept the Party aloof from religious questions. I’ve thus prevented my Catholic and Protestant supporters from forming groups against one another, and inadvertently knocking each other out with the Bible and the sprinkler. So we never became involved with these Churches’ forms of worship. And if that has momentarily made my task a little more difficult, at least I’ve never run the risk of carrying grist to my opponents’ mill. The help we would have provisionally obtained from a concordat would have quickly become a burden on us. In any case, the main thing is to be clever in this matter and not to look for a struggle where it can be avoided.

Being weighed down by a superstitious past, men are afraid of things that can’t, or can’t yet, be explained—that is to say, of the unknown. If anyone has needs of a metaphysical nature, I can’t satisfy them with the Party’s programme. Time will go by until the moment when science can answer all the questions.

So it’s not opportune to hurl ourselves now into a struggle with the Churches. The best thing is to let Christianity die a natural death. A slow death has something comforting about it. The dogma of Christianity gets worn away before the advances of science. Religion will have to make more and more concessions. Gradually the myths crumble.

Nobody has the right to deprive simple people of their childish certainties until they’ve acquired others that are more reasonable. Indeed, it’s most important that the higher belief should be well established in them before the lower belief has been removed. We must finally achieve this. But it would serve no purpose to replace an old belief by a new one that would merely fill the place left vacant by its predecessor.

♣

It seems to me that nothing would be more foolish than to re-establish the worship of Wotan. Our old mythology had ceased to be viable when Christianity implanted itself. Nothing dies unless it is moribund. At that period the ancient world was divided between the systems of philosophy and the worship of idols. It’s not desirable that the whole of humanity should be stultified—and the only way of getting rid of Christianity is to allow it to die little by little.

Science cannot lie, for it’s always striving, according to the momentary state of knowledge, to deduce what is true. When it makes a mistake, it does so in good faith. It’s Christianity that’s the liar. It’s in perpetual conflict with itself.

One may ask whether the disappearance of Christianity would entail the disappearance of belief in God. That’s not to be desired. The notion of divinity gives most men the opportunity to concretise the feeling they have of supernatural realities. Why should we destroy this wonderful power they have of incarnating the feeling for the divine that is within them?

I envisage the future, therefore, as follows: First of all, to each man his private creed. Superstition shall not lose its rights. We’ll see to it that the Churches cannot spread abroad teachings in conflict with the interests of the State. We shall continue to preach the doctrine of National Socialism, and the young will no longer be taught anything but the truth.

19th October 1941, night

The reason why the ancient world was so pure, light and serene was that it knew nothing of the two great scourges: the pox and Christianity.

Christianity is a prototype of Bolshevism: the mobilisation by the Jew of the masses of slaves with the object of undermining society. Thus one understands that the healthy elements of the Roman world were proof against this doctrine.

Yet Rome to-day allows itself to reproach Bolshevism with having destroyed the Christian churches. As if Christianity hadn’t behaved in the same way towards the pagan temples!

21st October 1941, midday

When one thinks of the opinions held concerning Christianity by our best minds a hundred, two hundred years ago, one is ashamed to realise how little we have since evolved. I didn’t know that Julian the Apostate had passed judgment with such clear-sightedness on Christianity and Christians. You should read what he says on the subject.

Originally, Christianity was merely an incarnation of Bolshevism the destroyer. Nevertheless, the Galilean, who later was called the Christ, intended something quite different. He must be regarded as a popular leader who took up his position against Jewry. Galilee was a colony where the Romans had probably installed Gallic legionaries, and it’s certain that Jesus was not a Jew. The Jews, by the way, regarded Him as the son of a whore—of a whore and a Roman soldier.

The decisive falsification of Jesus’ doctrine was the work of St. Paul. He gave himself to this work with subtlety and for purposes of personal exploitation. For the Galilean’s object was to liberate his country from Jewish oppression.

On the road to Damascus, St. Paul discovered that he could succeed in ruining the Roman State by causing the principle to triumph of the equality of all men before a single God—and by putting beyond the reach of the laws his private notions, which he alleged to be divinely inspired. If, into the bargain, one succeeded in imposing one man as the representative on earth of the only God, that man would possess boundless power.

Nobody was more tolerant than the Romans. Every man could pray to the god of his choice, and a place was even reserved in the temples for the unknown god. Moreover, every man prayed as he chose, and had the right to proclaim his preferences.

St. Paul knew how to exploit this state of affairs in order to conduct his struggle against the Roman State. Nothing has changed; the method has remained sound.

The religious ideas of the Romans are common to all Aryan peoples. The Jew, on the other hand, worshipped and continues to worship, then and now, nothing but the golden calf. The Jewish religion is devoid of all metaphysics and has no foundation but the most repulsive materialism.

It’s since St. Paul’s time that the Jews have manifested themselves as a religious community, for until then they were only a racial community. St. Paul was the first man to take account of the possible advantages of using a religion as a means of propaganda. If the Jew has succeeded in destroying the Roman Empire, that’s because St. Paul transformed a local movement of Aryan opposition to Jewry into a supra-temporal religion, which postulates the equality of all men amongst themselves, and their obedience to an only god. This is what caused the death of the Roman Empire.

It’s striking to observe that Christian ideas, despite all St. Paul’s efforts, had no success in Athens. The philosophy of the Greeks was so much superior to this poverty-stricken rubbish that the Athenians burst out laughing when they listened to the apostle’s teaching. But in Rome St. Paul found the ground prepared for him. His egalitarian theories had what was needed to win over a mass composed of innumerable uprooted people.

Whilst Roman society proved hostile to the new doctrine, Christianity in its pure state stirred the population to revolt. Rome was Bolshevised, and Bolshevism produced exactly the same results in Rome as later in Russia.

Yesterday, the instigator was Saul: the instigator to-day, Mardochai. Saul has changed into St. Paul, and Mardochai into Karl Marx. By exterminating this pest, we shall do humanity a service of which our soldiers can have no idea.

25th October 1941, evening

Special Guests: Reichsfuehrer SS Himmler and SS General (Obergruppenfuehrer) Heydrich

From the rostrum of the Reichstag I prophesied to Jewry that, in the event of war’s proving inevitable, the Jew would disappear from Europe. That race of criminals has on its conscience the two million dead of the First World War, and now already hundreds of thousands more. Let nobody tell me that all the same we can’t park them in the marshy parts of Russia! Who’s worrying about our troops? It’s not a bad idea, by the way, that public rumour attributes to us a plan to exterminate the Jews. Terror is a salutary thing. The attempt to create a Jewish State will be a failure.

The book that contains the reflections of the Emperor Julian should be circulated in millions. What wonderful intelligence, what discernment, all the wisdom of antiquity! It’s extraordinary.

With what clairvoyance the authors of the eighteenth, and especially those of the past, century criticised Christianity and passed judgment on the evolution of the Churches!

People only retain from the past what they want to find there. As seen by the Bolshevik, the history of the Tsars seems like a blood-bath. But what is that, compared with the crimes of Bolshevism?

There exists a history of the world, compiled by Rotteck, a liberal of the ’forties, in which facts are considered from the point of view of the period; antiquity is resolutely neglected. We, too, shall re-write history, from the racial point of view. Starting with isolated examples, we shall proceed to a complete revision. It will be a question, not only of studying the sources, but of giving facts a logical link. There are certain facts that can’t be satisfactorily explained by the usual methods. So we must take another attitude as our point of departure. As long as students of biology believed in spontaneous generation, it was impossible to explain the presence of microbes.

What a certificate of mental poverty it was for Christianity that it destroyed the libraries of the ancient world! Graeco-Roman thought was made to seem like the teachings of the Devil.

Christianity set itself systematically to destroy ancient culture. What came to us was passed down by chance, or else it was a product of Roman liberal writers. Perhaps we are entirely ignorant of humanity’s most precious spiritual treasures. Who can know what was there?

The Papacy was faithful to these tactics even during recorded history. How did people behave, during the age of the great explorations, towards the spiritual riches of Central America?

In our parts of the world, the Jews would have immediately eliminated Schopenhauer, Nietzsche and Kant. If the Bolsheviks had dominion over us for two hundred years, what works of our past would be handed on to posterity? Our great men would fall into oblivion, or else they’d be presented to future generations as criminals and bandits.

I don’t believe at all in the truth of certain mental pictures that many people have of the Roman emperors. I’m sure that Nero didn’t set fire to Rome. It was the Christian-Bolsheviks who did that, just as the Commune set fire to Paris in 1871 and the Communists set fire to the Reichstag in 1932.

5th November 1941, evening

Special Guests: SS Colonel (Standartenfuehrer) Blaschkeand Dr. Richter

The great trick of Jewry was to insinuate itself fraudulently amongst the religions with a religion like Judaism, which in reality is not a religion. Simply, the Jew has put a religious camouflage over his racial doctrine. Everything he undertakes is built on this lie.

The Jew can take the credit for having corrupted the Graeco-Roman world. We can live without the Jews, but they couldn’t live without us. When the Europeans realise that, they’ll all become simultaneously aware of the solidarity that binds them together. The Jew prevents this solidarity. He owes his livelihood to the fact that this solidarity does not exist.

Night of 1st December 1941

I’m convinced that there are Jews in Germany who’ve behaved correctly—in the sense that they’ve invariably refrained from doing injury to the German idea. It’s difficult to estimate how many of them there are, but what I also know is that none of them has entered into conflict with his co-racialists in order to defend the German idea against them.

Probably many Jews are not aware of the destructive power they represent. Now, he who destroys life is himself risking death. That’s the secret of what is happening to the Jews. Whose fault is it when a cat devours a mouse? The fault of the mouse, who has never done any harm to a cat?

This destructive rôle of the Jew has in a way a providential explanation. If nature wanted the Jew to be the ferment that causes peoples to decay, thus providing these peoples with an opportunity for a healthy reaction, in that case people like St. Paul and Trotsky are, from our point of view, the most valuable. By the fact of their presence, they provoke the defensive reaction of the attacked organism. Dietrich Eckart once told me that in all his life he had known just one good Jew: Otto Weininger, who killed himself on the day when he realised that the Jew lives upon the decay of peoples.

It is remarkable that the half-caste Jew, to the second or third generation, has a tendency to start flirting again with pure Jews. But from the seventh generation onwards, it seems the purity of the Aryan blood is restored. In the long run nature eliminates the noxious elements.

13th December 1941, midday

Special Guests: Ribbentrop, Rosenberg, Goebbels, Terboven and Reichsleiter Bouhler

The war will be over one day. I shall then consider that my life’s final task will be to solve the religious problem. Only then will the life of the German native be guaranteed once and for all. I don’t interfere in matters of belief. Therefore I can’t allow churchmen to interfere with temporal affairs. The organised lie must be smashed. The State must remain the absolute master.

But Christianity is an invention of sick brains: one could imagine nothing more senseless, nor any more indecent way of turning the idea of the Godhead into a mockery.

When all is said, we have no reason to wish that the Italians and Spaniards should free themselves from the drug of Christianity. Let’s be the only people who are immunised against the disease.

14th December 1941, midday

Special Guests: Rosenberg, Bouhler, Himmler

Kerrl, with the noblest of intentions, wanted to attempt a synthesis between National Socialism and Christianity. I don’t believe the thing’s possible, and I see the obstacle in Christianity itself.

I think I could have come to an understanding with the Popes of the Renaissance. Obviously, their Christianity was a danger on the practical level—and, on the propaganda level, it continued to be a lie. But a Pope, even a criminal one, who protects great artists and spreads beauty around him, is nevertheless more sympathetic to me than the Protestant minister who drinks from the poisoned spring.

Pure Christianity—the Christianity of the catacombs—is concerned with translating the Christian doctrine into facts. It leads quite simply to the annihilation of mankind. It is merely whole-hearted Bolshevism, under a tinsel of metaphysics.

End of 1941

Tags Adolf Hitler, Christian problem (CP), Jewish problem (JP)

Axiology Christendom Demography Eschatology Ethnic cleansing Jesus Miscegenation

Blonde aunt

or:

Christian axiology, our main enemy

My (late) aunt Blanquita
Her son was my classmate
in a Mexico City
grammar school

In my life I have declined a couple of marriage proposals for the simple reason that the Mexican ladies were not pure whites. And last year I lost an internet friend, the Catholic administrator of the paleoconservative site La Sexta Redoma: a Spaniard who, when I confessed that I had just rejected one of such proposals, commented:

But you would have whitened her descendants. That is what Spaniards did in the XVI-XVIII [centuries] in Mexico.

So here we go again after half a millennia! While 16th-century Spaniards were extremely tough on Jews they were, at the same time, fairly tolerant of the natives—with Pope Paul III recognizing in 1537 that Amerindians had souls and declared them fit to marry the bachelor conquerors!

This astronomical blunder caused the mess that any racially-conscious visitor can see with his own eyes in the city where I studied grammar school with my blond cousin (Blanquita’s eldest son). I refer to the thoroughgoing mestization of Mexico, with overwhelming Indian blood over the European: the primary cause of Mexico’s backwardness and ultimate historical demise in the coming decades.

Alas, like my former friend who claims to strenuously defend the West (his blog receives many thousands of hits from very conservative Spaniards each day), Protestants are also tolerating massive miscegenation at the North of Río Grande. Some of the most devout, particularly the Evangelicals, are actually saying: “Racism is the worst sin.” A flabbergasted Paul Gottfried who has met them comments: “I don’t know why ‘racism is the worst sin,’ even in terms of the Bible.”

This suicidal behavior of both Catholics and Protestants moved me to reproduce, in my previous entry, a 10,000-word post collecting blog comments blaming Christian meta-ethics for the ongoing destruction of our gene pool. Here I will re-quote some of the phrases by Conservative Swede that in that post I gathered under the title “The Red Giant”:

Our progressivist paradigm is based on Christian ethics. The Left is all about Christian ethics. What the left-wing is doing is not destroying Western civilization, but completing and fulfilling it: what I call “The Finish of the West.” The current order is the last and terminal phase of Western Christian civilization.

Among the bloggers who claim to defend the West, Swede’s worldview strikes me as the antithesis of Tanstaafl’s point of view. Tanstaafl is perhaps the foremost critic of those who believe that westerners are committing racial and cultural suicide. It’s not suicide, Tanstaafl tell us, but homicide: the nefarious influence of the Jews in our civilization. Con Swede, on the other hand, dismisses Judaism as a truly substantial factor. He believes that Christianity’s moral grammar, and more specifically secular Christianity, is the basic etiology of Western malaise.

I believe that strictly monocausal explanations of our current predicament are myopic. At least from the religious viewpoint the etiology is basically twofold: both Christianity and Judaism are the culprits. Der Juden merely represent a very strong catalyst of a chemical reaction that had started since their emancipation by the gentiles during the French Revolution. However, since the homicidal interpretation of our problems has become almost orthodoxy in white nationalism, let’s continue to quote Swede, whose suicidal POV is virtually unknown in the white movement:

It’s the Western Christian civilization that feeds all these processes (population explosion etc.). So the Western Christian civilization is in fact the worst enemy of what I call European civilization: another reason for wanting the Western Christian civilization to go away. For the very same reason that Christian ethics abhors infanticide, [presently] it causes the population explosion in the world.

Incidentally, I’ve written a whole book on infanticide through history and the heroic role played by Christianity in the abolition of it in Europe (see e.g., here). In this year I’ll publish rest of the English translation in this blog.

But Christian ethics cannot stand the sight of little brown children dying. They must help them, or they will freak out. According to Christian ethics it is forbidden and unthinkable to think in terms of not saving every little brown child across the planet. But the consequences of this mindset are catastrophic, not only to us but also to them, as I have already explained. But since people are so programmed according to Christian ethics, what I’m saying does not seem to enter their heads. The thought is too unthinkable to be absorbed. It’s an utter taboo.

Absolutely. In fact, recently a white nationalist woman said in a very well known white nationalist radio podcast that abortion of non-whites is immoral: the opposite of what the Nazi Germans, who had revaluated Christian values, did: legalizing abortion in such cases.

This is derived from the deepest moral grammar of Christianity. The population explosion is not caused by liberalism, it is caused by Christianity in its most general form.

My emphasis above! Obviously, blaming everything on the Jews is a crude form of ideological myopia. This is why Swede believes that “the fall of the Western Christian civilization should be celebrated,” and that “this is the paradigm that stands in the way of our saviour.”

However, it must be noted that in the threaded discussion Swede got mad at me when I pointed out that the logical conclusion of his worldview would be to restore the image of Hitler and the Nazis before our brainwashed psyches. His outrage when I confessed my views surprised several commenters precisely because of the Nietzschean stance that Swede had manifested in that very thread:

It’s not until the westerners thoroughly revise their view on World War II that a change of paradigms can take place.

Strange that when I just tried to do that the Swede started to insult me. But he’s right about one thing: Christian axiology is our main enemy today. If this is so, fuck Christianity. After all, no Jew has real power in Muslim countries precisely because Islam doesn’t preach the craziest inversion of values: Love your alien neighbor, and even your enemy!

What we badly need throughout the West after the coming financial crash is what Nietzsche called the Umwertung aller Werte, the transvaluation of the most toxic Christian and Secular Christian values back to the Greek, and particularly Roman, values: precisely what Mussolini and Hitler tried to do. This is the crux in the Swede’s gospel:

With Christ as part of the equation, the Christian ethics of the Gospels became balanced. Humans were seen as imperfect and it was Christ who covered for us with his self-sacrifice. In Secular Christianity each person has to be like Jesus himself, doing self-sacrifice, since there’s no other way to realize Christian ethics. On top of that, with the Industrial Revolution and the surplus it created in our societies, we came to the point where all the good deeds of Christian ethics could finally be executed by giving off our surplus to all the poor and weak foreign people around the world: food, Western medicine, and other aid.

We should remember that our progressivist paradigm, which is always going left, is based on Christian ethics. And Christian ethics means the inversion of values. So it’s the weak that is considered good, while the strong is considered evil.

How Nietzschean (and again, the emphasis is mine)!

The only people that are guaranteed to survive until the end of days in Christianity are the Jews. Swedes, Italians etc., are of no significance whatsoever. We see all these tenets of Christianity manifested around us today: even in how the struggle for ethnic survival of the Jews is accepted within our current paradigm, while it is not accepted for the other people of our civilization.

Each ethnic group needs her great mythological narrative, starting with the birth of her people and guaranteeing their existence until the end of times. Without such a narrative the dissolvement of the ethnic group eventually becomes self-fulfilling: there’s nothing holding it together.

The Swede is not only wrong in rejecting Nazism out of hand. I’d go as far as, in all seriousness, propose that we replace the calendar era introduced by Dionysius Exiguus in the 6th century, traditionally identified with Anno Domini in reference to a Jew called Jesus (real Hebrew name: Yeshu). Instead of the conception of Yeshu, with AD counting years after his birth, the new era may use the year of 1945, when the most tragic Aryan character that ever walked the earth died and his corpse set on fire. Remember the final words of William Pierce’s masterpiece: “But it was in [that] year, according to the chronology of the Old Era—just 110 years after the [death] of the Great One—that the dream of a White world finally became a certainty.”

Leaving Christian ethics has nothing to do with becoming secular (as I explained above). To the contrary, it makes it worse! What is needed is to introduce another great mythological narrative into the minds of the Germanic people. This is the only way to replace the moral grammar of Christianity. Something with roots in our long history. This must be done by political means, by a regime with such a focus.

Which, of course, reminded me the National Socialists’ infatuation with Wagner. The Swede continues:

What I have suggested is: 1) A new great mythological narrative where our own ethnic group is given the pivotal position; 2) A constitution where citizenship is reserved for people of our ethnic group. 3) Alien ethnic groups, typically from the Third World, that do not identify with our ethnic group, will have to be removed one way or the other.

Spain’s Counter-Reformation experiment in the Americas was an utter disaster: the best refutation of the Judeo-reductionist trends in white nationalism I can think of, since the Jews were not involved in promoting massive mestization. Had the Swede’s program been implemented in the conquered Aztec Empire that my former friend mentioned—the Catholic Spaniard who ethno-suicidally advised me “to whiten her descendants”—, no brown swarms would presently inundate the streets of the town I happen to live in. However, after the dollar crashes and the world falls into chaos, what will happen to these Untermenschen? The Swede concludes:

So the concrete effect of Christian ethics here is to make the number of people that will die in starvation and suffering as high as possible once [the dollar collapse] hits (we are speaking of billions thanks to Christian ethics). Only the devil himself could think out such a brutally cruel scheme, and Christian ethics of course, in which case it’s according to the idiom “The road to hell is paved with good intentions.”

Will “billions die and we will win”? I find it hilarious that in a nationalist German blog I have been scolded by a commenter who has pointed out that I liked the final solution fantasies of a New Yorker. Hilarious I said, because it looks like we won’t need much staining of our hands with mud blood. No. As will become apparent in a forthcoming post, Mother Nature will probably wipe them out, just as the Swede predicted.

My wildest dream is that, in the future, the female inhabitants of Mexico, a nation that might revert to the name it had when pure whites were in charge—New Spain—will look like my aunt Blanquita.

Meanwhile I shall remain a bachelor…

Tags Adolf Hitler, Christian problem (CP), Jewish problem (JP), Mexico, New Spain, Transvaluation of all values

Albert Speer August Kubizek David Irving Heinrich Himmler Monologe im Führerhauptquartier Reinhard Heydrich Third Reich Zweites Buch

What is the best Hitler biography?

Post author By C .T.
Post date January 5, 2012
5 Comments on What is the best Hitler biography?

by Andrew Hamilton

I’m not a National
Socialist, but…
I have read a few
books on Hitler.

Regarding Hitler,
I agree with
Irmin Vinson:

I consider Hitler less a model to be followed than an avalanche of propaganda we must dig ourselves out from under. Never in human history has a single man received such sustained vilification, the basic effect and purpose of which has been to inhibit Whites from thinking racially and from acting in their own racial self-interest, as all other racial/ethnic groups do. Learning the truth about Hitler is a liberating experience. By the truth I mean not an idealized counter-myth to the pervasive myth of Hitler as evil incarnate, but the man himself, faults and virtues, strengths and weaknesses. (“Some Thoughts on Hitler”)

Since literally thousands of worthless books have been churned out about Der Boss, how does one sift through the massive pile of crap on the hopeful assumption that, “Hey, with all this manure, there must be a pony in here somewhere!”?

A “good” biography by my definition is an objective, truthful account, not a comic book fabrication about a lunatic, one-testicled rug chewer, or a thinly-disguised religious fable in which Hitler (= Satan/Nazis/Germans/white people) crucifies 6 million Jews (= God’s chosen people, elbowing the Lord Jesus Christ aside) by fantastic and diabolical means before efficiently employing the grisly remains to manufacture bars of soap and lampshades for the amusement of Hitler and his henchmen, or to lighten the burden of wartime rationing.

Hopefully, the book would be well-written and fun to read, as well.

If there’s a reliable bibliographical essay along these lines, I am unaware of it.

Ian Kershaw’s biography

What brought this perennial question—What is the best Hitler biography?—to mind recently was an article about English historian Sir Ian Kershaw in the Guardian (UK) newspaper asserting that the author’s two-volume, 2,000-page (prolixity is the norm in Hitler studies) biography of Hitler published to wide acclaim a decade ago, “is likely to remain the standard life for a generation.”

The biography is: Volume 1, Hitler, 1889–1936: Hubris (London: 1998), and Volume 2, Hitler, 1936–1945: Nemesis (London: 2000). A single-volume abridgement, Hitler: A Biography, appeared in 2008.

This pattern of two-volume books and abridgements, plus multiple translations, editions and printings of the same book at different times, often with different titles, continually bedevils the researcher.

Kershaw, who comes from a white, working-class background, does not inspire confidence. Among other things, he’s a knight (OBE), though he claims to be “embarrassed” by the “neo-feudal title.”

During the so-called Historikerstreit (Historians’ Dispute) in Germany from 1986 to 1989, Kershaw teamed with academic mentor Martin Broszat, an anti-German German, to publicly attack other German historians—Ernst Nolte, Andreas Hillgruber, Michael Stürmer, Joachim Fest and Klaus Hildebrand—as apologists for the German past.

“Comic Book” Titles as a Screen

One heuristic I use is to reject any book with a ridiculous or patently propagandistic title.

Using that guideline, the New York Times did Kershaw no favor when it titled its shallow reviews of his two Hitler volumes “The Devil’s Miracle Man” and “When Depravity Was Contagious,” respectively.

Examples of other self-destructive titles are The Psychopathic God: Adolf Hitler (1977; 1993), Explaining Hitler: The Search for the Origins of His Evil (1998), Hitler: The Pathology of Evil (1998), Adolf Hitler: A Chilling Tale of Propaganda as Packaged by Joseph Goebbels. (1999), Adolf Hitler: A Study in Hate (2001), and Hitler and the Nazi Leaders: A Unique Insight into Evil (2001).

Books I own

I read Konrad Heiden’s critical Der Fuehrer: Hitler’s Rise to Power (1944) in high school. Its first chapter, “Protocols of the Wise Men of Zion,” was my introduction to Alfred Rosenberg. I remember being enthralled by the book. Heiden was at least half-Jewish (his mother). He eventually fled Germany and settled in the United States, where he died in 1966. In Hitler’s War David Irving warns against reliance upon Heiden’s and several other biographies “hitherto accepted as ‘standard’ sources on Hitler” without further elaboration.

Another book I read while young is journalist William Shirer’s 1,245-page The Rise and Fall of the Third Reich: A History of Nazi Germany (1960). It sold more than 2 million copies and won the National Book Award. I read the whole thing, but with nothing like the zest I read Der Fuehrer. Unfortunately, Shirer’s work is empirically and ideologically flawed.

Robert Payne, author of The Life and Death of Adolf Hitler (1973), was a freelance writer, not an academic or journalist. He was enormously prolific. I looked him up in Contemporary Authors and learned that he authored over 110 novels, biographies, and histories. If he began at age 20, he wrote (and published) more than two books per year until he died at age 72. Evidently his pace exacted a price on accuracy. Besides purveying conventional ideological and racial animus, the biography contains glaring factual errors, some very big indeed.

Two spurious memoirs frequently cited by mainstream historians are Hermann Rauschning’s Conversations with Hitler (1940) (US title: The Voice of Destruction and Fritz Thyssen’s I Paid Hitler (1943) (neither of which I own), both published by a Hungarian Jew, Churchill confidant, and world federalist named Emery Reves.

Rauschning’s fabricated Conversations with Hitler has been relied upon by William L. Shirer, Robert Payne, Jewish historians Leon Poliakov, Gerhard Weinberg, and Nora Levin, Alan Bullock’s Hitler: A Study in Tyranny (1952) (the first comprehensive biography, Bullock’s Hitler dominated scholarship for years; it also possesses the kind of title that’s a red flag to me; I do not own it), and Joachim C. Fest’s Hitler (Germ. 1973, Eng. trans. 1974), among others. For background on this see Mark Weber, “Rauschning’s Phony Conversations With Hitler: An Update,” Journal of Historical Review (Winter 1985–86), pp. 499 ff.

Nevertheless, as David Irving points out, “Historians are quite incorrigible, and will quote any apparently primary source [memoirs, diaries, autobiographies, etc.] no matter how convincingly its false pedigree is exposed.” When “serious” biographers rely upon works like Rauschning’s, their books should be approached cautiously, if at all.

Fest’s Hitler, the first major biography since Alan Bullock’s in 1952, and the first ever by a German author, became the bestselling book in Germany upon its publication; the next year it was translated into 17 languages. A prominent German journalist, broadcaster, and anti-Nazi, Fest was one of a troika of Establishment editors who re-wrote, or co-wrote, German armaments minister Albert Speer’s famous memoir, Inside the Third Reich (Germ. 1969; Eng. trans. 1970). (Speer was imprisoned at Spandau from 1946 to 1966.) The book, a worldwide bestseller, made a fortune for Speer and earned widespread praise for its disavowal of Hitler. According to David Irving, Speer had a secret agreement with his German publisher, Ullstein Verlag, to pay 25% of all royalties and proceeds to the State of Israel.

About Fest’s Hitler Irving wrote, “Stylistically, Fest’s German was good; but the old legends were trotted out afresh, polished to an impressive gleam of authority.”

As noted above, Fest fought on the conservative side of Germany’s Historian’s Dispute in the 1980s, denying the “singularity” of the Holocaust (which, however, he believed in). His Wikipedia entry provides lengthy quotations that strike a contemporary reader as heretical.

Finally, a friend kindly gave me his copy of Timothy W. Ryback’s Hitler’s Private Library: The Books That Shaped His Life (2008), which is both interesting and informative.

Recommendations of a dissident: William Pierce’s National Vanguard Books Catalog (December 1988)

I’ve often used this valuable reference over the years. It is essentially an elaborate college syllabus. Subdivisions include “European Prehistory, Archaeology, & Folkways,” “European Legend, Myth, and Religion,” “History of Western Civilization,” “Western Art,” and so on. Its 125 carefully-selected titles provide in-depth knowledge and a comprehensive overview of the white race and Western civilization.

With the exception of Mein Kampf, only three Hitler biographies are included in Pierce’s catalog, none of them standard ones. Two are: Heinz A. Heinz, Germany’s Hitler (London: 1934), and Hans Baur (Hitler’s personal pilot), Hitler at My Side (1986).

The third, Otto Wagener’s Hitler–Memoirs of a Confidant (1985), was written in 1946 when Wagener was a British prisoner. It was not published until many years after his death by the late Yale historian Henry Ashby Turner, Jr. Pierce described the book as “By far the most informative and positive memoir by a confidant of Hitler since August Kubizek’s The Young Hitler I Knew” ([German 1953, English 1955], another memoir NV had previously sold).

A notable feature of Wagener’s memoir is that, according to historian Gordon Craig’s New York Times review, it strongly emphasizes Hitler’s pro-British views and depicts the Führer as “an ‘unwitting prisoner’ of Göring, Goebbels and Himmler, powerless to prevent his true intentions from being distorted by evil associates for their own criminal purposes”—claims by an eyewitness that parallel David Irving’s controversial views.

Mein Kampf (My Struggle) and Zweites Buch (Second Book)

Though not biographies, strictly speaking, I own 1950s-era drugstore paperback copies of Hitler’s Secret Conversations, 1941–1944 (1953) and Felix Gilbert, ed. and trans., Hitler Directs His War (1950).

According to David Irving, the transcripts published as Hitler’s Secret Conversations, 1941–1944 are genuine. (Though Irving doesn’t say it, the book he discusses, Hitler’s Table Talk, 1941–1944, is the same as mine, but with a different title—I warned you it’s complicated!)

I recommend clicking on the preceding link to get a feel for how important it is to understand the provenance and reliability—the evidentiary basis—of even “mainstream” books and texts you might otherwise assume are problem-free. To his credit, Irving is keenly aware of the difficulties posed by mainstream books and official documents housed in archives. They cannot simply be accepted at face value.

I should nevertheless quote the following from Irving’s web page:

The Table Talks’ content is more important in my view than Hitler’s Mein Kampf, and possibly even more than his Zweites Buch (1928). It is unadulterated Hitler. He expatiates on virtually every subject under the sun, while his generals and private staff sit patiently and listen, or pretend to listen, to the monologues.

Along with Sir Nevile Henderson’s gripping 1940 book Failure of a Mission: Berlin, 1937-1939, this was one of the first books that I read, as a twelve year old: Table Talk makes for excellent bedtime reading, as each “meal” occupies only two or three pages of print. My original copy, purloined from my twin brother Nicholas, was seized along with the rest of my research library in May 2002.

He adds: “Ignore the 1945 ‘transcripts’ published by Hugh Trevor-Roper in the 1950s as Hitler’s Last Testament [The Testament of Adolf Hitler—Ed.]—they are fake.” That book purports to be Martin Bormann’s notes on Hitler’s final bunker conversations.

Mein Kampf was originally published in German in two volumes, the first in 1925 and the second in 1927. English translations combine both volumes into one.

I read Mein Kampf thoroughly in 1988, as my well-marked copy indicates. (The fact that it was ’88 is coincidental!) However, the book did not have an impact on me intellectually or emotionally. I wasn’t a national socialist then (much less a National Socialist) and am not one now. Nor do I view Hitler as a quasi-sacred figure.

Part of the reason for the book’s lack of effect may be due to the particular translation I purchased. In the original German the book was a runaway bestseller and the source of much of Hitler’s private fortune. Even acknowledging the political factors involved, one cannot dismiss the possibility that it reads better in German than in its English translations. The quality of a translation determines how well a book “travels” from one language to another. Both fidelity to the original (accuracy) and transmission of the spirit or feel are necessary. I have experienced translations that capture the originals marvelously, and others where even classic works appear dead on the page.

I bought my copy of Mein Kampf without prior research and ended up purchasing the 1939 Hurst and Blackett translation by James Murphy.

Murphy, a former Irish Catholic priest, was hired by the German government to make the official English translation, but the project was scuttled after a dispute. Murphy continued the translation nevertheless, and it appeared independently in Britain in 1939.

I later learned that many English-speaking National Socialists prefer Ralph Manheim’s 1943 Houghton Mifflin translation (which I have not read). It is possible that Manheim better catches the spirit of Hitler’s original, because he was also the translator of Konrad Heiden’s Der Fuehrer which so enthralled me as a boy.

In his catalog, William Pierce categorized Mein Kampf as “semi-autobiographical,” calling it “a beacon and a guide to every healthy soul in this dark age, to everyone who seeks understanding and light.” He described the differences between the English translations this way:

Manheim translation: Accurate, but marred by anti-Hitler introductions and derogatory footnotes.

Murphy translation: No hostile comments, but the translation is not as faithful to the original text.

After Mein Kampf, Hitler wrote what has become known as the Zweites Buch (Second Book) (1928), an extension and elaboration of his foreign policy aims. It also sets forth his views of the Soviet Union, France, Great Britain, and the United States. The book was written to clarify his foreign policy objectives for the German public after the 1928 elections. However, his publisher advised him that, from a sales point of view, the time was not propitious for bringing it out. By 1930 Hitler had decided that it revealed too much about his intentions, so it was never published.

In 1935 it was locked away at his order in a safe inside an air raid shelter. There it remained until the fall of Germany in 1945, when it was discovered by the American invaders. Its authenticity was reportedly vouched for by Josef Berg and Telford Taylor.

In 1958 the manuscript of the Zweites Buch, having again fallen into obscurity, was rediscovered in American archives by Jewish historian Gerhard Weinberg. Weinberg, whose family left Germany for the United States in 1938, is the author of numerous anti-German academic books and articles and a vigorous Holocaust promoter. He is Shapiro Senior Scholar in Residence at the U.S. Holocaust Memorial Museum. Weinberg strongly supported the ethnic cleansing of Germans from Eastern Europe after WWII, which resulted in an enormous number of white deaths.

Unable to find a US publisher for the book, Weinberg turned to a fellow Jew in Germany, Hans Rothfels; a German edition of the Second Book was issued in 1961. (A pirated copy translated into English appeared in New York the following year.) An authoritative English edition did not appear until 40 years later: Gerhard L. Weinberg, ed., Hitler’s Second Book: The Unpublished Sequel to Mein Kampf (New York: Enigma Books, 2003).

Because I had never heard of this book until 2003, I thought the whole story a bit strange. It is unclear how many scholars apart from Weinberg have examined the original manuscript, or what methods of authentication were used. However, David Irving sold the 2003 edition at one of his lectures, and has indicated at least implicitly on several occasions (some quoted here) that he accepts the book as genuine.

David Irving

David Irving’s Hitler’s War is interesting on several levels.

An independent, non-academic historian, Irving has been victimized to an unimaginable degree over many decades by the Jewish power structure, including a global panoply of government agencies, apparatchiks, courts, police, and academic and media shills eternally at its beck and call. His suffering is mind-numbing proof of the bizarre, Orwellian world we live in. Blacklisted and bankrupted, his personal prosperity and former high reputation are in ruins.

His book, as usual, is long: 985 pages (2002 ed.), and again there is the thorny problem of multiple volumes and editions of a single biography floating around. Hitler’s War was first published in 1977, and its prequel, The War Path, in 1978. In 1991 a revised 1-volume edition incorporating both books was issued as Hitler’s War. In 2002, a revised “Millennium Edition” was published under the title Hitler’s War and the War Path, incorporating the latest documents from American, British, and former Soviet archives. This is the one I own.

In an introductory Note Irving states that in the Millennium Edition he has not revised his earlier views, but merely refined the narrative and reinforced the documentary basis of his former assertions.

Famed for working almost exclusively from official archival documents, diaries, private letters, and other original source material, his method has the downside of somewhat impeding smooth narrative flow. However, this is compensated for by the rich source material. Almost incredibly, Irving admits:

I have dipped into Mein Kampf but never read it: it was written only partly by Hitler, and that is the problem. More important are Hitlers Zweites Buch, (1928) which he wrote in his own hand; and Hitler’s Table Talk, daily memoranda which first Heinrich Heim (Martin Bormann’s adjutant, whom I interviewed) and then Henry Picker wrote down at his table side, and the similar table talks recorded by Werner Koeppen (which I was the first to exploit, in Hitler’s War).

In his introduction, notes, and on his website, Irving reveals the care necessary in dealing with even supposedly reliable documentary materials, never mind historians’ work (which he typically ignores). German memoirs, for example, have been extensively tampered with by publishers, Allied authorities, and others. When using them Irving attempts to work from the original typescripts rather than published texts. Even documents contained in government archives have been altered, removed, or otherwise manipulated. His many discussions about such issues are highly instructive.

Irving is not a “Holocaust denier” as Jews claim, though he does not believe in every jot and tittle of their religious narrative as everyone else does.

One of Irving’s most controversial claims is that “antisemitism” in Germany was “a powerful vote catching force,” “an evil steed” that Hitler had no compunction in riding to the chancellorship in 1933. But once in power, “he dismounted and paid only lip service to that part of his Party’s creed.” The “evil gangsters” under him, however—Heinrich Himmler, Reinhard Heydrich, and Joseph Goebbels—continued to ride it even when Hitler dictated differently.

Although Irving maintains that a Jewish Holocaust of sorts did occur (unfortunately, he is exceedingly vague, evasive, and even contradictory about its details, and denies any interest in it), he says that Hitler’s evil henchmen dreamed it up and carried it out entirely without Hitler’s knowledge or approval. Thus, while Irving is a Hitlerphile, he is extremely harsh toward “bad guys” like Himmler (in particular), Heydrich, and Goebbels. The reader may perhaps see how Irving’s central thesis is hard to… accept.

Irving has published a critical biography of Goebbels and is currently working on one about Himmler. Himmler’s elderly daughter Gudrun has publicly expressed her fear that Irving will perform a hatchet job on her father in an attempt to salvage his (Irving’s) reputation.

In fairness to Irving, Jewish historian Felix Gilbert, editor of Hitler Directs His War (above), wrote that “during the war, Hitler cut himself off from all his former associates and interests and closed himself in at his headquarters with his military advisers. The center of Hitler’s activities became then the daily conferences on the military situation.” This suggests possible great autonomy on the part of Himmler and others, at least after the inception of the war. Irving, however, tends to emphasize disloyalty, deceit, and manipulation by Himmler and others rather than Hitler’s isolation or distraction. Still, as previously noted, Otto Wagener’s Hitler: Memoirs of a Confidant also presents a picture of Hitler’s relationship to his top lieutenants even in the early days of the regime that is similar to Irving’s.

The most important thing to note is that Hitler’s War is not a biography per se, but a military history of WWII from Hitler’s perspective. My primary interest, however, apart from biography, is the racial, political, philosophical, and social aspects of Hitler’s Germany rather than the conduct of the war.

John Toland’s Hitler

La Crosse, Wisconsin-born John W. Toland is another independent scholar who wrote a major biography of Hitler: Adolf Hitler: The Definitive Biography. Something of an intellectual renegade in his later years, he managed to stay beneath the radar screen of controversy. His books remain popular and highly regarded. His best-known book, The Rising Sun: The Decline and Fall of the Japanese Empire, 1936–1945 (1970), won the Pulitzer Prize for General Nonfiction. Based upon extensive original interviews with high Japanese officials who survived the war, it was the first book in English to tell the history of the war in the Pacific from the Japanese rather than the American point of view. (Toland married a Japanese woman.)

Toland’s mildly controversial Infamy: Pearl Harbor and Its Aftermath (1982) offered a quasi-revisionist view of the Roosevelt Administration’s scapegoating of the Pearl Harbor commanders and subsequent cover-up. The Pearl Harbor book led to Toland’s association with the Holocaust revisionist Institute for Historical Review (IHR), at whose meeting he spoke.

After Jewish terrorists firebombed the Institute on the Fourth of July, 1984, destroying its warehouse and inventory of books (American authorities “never found”—or punished—the perpetrators), Toland wrote to the IHR:

When I learned of the torching of the office-warehouse of the Institute for Historical Review I was shocked. And when I heard no condemnation of this act of terrorism on television and read no protests in the editorial pages of our leading newspapers or from the halls of academia, I was dismayed and incensed. Where are those defenders of democracy who over the years have so vigorously protested the burning of books by Hitler? Are they only summer soldiers of democracy, selective in their outrage? I call on all true believers in democracy to join me in public denunciation of the recent burning of books in Torrance, California.

Toland’s Adolf Hitler was based upon a great deal of original research, including previously unpublished documents, diaries, notes, photographs, and interviews with Hitler’s colleagues and associates. I have had difficulty identifying a good copy of the biography for sale on Amazon due to the headache of multiple editions and reprints I mentioned earlier.

As near as I can determine, the initial publication was Adolf Hitler, 2 vols. (Garden City, New York: Doubleday, 1976). However, sellers often list it for sale on Amazon while really having only one volume (which one is usually undeterminable) in stock. On the other hand, one seller informed me that he checked his 1976 edition in the warehouse, and it appeared to be a complete book in one volume. My impression is that the reprint (I assume it is unrevised), Adolf Hitler: The Definitive Biography (Doubleday, 1992), is the same book in a single volume.

Toland’s biography was well-received by both reviewers and the public. In his autobiography Toland wrote that he earned little money from his Pulitzer Prize-winning The Rising Sun, but was set for life thanks to the earnings from Adolf Hitler.

Patrick Buchanan penned a column about the book in 1977, after which he was widely condemned for “praising Hitler.” Daniel Weiss of the Virginia Quarterly Review wrote that “In some respects the Hitler who emerges is almost too human, too normal.”

Mark Weber, director of the Institute for Historical Review and a longtime WWII revisionist who reads German, writes:

I’m sometimes asked which biography of Hitler I think is best, or which I recommend. In my view, the best single biography of Hitler, and the one I most often recommend, is the one by John Toland, Adolf Hitler. It’s especially good in helping the reader to understand Hitler’s personality and outlook. Kershaw’s biography is detailed, but it’s also very slanted and leaves out a lot.

It would be a mistake to assume that Weber’s recommendation is the result of Toland’s brief connection with the IHR. Adolf Hitler was written several years before that relationship developed. Moreover, in 1977, when David Irving offered a thousand pound reward to anyone who could produce a single wartime document showing that Hitler knew anything about the Holocaust, Toland published an emotional appeal in Der Spiegel urging his fellow historians to refute Irving.

It is unlikely that Toland’s book is “pro-Hitler.” Certainly, reviewers have not attacked it as such.

Conclusion

I guess I’ll go with Toland’s biography, evidently the most objective, despite owning several others instead. Although I’ve only scratched the surface, it is apparent that enormous effort is required to merely survey the field before diving in to actually get a handle on The Most Evil Man Who Ever Lived.

And what is the likely outcome of such an effort? Well, David Irving, who has spent the better part of a lifetime studying the Führer, concluded:

What is the result of twenty years’ toiling in the archives? Hitler will remain an enigma, however hard we burrow. Even his intimates realised that they hardly knew him. General Alfred Jodl, his closest strategic adviser, wrote in his Nuremberg cell on March 10, 1946: “I ask myself, did you ever really know this man at whose side you led such a thorny and ascetic existence? To this very day I do not know what he thought or knew or really wanted.”

_____________________

Fifteen comments about this article can be read at Counter-Currents Publishing.

Tags Adolf Hitler, Biography, History

Alice Miller Child abuse

Fallen Leaves’ latest post

Post author By C .T.
Post date November 16, 2011

For my former friends who stayed behind when I came into the camp of the nationalists who fight for elemental survival, nothing has been more incomprehensible than my infatuation for Hitler and National Socialism after my awakening. Two weeks after my big mentor, the Swiss psychologist Alice Miller died last year, in my diary I wrote:

“I don’t believe anymore that Miller was the most important person of the last century, when her most important books were published. Now I believe that the example to imitate is none other than Hitler… In one of my classic long walks in the night I realized that my mind had changed.”

On the other hand, in the very preface of my magnum opus Whispering Leaves I confess—again, my translation—: “It’s true that, of those unheard of stages, Alice Miller was the most significant influence for this work.”

The above apparently contradictory statements moved me to settle accounts with the first of Miller’s books that I read, Por Tu Propio Bien, literally For Your Own Good though the original German title, Am Anfang war Erziehung (1980) means “In the beginning was the education,” which in my Spanish translation contains a 53-page chapter about Hitler.

I simply had to settle accounts with this chapter. It’s something that I owe to those nationalists who, in the future, will need to become familiar with child abuse studies so that the mistakes that moved adult children (formerly abused by their parents) to hate their parents’ culture not be repeated, especially in the coming ethnostate.

In Fallen Leaves, my new blog, I’ve just added the first post criticizing Alice Miller’s nonsense about Hitler. It contains 9,000-word excerpts from the book Esau’s Tears explaining the historical milieu that culminated in what I’d call a healthy dose of anti-Semitism among the German people.

Tags Adolf Hitler

Der Ring des Nibelungen Literature Lord of the Rings Richard Wagner

Wagner’s wisdom

One Ring to rule them all,
One Ring to find them
One Ring to bring them all and
in the darkness bind them
In the Land of Mordor where the Shadows lie.

This piece, that originally appeared on The Occidental Observer (here), is reproduced below minus a couple of sentences mentioning the 9/11 attacks:

Lords of the Ring

by Michael Colhaze

Many moons ago and for a few years only, I wore my locks long and sported colourful garb and roamed the psychedelic haunts of Paris, London or Amsterdam, usually holding a joint in one hand while employing the other to underline with languid gestures my latest concept of how to bring instant peace and love to the world. As for my fellow freaks and hippies, most subsisted on very little, at least money-wise, but nearly all had pets, the latter named frequently after a brand of heroes much en vogue during those innocent times. For cats, Galadriel stood high on the agenda, also Arwen and Legolas. In Amsterdam my next-door neighbour, a middle-aged lady with henna-dyed hair, flowing dresses and tinkling bells around one fat ankle, owned a huge tomcat called Gollum. When he was one day run over by a lorry, she came and cried bitterly into my lap. I did my best to comfort her, though secretly rejoiced because the cunning bastard, nomen est omen, used to be a veritable bane for the local sparrows and blackbirds, and long since had I weighed means of abandoning him in a far-away place without coming under suspicion. As for dogs, I remember a Frodo, Bilbo and Pippin, also one Boromir, him a mighty Leonberger and the gentlest fellow I’ve ever met.

J.R.R. Tolkien

Which gives you an idea of how much Tolkien’s arrant epos was on our mind during those happy years. Wherever you came, you found in the bookshelves from cardboard boxes or orange crates at least one copy, usually a weighty paperback falling apart from much use. Walls were hung with coloured maps of Middle Earth, and Gandalf was a household name for anything from an Underground publication to a short-lived artistic society. Depending on fantasy and imagination, and perhaps also on the daily cannabis consume, an inordinate number of people identified with a member of the Fellowship, or wished fervently for the return of the King, or would have retired into the Shire without looking back even once.

On the other hand there were some, myself included, who had enjoyed the book but found it somewhat lacking in psychological depth. It was, after all, a monumental canvas painted largely in black and white, with protagonists either amazingly valiant, handsome and noble or the absolute opposite, namely unspeakably ugly and wicked. Which made the tale rather predictable and deprived it of the complex emotional touch that otherwise would have found a way into the heart. Still, Tolkien’s power of imagination cannot and will not be denied, and for his excuse it must be said that he relied much on the High Germanic saga like Edda or the Nibelungen, and that those were on the whole magnificent exemplifications of the eternal battle between Good and Evil. A battle where tads of intellectual embroidery might have seemed misplaced.

Yet under the heroic plainness hid an aspect that intrigued me and many of my friends considerably, namely the deeper meaning behind the fantasy. Because, as we all agreed, there had to be one since the tale was simply too carefully thought out to be without one. Never mind that the ghastly Sauron, title figure and main protagonist aiming to enslave the world and mankind particularly, didn’t turn up personally during the proceedings. But his presence is overwhelmingly felt, and he had to have an equivalent within the recent history of man, and as such a name that made sense.

First in line was of course Adolf Hitler, temporal saviour of a betrayed, ruined and starving Germany robbed naked by the Versailles victors, but for the rest and according to the New York Times the biggest blackguard ever to set foot on our sacred earth. Next came good old Joe Stalin, mass murderer par excellence supported by a closely knit clan of henchmen as described and defined by the great Solzhenitsyn in his Gulag and Two Hundred Years Together. Then the fabulous Chairman Mao, who most likely holds the Guinness record for accumulated corpses worldwide. And finally the inventors of the nuke, embodied by one Robert Oppenheimer who paid, just like that abominable fraud Freud, with lung cancer and a slow and painful death for his sins.

But try as you might, none of the above really made sense. One reason was of course that Tolkien had begun The Lord of the Rings already in the mid-thirties, long before those villains blossomed medially into full bloom.

As to the ring itself, what kind of power did it exactly wield? It was, this we know, potent enough to enslave the lesser ones, but not all-powerful. Because long ago Isildur King of Gondor, in a desperate attempt to stem the advance of the Orcs, had offered battle to Sauron their chieftain. And in a one-to-one succeeded with God’s help to cut off the latter’s hand which bore the ring. A feat that routed the Dark One and his hosts, at least for a while and until he tried another grab at the hideous thing.

My understanding of Tolkien’s political leanings is scant. He himself has, as far as I know, refused to give any clues. But there are hints. It is rumoured that he considered General Franco rather emphatically as the saviour of Catholic Spain, a view much at odds with contemporaries like that heartless hunter, boozer and scribbler Hemingway and his liberal chums. One of Tolkien’s close friends, the writer and poet Roy Campbell, had witnessed the atrocities committed by Marxist death squads against priests and nuns in Córdoba and described them in vivid detail. What makes him interesting in this context is that he also contributed articles to The European, a fascist gazette run by Lady Diana Mosley, wife of Sir Oswald and, as James Lees-Milne described her, “the nearest thing to Botticelli’s Venus as I have ever seen.” Ezra Pound, among others, was a fellow contributor to The European.

The latter should have rung a bell, but didn’t. Nearly twenty years had to pass before bits and pieces fell into place, at least within my much limited perception. One was an exhibition, the other a production of Wagner’s Ring.

The exhibition was staged in Frankfurt by one of the more affluent art establishments, meaning that decent Fizz, snacks with French pâté and a few interesting people could be expected on the eve of its grand opening. Which was the reason, some curiosity apart, why an old friend took me there. Both of us have no truck with Modern art and knew the artist only vaguely by name. Lucien Freud it was, grandson of you-know-who, and his hams about as uplifting as a dead rat under the sink. As we stood in front of one [painting], an uncouth male nude reclining on a smutty bedstead with legs spread wide open while scratching reddish genitals dangling above a cavernous anus, my friend cast a look around and said: “Grand Orc of the Crap Arts! Never had any sense of beauty, and never will!”

A remark that transported me immediately into a more sunny and innocent past, but also made me decline any comment. Because this was after all Germany, a country ruled by politically correct criminals that long since have booted the freedom of expression as laid down in the constitution, and who slap you for years on end into the cooler if you dare to insist on it.

Damned be the Ring I forged with a Curse!
Though the Gold gave me unlimited Might
Now its Sorcery has brought me Ruin!

The Rhinegold, 3rd Scene

About a week later I saw, and heard, Richard Wagner’s Ring of the Nibelung. I have no intention, and lack the intellectual acumen, to give this masterwork its proper due. George Bernhard Shaw, in his essay The Perfect Wagnerite, has summed it up like this: “Only those of a wider consciousness can follow it breathlessly, seeing in it the tragedy of human history and the whole horror of the dilemma from which the world is shrinking today.”

Dilemma? Horror? Shaw did not enter into detail as to the above, but the composer himself was more forthcoming.

You ask me about Jewry. I felt a long-repressed hatred for them, and this hatred is as necessary to my nature as gall is to blood. An opportunity arose when their damnable scribbling annoyed me most, and so I broke forth at last. It seems to have made a tremendous impression, and that pleases me for I really wanted only to frighten them in this manner. Because it is certain that not our princes, but the bankers and Philistines are nowadays our masters… [Correspondence between Wagner and Liszt, Vol. I, p.145, 18/4/1851]

He did however not intend, as stated very clearly elsewhere, to blame the whole tribe, just as you and I wouldn’t consider every Italian automatically a member of the Cosa Nostra.

Richard Wagner

As to the tremendous impression, this is how it commences. Namely at the very bottom of Germany’s mighty river Rhine. There a trove of gold lays embedded in a reef, glinting and gleaming mysteriously in the sunlight that filters through the timeless waves. Beautiful mermaids guard it on orders of their father, enjoying its dazzling radiance, cajoling and wriggling their lovely bodies in the bright reflection. Until one Alberich crawls out of the deep, a stunted Nibelung and Son of the Night who beholds the maids with greedy eyes. When he tries to seduce them, they only laugh, pull his beard and taunt him. Enraged, he asks about the significance of the gold. Carelessly they tell him that unlimited Power to rule the World is in store for the one who will forge a Ring out of the precious metal. But, they also warn him, this feat is only possible if he renounces forever the Power of Love. It takes Alberich only a moment to make up his mind.

The World as heirloom would I gain!
And if I cannot have Love
Might I not cunningly extort Lust?
The Light will I extinguish for you
The Gold will I tear from the reef
And forge the avenging Ring!
Let the Waves be my witness:
Forever have I cursed love!

He rips the gold from the rocks and forges the Ring to rule the World with cunning and brute force—and of course without Love.

“My Ring and Wagner’s were round, but there the resemblance ceases!” scoffed Tolkien rather maliciously after his book had been published in the mid-fifties. Which is so transparent a denial that it seems almost laughable. Shaw’s aforementioned essay The Perfect Wagnerite, nearly of book-length, much acclaimed and widely read, must have been known in detail to Tolkien as well. Because his Ring and Wagner’s are identical in theme and essence, twins in fact if only in a different quality of clothing. Meaning that the former, compared to Wagner’s peerless magnum opus, is over-large and very entertaining, but not really a masterpiece of literature in the classical sense. Interesting might be that Tolkien uses words like Mordor or Sauron, clearly derived from the German Mord, or murder, and Sau, or sow. Though his claim that his own name derived from the German tollkuehn, meaning extremely foolhardy, seems unlikely since it doesn’t exist as a family name.

As to the deeper meaning in both cases, it is important to know that the one Ring of Power has no magical potentials as we understand them. It cannot destroy enemy armies simply by an order of its bearer. It cannot make you fly. It cannot stop the flow of time. It can’t even prevent you from getting wet if it rains. It can make you invisible, true, but that is just an illusion. And you’d still get wet in any case. So what is it really?

It really is only GOLD! And isn’t that enough to rule the world?

For many of those who had witnessed the last decades of the great European Empires, a reign of peace and general improvement that ended abruptly and horribly with World War One, the era afterwards must have seemed like the proverbial devaluation of all values. Because the bankers and Philistines, already so powerful in Wagner’s times, had by now metastasized out of all proportion. Germany, down on its knees, was hardest hit. During the ill-fated and debt-ridden Weimar Republic the country’s capital, Berlin, boasted 115 banking institutions of which 112 were Jewish-owned. The same ratio was true for innumerable cabarets and brothels where girls and boys as young as ten years old sold their famished bodies to the new caste of money acrobats. As to the banks, they used the country’s catastrophic finances to their advantage and tricked and forced the starving population out of their assets, be it shares, shops, houses, farmland, factories or newspapers, until half of Germany was in the hands of a very few. The same happened, though much less drastically, in much of the Western World and resulted finally in the cataclysmic Black Friday. An exercise, as the Orc-faced Robert Fuld of formerly Lehman Bros. has informed us so brazenly, where we ruin a national economy and pick up the bits and pieces for a song.

Now it must be remembered that in those years public opinion was on the whole far less brainwashed than today. No Holocaust had yet been invented to slap down undesirable critics, no worldwide Media Mafia could tell you convincingly that a crock of shit is a pot of gold. Thus in many of the national and international gazettes, accounts of thefts, crimes and injustices abounded, backed up with caricatures of the cruel and greedy Jew.

Accounts that surely have been observed and considered by Tolkien as well. Therefore it seems highly plausible that the Ring he began to forge in his mind during the early Thirties wasn’t so very different from the one Wagner had invented a hundred years earlier. Particularly if we remember a rather interesting detail, namely that indeed one Aragorn strode out of the wild and re-forged the sword that was broken. A man not of royal descent, it is true, but some kind of Mahdi or Sent-One, as Carl Gustav Jung has called him. Very powerful, a great orator, fearless too, and immediately setting to work and succeeding, almost overnight, to break the Ring’s terrible stranglehold. A feat he brought about by throwing worthless paper money out of the window and replacing it with barter based on real goods and honest work.

Well, we know what became of him and his folks, and how dearly they paid for an attempt that endangered the supremacy of Sauron’s banking institutions worldwide. The latter regrouped, giving his Ring full play, and Germany’s ancient cities and their innocent inhabitants, millions of them, perished in a Firestorm of unimaginable magnitude and barbarity. A sad moment in our great Christian European history, you will agree, and its final curtain fittingly drawn by one of its greatest conductors, Herbert von Karajan, who performed on the eve of Berlin’s destruction the Ring’s last episode, Twilight of the Gods.

As for the Sent-One, there comes a day when he will be assessed more objectively and not just demonised out of all proportion. Some of the most hideous accusations levelled against him might crumble like a house of cards in a cloud of dust about as big as the [WTC collapse]. Which could result in two schools of thought, namely one where he remains indeed a villain, and another that pronounces him the most tragic character that ever walked the earth. Him and his people. As for myself, I still have to make up my mind.

As for Tolkien, nearly twenty years went by between the Ring’s first written page and its publication. A time span that radically changed the face of the world, including the book market. Which ended up, to a large part and small wonder, in Sauron’s hands as well. Thus it doesn’t come as a surprise if Sauron’s chronicler got somewhat mum and choose to refute any familiarity, let alone indebtedness, with and to his German forbear. And so removed any ideological obstacles and cleared the way for a tremendous literary success.

A success most certainly deserved, with the one little setback that we will never know what kind of Secret Fire the old wizard Gandalf the Grey has been serving, and which he so mightily evoked when he smote the Bridge of Khazad-Dùm from under the Balrog’s fiery feet. The latter an intriguing name, particularly if you keep in mind that Baal is the Canaanite god of fertility who demanded human sacrifices, and Rog the Hindi word for malady.

As for the rest of the world, the question is of course of how far the Lords of the Ring have succeeded to enslave us. Logically speaking, and seeing their immeasurable wealth and nearly unlimited influence, they should have long since consolidated the realm. Which seems indeed the case in most Western countries where presidents, prime ministers and chancellors are their obedient marionettes. Ring Wraiths, Tolkien has called them fittingly. Men and women like you and me, but empty-eyed. Outer shells of their former selves who command us to abandon our morals and artistic heritance, fight proxy wars for their masters, pay any amount of money into their purse, and generally order us to be at their service whenever it pleases them.

Yet something went badly wrong.

To begin with, the Shadows have been torn from the Land of Mordor, a mysterious region shrouded in deep secrecy for hundreds of years, but now glaringly illuminated. So much so that its schemes and crimes are every day more clearly observed and understood, be it the corruption of politicians, the doling out of jobs to foreign countries, the true intent behind globalism, the giant thefts, the resulting economical upheavals, the unspeakable atrocities in the occupied territories, the bungled assassinations, to name but a few.

Next come the Ring Wraiths, perhaps Tolkien’s finest invention. Enablers, Paul Gottfried has called them, and deems them worse than their criminal masters. Men and women who once possessed Christian souls and knew about the Power of Love, but sold both for thirty pieces of gold to forge their own insignificant rings. Trinkets that serve for a few brief years to ride the crest of power until a new contender wins the upper hand and sends them packing. Which is usually sweetened with honours and compliments to ease the approaching twilight years, a time when the ghosts and corpses of the past begin to whisper in the dark and the hour of reckoning draws close, slowly but inevitably.

Today this kind of sugar-coating can have a sour aftertaste, due to an unforeseen invention called the Internet which markedly diminished the control of the Media Mafia and its sniffing, lying, cajoling, mudslinging lackeys. That is why the Bushes and Blairs of this world have become lepers instead of paragons, with motions underway to hold them responsible for their crimes, including the death of countless women and children and that of many fine soldiers whose intentionally poor equipment has prolonged the conflict to this day.

Finally the Dark Lords themselves.

Those who have already entered the twilight years, like the one on top of this little essay [George Soros – I have omitted the images of the original article], watch with silent horror how the mountains of gold are seeping like water through their fingers, leaving them empty-handed and with nothing to bargain on Judgement Day. As for the others, still springy and enterprising, it is said they are preparing for the ultimate Armageddon with their nukes, viruses, bacteria, cheque books, connections and what not. And perhaps they do, because they see that the world has tired of them, of their lies and extortions. But if they do, they’ll have to fight themselves for a change and not let others do the dirty work. Which will result, as a kind of divine retaliation and since they are so few, in the final destruction of the Ring and the utter defeat of its forgers.

Because once, long ago, when tempted by a hoard of gold deep in the River Rhine, they made the wrong choice and… forever cursed the Power of Love.

Tags Adolf Hitler, Jewish problem (JP), Materialism / capitalism

Christendom Conservatism Joseph Goebbels Real men

Linder’s Weltanschauung

“Why so hard!”—said to the diamond one day the charcoal; “are we then not near relatives?”—

Why so soft? O my brethren; thus do I ask you: are ye then not—my brethren?

Why so soft, so submissive and yielding? Why is there so much negation and abnegation in your hearts? Why is there so little fate in your looks?

And if ye will not be fates and inexorable ones, how can ye one day—conquer with me?

And if your hardness will not glance and cut and chip to pieces, how can ye one day—create with me?

For the creators are hard. And blessedness must it seem to you to press your hand upon millenniums as upon wax,—

—Blessedness to write upon the will of millenniums as upon brass,—harder than brass, nobler than brass. Entirely hard is only the noblest.

This new table, O my brethren, put I up over you: Become hard!—

Thus spake Zarathustra

It is a pity that Alex Linder believes in 9/11 conspiracy theories, the subject of my previous entries, because his brutal honesty is so brilliant… Although he is not a Nazi, Linder is surely right by constantly quoting Hitler that the world is not for cowardly peoples—read: conservatives—. If whites are to survive we must become as hard as diamonds, as Nietzsche put it in his most poetic work.

Below I excerpted to a little more than ten thousand words the substance of what Linder recently said in an extremely long thread at Majority Rights, including a few quotations and full responses from those who didn’t agree with him (no ellipsis added between unquoted paragraphs):

The solution is not to mix and mingle with conservatives, as politically naive MacDonald imagines, but to separate from them and attack them. It is an incredible political mistake to tolerate Jared Taylor or any of his mini-mes in the White movement. That’s how the conservatives got coopted.

Having it both ways, which is the real subtitle of the Alt-right crowd, never has worked and never will work. Sam Francis’ career is proof.

The right way to go is define who we are, who’s our enemy, and keep the line indelible. Then attack the conservatives, polarize the nation until White and jews are seen as the only true and real political divide, and then fight it out until we win.

Anything Southern, christian, or conservative is a non-starter. These groups have all proven their utter incompetence to do anything but sit down and go backwards.

Attack the conservatives, don’t fawn after them—that’s the idea that will bear sweet, sweet fruit.

* * *

We must be a jealous cause, and destroy all competitors. And our only competitors are on the right. Once they’re gone, we’re ready for the big time—the jews. Well, in reality we fight both fronts simultaneously, but the fight that matters most first is against the fake opposition on the right—the professional conservatives.

* * *

If you disagree with my political argument that jews should be exterminated, as it is the only way to solve the threat they have presented to the White race for over 2,000 years, then make that case directly rather than attempting to character-assassinate me.

* * *

The spiritual universalism in christ-insanity and the political universalism in the Enlightenment are both examples of hubris.

The last thing we need is more politeness, more gentlemen, more codespeaking male swells with soft hands and gentle words. These are the men who will regain us our White sovereignty? The South isn’t ideological or fanatical?

Quite right. And that lack of impersonal, principled ideological fanaticism is precisely why it loses.

Fanatical ideology requires brains, dedication, perseverance, unwillingness to give up—the sort of thing we see in winners, not Southerners. Southern culture can be called conservative, but another word for conservative is just plain dumb. You believe what you’re told. You go to church. You respect authority. You know your place. The South doesn’t even have the brains to see that eventually demographic decline will insure there are no whites left in the South, and that means no South. Naw, suh, we got ouah niggers under control. The hell you do.

Fanatical dedication and ideological rigor are sine qua non in defeating the jew. And you can’t get those qualities at Piggly Wiggly.

* * *

What if we had a party called the Racist Party? What if every one of us were a member? What if we mass attacked the right, especially the paleoconservatives and the WHINOs? We attacked Buchanan and the rest of these jew-bought or jew-feared clowns with intent to destroy? We attacked Jared Taylor and the others traitors who sold out to the jews? We attacked the conservatives in the Tea Party for being weaklings, and we attacked Ron Paul for cowardly running away from his own words in his newsletter?

What do you think would happen? If we all did. Me. You all here. MacDonald. Johnson. Everybody out there who wanted in.

What if we forced every last excuse-maker to come down finally on side or the other. Are you a racialist or a religionist? A racialist or a regionist? A racialist or a Republican? Which is it. Make a choice?

What if we actually meant what we’re saying, and proved that by our verbal actions (to set the very first, very lowest standard)?

Soon enough we would have a reputation; I think we would run through the weak right like butter. We’d be well on the way to a serious polarization between the judeo-left and the mean-itz whites.

I repeat again: What if we actually meant what we said about race? And didn’t make excuses for people couldn’t / wouldn’t / shouldn’t say wht needed to be said? At some point, there is no more equivocation possible. Look how free you all are with the attempted character-assassination of the tiny minority who aren’t using fake names. Do you honestly believe you aren’t worms—those of you who aren’t veiled antis, head cases or undercover cops?

I have never in my life seen such a collection of excuse-makers as the race crowd. Edwards is a fangirl; Spencer and Taylor are shirtfronts. There is nothing serious there. Serious men would laugh a clown like Buchanan off the stage, not brag about getting him on their radio show.

Racialism is not ready for prime time, and it never will be until it learns to see professional conservatives as the enemy rather than as movie stars.

* * *

The Jews are playing for millennia. They’ve defeated all of their enemies.

Bingo. We have a winner. The jews enemies aren’t defeated, they no longer exist. They’re extinct.

And they’re working on the same for us. But oh no, we must never even hint at the same for them. That’s crazy talk!

You kiddie-clowns, not one of you with the balls to run your lies under real names while yapping about me being abnormal, many of you with more personas than sybil, not a friggin’ clue in the world who you actually are or what you believe, would, if you had any integrity, meet my “death to the jews” head on.

It is my considered intellectual opinion, formed on the basis of close reading (and as deep thought as I can muster) of E. Michael Jones’ two giant tomes about jewish radicalism and 2,000 years of jew-goy relations. I believe it’s the only rational conclusion an honest man studying the material can come to. As such, it simply must be put on the table. Our cause is that serious. The funny thing here is at least two of you jokers actually were literal nazis, or adopted that persona, whereas I myself have never been such. Nowhere is there a picture of me, as there is of Duke, wearing Nazi gear, because I’m not one. I believe in a racial dictatorship combined with a diversity of microstates, and I would prefer to in the most libertarian one that can be devised. And that has been my position from day one: racial dictatorship + decentralization for non-racial matters.

Who is serious here, me or you?

The answer is obvious.

* * *

Linder’s Strategy: Attack the Conservatives.

This is the struggle against the struggle for survival. It’s Jewish. It’s Satanic. It’s spiritual poison. Any race of people who endorse it will die.

All christians are spirit-queers. Homosexuals of the spirit, if not the flesh. Of course, many of them are flesh queers too, especially the priests.

If the Jewish method is to kill us while lying that they love us, wouldn’t the Aryan response be to kill them while admitting we hate them?

Exactly. It’s a little thing called style.

Nothing Is More Moral Than Race War. Nature demands it, and any subspecies that is unfit to acknowledge that demand will rightfully be erased from the pages of history.

I’ve never understood why WN [white nationalists] who remain stupid christians don’t pick up on this and run with it.

An Aryan baby… Naive, naked, defenseless—that is the Christian ideal itself. Lest ye be as children and all that.

That’s why the jews always win.

Christian “love” is a disorder, and our social order today reflects that disorder.

They are System conservatives—our enemy, not our ally, not us. Buchanan, their holy figure, is not us. The idea that I have to tell racialists that a Catholic who believes racialism is immoral and selects a female black for his running partners is in fact not a White nationalists is past irony, isn’t it? But I sure do have to, don’t I?

I’m calling into question here that people traditionally thought to be on our side are not on our side, and that bothers people because they 1) haven’t thought about it; 2) don’t like me; 3) do like the people I say aren’t us. It’s all just personal touchy-feely stuff, with no one seeing any need to be clear and precise and ideological.

Is it not evident after 100 years of failure that conservatism cannot defend our race?

How did Buchanan treat Duke? Just like the jews did at the AmRen conference—he attacked him.

Are we on the same side as Buchanan?

No. We are not.

Linder apparently defines anybody who fails to be anti-Jew as a potential target and anybody who fails to be pro-White as a potential target.

Quite right. You polarize by forcing people to choose. And you make the split one you can win on.

You like fags? jews? multicult? niggers? mexicans? bureaucrats? warmongering? minority welfare? hip-hop? drive-bys? abortions?—then side with the judeo-left.

You like white people? normal sex? self-control? minding our own business internationally? low taxes? —then vote for the White Party.

The media will always back even a Buchanan over the real thing (Duke). The System will sustain itself by protecting itself, and gelded conservatives, to be redundant, are every bit as much a part of the White-oppressive System as nigger welfare recipients and jewish warmongers.

Buchanan is the bushel over our White light. Get the right-wing conservatives out of the way, then suddenly Whites are the option to the hated judeo-left. Then we’re getting somewhere. Because unlike the Buchanans, we actually mean what we say.

The point is, if we think like this, we know exactly who our enemies are, and we know how to attack them (as fakes, liars, opportunists and career girls). We must drive the can’t-say-thats and the don’t-mean-its off the world stage and make way for Whites.

Look Matt, if I may. If there’s one fundamental characteristic of the right, it’s weakness. The way we treat the gelded right is simple: we just bulldoze them.

It is always a mistake to “appeal” to weak people. Rather you overawe them into submission. You “appeal” to their natural gutlessness by bulldozing them. And what the hell? Let their fear lead where our minds have already gone. We’re right. They just need to shut up and get on board. They can figure out why we’re right later, like an abducted bride.

It will move thru the rest like butter. It will attract a hell of a lot to its side, and scare the rest into submission. Strong men and the right strategy will get us what we want. Right now we’re lacking strong men. We have lot of smart men, but most of them, still, are confused. I write to clarify things for these smart, confused men.

This sort of polarization both imperils Race Realism’s utility as a gateway and squanders resources which could be invested in more useful attacks on neocons.

You wouldn’t have to attack neocons if you were an honest White rather than playing around with faggotry like “Alt-right.”

I actually believe if you could get a charismatic veteran with hundreds of troops willing to kill and die for the cause, and you pursued the strategy above, you would attract millions, as the Tea Party has.

Radical separation from conservatism is the only way that can work. We must be jealous. You’re either with us, fully, or you’re our hated enemy.

Isn’t it funny? Even we supposed hard-core “Nazis” are at bottom just a bunch of pussies. We can’t even separate verbally, rhetorically and politically from the limpdick right. If X believes jews are whites, that’s cool man. If Y believes, well, no jews aren’t white, but we can still be friends and party together, that’s cool too, man. In fact the only thing that’s not cool is someone insisting that, yes, it really does matter whom we consider our friend, and whom our enemy. He’s the bad guy, for crissakes. My god. It’s not like we don’t have 100 years of conservative failure and 20 years of Nazi success in Germany staring us right in the face. That doesn’t mean we have to be nazis or call ourselves nazis, just that we ought to copy their techniques in dealing with jews where we can, since the jews used the same techniques yesterday against Germans they use against Americans and Europeans today.

It is pathetic that I need to explain this. But no, no, what and who individuals “like” is all that matters. If it feels good, do it. Bunch of hippies, we are. Where has this brainlessness ever led? Nowhere. Why not try something different from what traditional conservatism has offered, since traditional conservatism has 100% record of failure? Why not step outside the box and try something truly radical? Something principled and ideological, instead of mushy and personal? My god, it might actually work.

And that begins by identifying who we are and who is the enemy, and what we demand. Otherwise the vehicle will be taken over by jews we took in as allies and they will redirect it to their racial destination.

The topic of “why white nationalism has no decent political representatives” is worthy of an entire essay itself. (Short answer—whites are not allowed to organize themselves racially. It is de facto illegal. The recent AmRen conference is yet another example of this.)

You got it, Sam. And then when those who soft-pedal or abandon jew-crit are able to pull off events without problems, it strengthens the “we’re doing it to ourselves” lie—and it strengthens the belief that letting jews into our politics is the right way to go.

But really, party politics is not what to worry about right now—defining ourselves, our vehicle, and attracting support from men with guns willing to use them is where we should begin.

If voting is all that matters, then would have already won. Indeed, we never would have lost. Brown vs Board wasn’t voted in, it was reverse-interpreted. All these votes from Alabama to Indiana to Arizona re illegals are voted exactly the way WN would have them voted. And judges just throw the ruling out.

The enemy doesn’t follow the law. But we Whites are so weak we pretend the enemy’s ignoring the written rules means we just need to work harder appealing to people who already voted for what we want! Get a clue, Leon [Haller]!

Until we have the ability to punch back, we’re just going to keep getting punched. That’s where we are. Voting has almost nothing to do with it. We win more votes than we lose, if you look back over 50 years, yet only the enemy’s agenda is ever enacted—never ours.

Now what does that tell you, bright boys?

We need a Hitler. What we have are Mississippi Leghounds, Virginia jew-fellators. Instead of the veterans of the SA we have Buchanan’s all-male drill team. “Pat! Pat! He’s our man! If he can’t do it, Jared can!”

* * *

I personally find it more thrilling to be part of the line descended from the original creature with blue eyes than the crank all-in-all you find in the bible. The bible is just crappy jewish historical and science fiction; the anthropology stuff, the being part of an eternal physical chain, that to me is the thrill. I get the same christabel matthews thrill up my leg that the japanese do when they see a round blue eye. They could give two shits about our sad and stupid faith in the bible; they want our eyes! And when I look in my relatives’ eyes, which are all blue, I see what they mean.

Only a sicko like a catholic could think that the transient thoughts running through our heads matter more than the blonde hair and blue eyes—by which I mean the heads themselves. It just rasps their vanity that what we are matters more than what we think. (I mean no nordicism, just using what is most physically distinctive about our race, at least in terms of color.)

You all can cry and cavil till the last chili bean is farted back to jebus, but it won’t change the fact that christ-insanity has not a goddam fucking thing to do with our race except give it an upset stomach from too many sleeping pills.

* * *

It was one of the two most instructive moments in US political history in the last 30 years, the other being the reaction to Duke’s senate campaign, with all parties and media joining up to defeat him.

Within one 24-hour cycle the Republicans went from praising Buchanan for his “Culture Wars” speech to blasting him and running away from it. Complete flip. Why?

Because the kikes had the fuck scared out of them by this very, very modest approach on the castle they live in. Buchs ever so barely feigned at lifting the cover on the real thing underneath, because he is so skilled with words, and because there is a hell of a lot of white hot justified racial anger, you could see hear and feel the boil underneath. The forces waiting, just begging, to be tapped. You could just see what a real man like Hitler could have done with it.

That whole speech and reaction is worthy of a book.

But no, little glibster, I have always said Buchanan is not one of us. He is a catholic. Not a racialist.

Treating Buchanan with respect is treating our cause and ourselves with disrespect. He always sides with the more powerful authority.

* * *

No one’s scared of men who are rational and reasonable. They’re scared of Charles Manson.

Reason is for boys; emotion is for men. Academics fear emotion because it’s not part of their world.

Real politics has nothing to do with reason, it’s in the marrow—the fear and the thrill.

Like I said, just imagine what a Hitler would have done in Buchanan’s place. That’s the distance between a man and a Catholic; between a man and a conservative.

A very lean and ideologically rigorous national organization is instantiated with the purpose of providing local workshops with the strategies and resources they need to succeed. These workshops will focus on pursuing two distinct goals: evangelizing potential activists with our undiluted message and engaging the surface area of state and local politics to promote the White agenda. Our message to “the masses” is that we are their most dedicated, reliable, and effective advocates. We do not lie or equivocate on our core ideology, but our interface with the masses and the political process will be one of goal-oriented Plunkittry.

Our historical moment will arrive in the form of a Legitimacy Crisis. WLP [William l. Pierce], GLR [George Lincoln Rockwell], and Metzger weren’t buffoons (though I would quibble about their methods). They were torchbearers who carried our cause through its darkest decades.

At that point, a polarization strategy will be necessary in order to assure that imposters and showmen (like Sarah Palin and Donald Trump) don’t usurp our political capital.

My god. There’s actually some thinking in this, altho I’d like to see exactly what your ideology is. Ok, Parrott. I’m granting you provisional respect (pardon my Haller impression). Christ, you sound like an American national socialist with some Winterhilfe / hamas-type ideas.

Is there a Parrott primer where you’ve expounded all this to the limit? I vaguely know you have some Hoosier thing.

Anyway, thanks for laying that out.

* * *

We need fighters. Lots and lots of fighters. Without physical force on our side, we have nothing real to rely on. What did the man say? The truth is neato, but without a sword it can’t do much.

Hitler: The mass, the people, to me is a woman… Someone who does not understand the intrinsically feminine character of the mass will never be an effective speaker. Ask yourself what does a woman expect from a man? Clearness, decision, power, action…

For when a people is not willing or able to fight for its existence, Providence in its eternal justice has decreed that people’s end.

The world is not for cowardly peoples.

Conservatives are simply cowards. This is the reality of the situation, described by George Lincoln Rockwell:

As long as the right-wing confines its fighting to being “nice”, the great masses of the public will bow down like the sheep they are to the left-wing which is not nice. The force is disguised, of course, in checkbooks, judges’ robes, rigged party conventions, etc., but it is still force or the threat of it which has America down and afraid. No amount of papers and pamphlets, were they all masterpieces of propaganda, and no amount of talk and meetings can stop this growing left-wing force and power, and the fear it inspires—much less drive it back and destroy it.

See the Rockwell quote above. The left wins by intimidation. Not by legal or rational means. And our “best” minds are out there doing what? Trying to influence the Republican Party. This is not leadership. This is not serious politics. It is kibitzing. Womanly, effeminate. Remember what the real leader, Hitler, said: the masses are like women.

How can Hitler be a better analyst of our times than we are if he’s not right? How can a man writing in ’30s Europe be a better analyst of 2011 America than we are unless he has nailed something essential that persists through time and across place?

This guy nailed it. It is clear as a bell. Anyone who has dealt in nationalist and conservative circles for even just a few months can see exactly what he’s talking about.

Isn’t that humiliating? But is it not true? Is he not demonstrably and observably right in what he says about revolutions, jews, bourgeois conservatives, the way to conduct meetings, and the rest? My god, we see it carried out before our eyes every single day of the year.

Conservatism has no solutions because conservatives are self-interested, self-protecting cowards. They are the upper-middle-class bourgeoisie. They provide good writers, and quality entertainment, that’s all. They are respectable, responsible, appropriate—and there it ends. They will never, ever, ever condescend to actually fight over anything because… that’s not what they do. Only crude proles are low enough to actually say what they mean and bust knuckles over it. Not us turtleneck-wearing, hair-fixing better-thans. As a class, these bourgeois conservatives are, in relation to our racial cause, summer patriots. They’ll join the White cause when it’s 99% of the way to victory, and nod to themselves that they were with us all along. It’s just how they are. There is no leadership in them, just fundraising for more of the same kind of political entertainment they prefer—Vdare is a good example.

Trust me, guys. We get a party, a national party, do activism around hush crimes, and attack the conservatives like Buchanan with all our might, in very short order we will become a known force on the national scene; we will attract more support than we can handle, and we will drive the fake right out of the field, leaving us racialists alone speaking for White normalcy, with the cowardservatives either shutting their whineholes or joining us. Normal white people have supported Republicans and conservatives who didn’t mean it for decades. Do you think they’ll be less enthusiastic about supporting Whites who do mean it? You ever see the pictures of people when Hitler came to town… riding open in a car?

“The only thing that gives orders in this world is balls.” —Tony Montana. It’s true. You know it’s true. Our cause has failed because we lack balls.

Just look up and down this thread at all the bitching, whining anonymous faggots, and then ask yourself why the jews are running things. Not hard to see, is it? The jews have balls. Big fucking balls. Lie-about-anything, fuck-anything-up balls. Our “best” men are scared even to mention what’s going even among ourselves, where there’s most need to be serious.

No, no, let’s retreat to the fantasy where we’re going to argue our way to victory… by rational persuasion!

Dreamworld, man. Pure fantasy.

I’ve opened thousands of pieces of mail from people writing into conservative magazines; I know how they think. They will take our leadership, whether we are nazis or white nationalists, just as they now accept the leadership of neoconservative jews. The masses are feminine, they can do nothing but follow. The only question is whether we are masculine enough to lead. Taylor, Spencer, MacDonald and like conservatives are not. Not me saying that, or, not just me saying that, it’s Hitler and Goebbels, men who proved it in the field.

* * *

Why do you think I’m typing here? Because there are smart people here, and I want to influence them to see things the right way. Without a very large number of people all pushing the same way, nothing gets done. Just, as Goebbels said, “piecework” that is easily destroyed by the enemy any time he desires to. But if you have that group of people, all vitally committed, and on the same page ideologically, then you have a real shark pack that can take out the enemy.

It’s good to be a divisive asshole right now. Because it destroys the illusion we’re united. Our cause must be a jealous cause. It must destroy all competitors. Why are we putting eyes on Itz Pat’s pages, and pelf in his pocket? Is he us? Then why are we making excuses for him? He’s our enemy. Our competitor. And all you guys can say, à la Spade in Tommy Boy, is “mmyeh, he seems nice.” Grow up, you fruits. This woman is eating our lunch, and we’re fetching him a beer and asking for an autograph. Christ, I can find garden slugs that understand politics better than 2/3 of you.

We think that liking someone = us being on same side. It’s a female way of understanding the world, and boy is it ineffective.

Consistency is what attracts serious men—it is what made me curl my lip at professional conservatism and drew me to William Pierce. He didn’t change his position to fit the tides.

Let’s get serious… with the agenda written in stone. Let’s take the world and make it our own.

Southern types… They simply aren’t smart or quick enough to do battle with jews. Indeed, it is the hardest thing in the world to teach a Southerner basic facts about anything. It honestly is about one degree easier than teaching math to a nigger. A few of the lawyers can get it; beyond that the South is intellectually inert. But that’s ok. Our problem now is getting physical fighters, not thinkers and yappers. Southerners like the military. We don’t need mouths from the South, we need fighters. The problem in the North is the opposite: you get the bourgeois pantywaists.

So we rile, roil, and rhubarb until one tendency wins out. It’s going to be mine. Not because I advocate it but because it’s right.

But yeah. In our racial state, of course, anyone trying to disrupt the racial basis of the state, or profit by undermining it, will be executed. There will be few jails. There will be only some second chances and no thirds.

I don’t mind if people want to live as Catholic delusionals. We can’t be that liberal on race because other whites’ desire to live with or among muds does affect all of us in ways we, at least, are not willing tolerate. As for me, I’m not even willing to live in a white welfare state, I’d fight over that too. I’m going to live in the most libertarian microstate possible.

* * *

If you read the Patrick Casey article at Alt-right, Casey depicted Sobran as literally sobbing over the death of Irving Kristol. Even though Sobran himself and his family were essentially made homeless and impoverished due to the actions of the Kristols and the other vicious, hate-filled neocon jews who got him fired.

I guess that’s loving your enemy. I guess it’s fair to say Sobran stayed true to his principles. “Some principles” is the only way a rational man would respond. But every christian gets to be a heroic mini-me jesus in one way or another, I guess.

From where I sit, Sobran just looks weak as hell. Is loving your enemies really an improvement on hating and fighting them? I don’t think so. I actually think a fair deal less of Sobran, as a man, after reading the article, which I’m sure was not Casey’s intention at all.

Christ-insanity is not conservative, it is liberalism itself.

How funny is it that the tryhards on the pallid right defend endlessly “what joe calls” the local and traditional, yet when it comes to religion, why, no local and traditional gods for them!, no siree. They go big, when it comes to gods, by god. They go general. Catholic. Universal. And the contradiction never even makes an appearance in their waking consciousness.

Christianity is not conservative, christianity is universal—abstract, liberal, ideological. That makes it intrinsically anti-White, because it forbids the spiritual aspect, as well as the racial aspect, of Whiteness from being identified, which in turn prevents it from being preserved.

Posted by Trainspotter:

Anon/uh: “In other words two impossible conquest scenarios. Expulsion is extermination-lite. (Trainspotter, I am not ‘attacking’ you here.) Some guys just can’t accept that their bargaining terms are too high.”

Equating things as disparate as total world conquest / extermination with the establishment of a White Republic is silly, not to mention harmful. That’s precisely what our enemies do: if you care about white racial preservation, you are a naziwhowantstokillsixmillionjews.

Look at a map of the world. How many racial/ethnic groups have successfully established sovereign nations? Plenty. How many have managed global conquest with extermination and total removal of all of their enemies? None.

Regaining sovereign white territory is entirely possible, it’s only a question of how much or how little. World conquest, on the other hand, is not on the table.

Posted by Linder:

Look at a map of the world. How many racial/ethnic groups have successfully established sovereign nations? Plenty. How many have managed global conquest with extermination and total removal of all of their enemies? None.

No. None yet. The powers that be very clearly believe in global political conformity. Once you have executive mechanism to enforce that, you have the technical means of genocide. And if you haven’t noticed, the array of tools for spying and shooting people in 2011 is nothing short of awesome, and will only grow more so over time. Technology is one of things where looking forward helps more than looking backward. We know from ex-Mossadist Ostrovsky our worst has been working on ethnic bio-weapons for decades. Global extermination is completely thinkable to our worst enemy—he studies it daily in his science labs funded with white-taxpayer money, and he celebrates near-genocidal past successes in his holidays.

Regaining sovereign white territory is entirely possible, it’s only a question of how much or how little. World conquest, on the other hand, is not on the table.

World conquest is quite possible. And if regaining White territory is “entirely possible,” feel free to explain how we do it.

* * *

America is, what? 90% christian?

But don’t you be caught praying in public schools! That will not be tolerated!

You know what is tolerated in these public schools? Queers! The creatures the bible says should be shot on sight. Little christ-crank children are taught that homosex is good, not destructive. They’re taught to be promiscuous themselves, if they can’t quite make it all the way to sainted queerdom. They’re encouraged to form “Gay-Straight Alliances” and speak out against bullying.

Yes, all this in a Christian nation. Led by brilliant heroic politician-writers like Patrick by god Buchanan.

I don’t understand? How could this happen?

What a bunch of sad weaklings. Of course, Pat Buchanan doesn’t have any children. He’s married, but he may well be a homosexual, like so many other conservatives, including the weirdo-of-some-sort Sam Francis.

My god. If Pat Buchanan is a “leader,” then black is white and up is down. It sure explains the wormly qualities of his defenders, though.

But no, let’s be fair. Itz Pat! has lots to be proud of. Stuff all racialists can support:

• helped Dick Nixon save Israel—helped institutionalize affirmative action—picked a black woman (no kidding: look it up, he really did) to be his running mate

Boy, it sure is hard to see why things are going so wrong in America, isn’t it? With all these bold, valiant conservatives and christians out there, real men of principle, we must be on the verge of the happiest, healthiest, Whitest society ever.

Posted by Trainspotter:

Linder: “None yet”.

Correct. Which equals none.

Linder: “World conquest is quite possible. And if regaining White territory is ‘entirely possible,’ feel free to explain how we do it.”

World conquest is theoretically possible, but nobody has pulled it off to date. Even granting its possibility in the abstract, if we haven’t even retaken a handful of small countries first, I don’t see how conquering the world is even on the table. First things first, and perhaps last.

An ethnic group grabbing a chunk of real estate, on the other hand, has been achieved time and time again throughout history.

As to how we do it in our particular circumstances, that of course is the rub. You make the point that we have to agree upon who “we” are. We also can’t even agree on what we want, and where we want it, much less how to go about getting it.

Even for those that can agree on an all white nation in North America, where is it going to be? The Northwest? Most of America? All of America? The friggin Yukon?

This is one reason (of many) why white nationalism still flounders around. Out and out suppression is of course the biggest factor, but we can’t even focus the resources that we do have. Many have called for some sort of organizational infrastructure, but what exactly would its goal be? Where are we going with this? What’s the end game? Does it inspire?

I believe white nationalist ideas are spreading, but until it gets some sort of focus, it’s not really going anywhere. At the present time, the only person even trying to provide focus is Covington with the Northwest, and while I’m a fan of his novels, I’m not yet sold on the idea. I will, however, grant that he has breathed some life into it with good old fashioned fiction. And while I have no interest in various movement squabbles of long standing, it would appear that Covington himself is a limiting factor, talented though he may be in certain areas. But hey, at least we know exactly what he wants, and it’s small enough for the human mind to wrap itself around, yet big enough to inspire. He’s onto something there.

In any event, our approach must be two pronged. On the one hand, we must continue to intellectually attack the system, laughing at it, scoffing at it, pissing on it. Fortunately for us and given our meagre resources, the system is doing a lot of the work on its own—but WN have helped it along. You’ve definitely done your bit on this front, and many of your insights and critiques have been devastating. Really great stuff, the sort of thing that doesn’t just change minds, but changes minds… if you get my meaning. Electrifying parts of the brain—I’m sure some know what I mean.

On the other hand, we must decide exactly what it is that we want (it might be nice to actually have a single nation before we indulge in dreams of broader conquest), and start building up a positive vision of that nation to be. Covington has given us a taste of the power of fiction, but we could expand on that so much more. Art, music, and so forth (another drawback with Covington, he’s still too caught up in the 1930’s rut).

Anyway, people gotta feel it.

I doubt we’re going to get the polarization that you seek until we have this strong and positive vision of something we really want, something inspiring but tangible and remotely viable… and then our enemies spit on it. If we can get to the point where we really believe in the coming White Republic, that would be a game changer.

Oh, Ron Paul supports our quest for the White Republic, even though he wouldn’t want to live there himself? Well, maybe that’s o.k. But Ron Paul opposes our White Republic because it would inevitably violate some of his precious libertarian dogma? Fuck him, the piece of shit. Same goes for the more moderate race realists that you attack. Once we’ve actually built up a credible vision of the White Republic, and then Taylor wishes it well, says he might live there himself? Great guy. But he scoffs at it? Fuck him, the piece of shit. Anyone who opposes us is like coming between a dog and his meat. Fuck ’em. Easy.

But we don’t feel that way now. We don’t see the meat. We can’t taste it anymore, we’ve forgotten—or we never tasted it at all. We’ve learned to live on gruel instead.

You get the idea. Once we have something viable to fight for, friend and foe will reveal themselves quite easily, and the passions will be aroused. We just aren’t there yet. We hate what the system is doing to us, but it all seems so hopeless and theoretical to most. People gotta believe too. Why should people box themselves in when nothing seems viable? Can we really blame them for not taking the White Republic all that seriously at present (or insert your litmus test here), when we’ve barely (perhaps) gotten it past the initial silly stage, with plenty more ridicule to come?

Once more… this time with feeling. That’s just the way humans are built.

We’ve got to focus on something great enough to inspire and excite, but small enough to appear at least remotely viable and doable. Otherwise you lose most people, if not for one of those two reasons, then the other.

Posted by Linder:

“It does not matter how clever it is, for the task of propaganda is not to be clever, its task is to lead to success.”

Thanks for digging that, Sam, and that is a fantastic piece of advice and expertise from Goebbels, well worth rereading for all of us. I still think I’m remembering something else. Something specifically contrasting bourgeois cleverness with Nazi seriousness. The point of the part of the piece I’m remembering is that the bourgeois writers are all striking poses to impress each other—the MacDonald milieu in a nutshell; whereas by contrast the Nazis are dead-seriously winning people over—concerned only with the effect their reception has on tuning the message and the form of its delivery.

…which began with him being ignominiously arrested within 5 minutes of his Knoxville rally kicking off [this commenter refers to the arrest of Linder during a street manifestation].

Go vote Republican, you middle-class hair-primping pants-wetter.

Omigod. Did he make a–? Oh. He did, didn’t he? He made a scene. Unfrigging believable. We don’t do that. We don’t make scenes in public. The respectable people will write us off. When the God-created negroes see fit to rape, torture and murder our beautiful life-starting young men and women—fuck them up the ass, light ’em on fire, cut ’em into chunks and throw ’em out in garbage bags—we will remain appropriate, respectable and tasteful in our reaction. We will buy candles. We will march in condign and seemly order down a block or two. We will sing a nice hym, and wipe a tasteful tear. That’s how you do it. That’s how it’s done. What we will not do is raise hell in the streets, and talk to the people with anger in our eyes and strong words from our heart. We will never, ever lynch the niggers who committed the hush crime, nor lynch the jews who produced it with their media-legal structure.

Remember our holy trinity. It must be:

Tasteful
Appropriate
Respectable

Or it cannot work. That is my religious view, and my religious view is reality, because it guarantees my mental equanimity and physical safety, so how could it be wrong?

Let Hitler judge:

“The course of a people’s history can be changed only by a storm of glowing passion, but only he can awaken passion who carries it within himself.”

Oops. Hitler just said MacDonald, the a3P [American Third Position Party], James Edwards, Richard Meh-Spencer, Jared “Polished Turd” Taylor are unqualified to lead us to victory. Not that you couldn’t see that yourself, but it never hurts to ask an expert. But I mean, shit—what does he know? He doesn’t have a Ph.D. Some of his speeches are disturbingly close to be passionate rather than tepid. Never a good sign in a would-be revolutionary. They call it reason fluffing, not rabble-rousing, after all.

* * *

What if everyone at my rally had followed me into the streets? What if instead of ~100 activists we had 5,000? And they all went in the street with me? Can you imagine? What? You’re not willing to risk a misdemeanor charge on your “permanent” record. So then how serious are you? Not at all, right. Can you face that in yourself? That this is all just entertainment?

I went in the street to talk to the public directly. Because I know I can win over the neutral elements. And I can make the antis look more ridiculous than they make themselves (a tall brag considering in this particular instance they dressed as brides). There’s not a doubt about it. See, that’s the difference between a White Nationalist man and a niggling, remonstrating conservative mouse. The mice only speak indoors to people who already agree with them. They pay for a room to hold press conferences that only they attend, and then fly home talking about their great victory. It really is to laugh over. They never get anywhere.

Go read the Hitler stuff at calvin.edu. You purblind English idiots are the most blinkered, bigoted fools on earth. Get over yourselves. Your stinky island is the measure of nothing these days, serious-change politics last of all things. Get over your hatred of Germans and just imagine Hitler and Goebbels as intelligent men writing stuff that fits in perfectly well here at Majority Rights. I mean, if what they say is wrong, reject it. But how can you say that—honestly? Read it—it’s so point-pertinent it stings. They’re describing our exact situation. Look at this:

Some believe that we are using methods in this battle that are too harsh. We reply that our attacks and methods in this battle cannot be determined by our way of thinking, by whether we find them ugly or harsh, but rather we must use methods in our attacks that are appropriate for the opponent that we are attacking. One cannot battle the Jews with the politeness of the noble Aryan soul, for which he as no understanding. We need only think back on the methods that the Jew used against our movement during the period of struggle. No lie or slander was too crude to be used, to be seized and passed on by the Jews and their Jewish lackeys with eagerness, enthusiasm, and Satanic joy. We would have had little success replying then with refined arguments. It is just as impossible today to combat this creeping, subterranean danger with methods that the Jew would only laugh at.

We’re in a fight. Not a debate. Not a game. A fight. Why aren’t we fighting? Where are our fighters? We try to turn our potential fighting men into middle-class ineffectuals like our thought-leaders. This is wrong. This is pathetic. We need fiery leaders who can orate and organize. And we need ass-kickers who can stomp all who get between our speakers and the ears and eyes of our people. We get that, we will win.

Quit acting like our cause is silly. Or this is just entertainment. Or we can’t win.

Our “appeal” is Shackleton’s: Because it is hard. Because it is awesome. Because it is glorious.

“Mmmyeh, he seems like a nice guy.” That is my Spadey sneer at your utterly, utterly more foolish than you can imagine stupid puppy eyes at butt-asses like girl Taylor and toodlesome Meh-Spencer. To hell with your conservatism, your excuse-making faggotry. If you’re not White in public, and you don’t despise the jews as our worst enemy, you’re a big old nasty queer with political Q-RID, and should fuck off and die.

Our cause is a jealous cause, not a tolerant cause. We want fighters; high-spirited men, not abject catholic catacomb-crawlers / cabalists of sodom.

Posted by Wandrin:

Hitler just said MacDonald, the A3P, James Edwards, Richard Meh-Spencer, Jared “Polished Turd” Taylor are unqualified to lead us to victory.

Hitler wasn’t in the same situation. He was operating in an environment where most of the necessary meta-political foundation was already in place: anti-Jewish, anti-capitalist, anti-ruling elite, anti-communist, anti-banks etc. He had millions of people to work with who were already proto-radical looking for a flag to follow. His tactics revolve around how to make an impact in that context not how to create that context from scratch.

The context he was operating in may come about automatically in America after the banking collapse—if it gets that far—or it could conceivably (hopefully) come about through cultural warfare but what any budding Hitler needs to get started is a context where there’s millions of proto-radicals.

It’s a two-step.

So the question is are the people you list suitable for the first step—meta politics aimed at creating the right conditions. They may or may not fit the second step if and when the conditions are right but we’re not there yet.

Posted by Linder:

Graham Lister: “Whatever you all have been up to really hasn’t worked has it?”

No, it hasn’t. The important thing is to understand precisely why that is. And the right answer is that white organizing is forbidden by the System. Not legally, of course. But the System always manages to cut it down, sometimes by hook but usually by crook.

And it’s not just White organizing, it’s any organizing that threatens the jewish interests that determine the underlying agenda of the System they refit to their purposes. Catholic Coughlin and black nationalist Garvey got the same treatment too—all the way back 100 years ago! So although in the deepest sense we whites are of course responsible for any failure, in the ordinary sense, our failure is not our failure to organize but our failure to prevent the System from preventing us from organizing, which is a huge difference. It is enemy propaganda repeated, dare I say parroted, by too many on our side that “we are doing it to ourselves.” Oh nonono. We are not. It is most assuredly being done to us, and the real challenge we face is how to overcome that Systemic undermining. Because once we do that, we’re on the road to victory. Because our views are the mass-majority views among whites. That’s the reason the jews have to lie-cheat-murder in the first place, the reason they have to seize all the System choke and control points.

The way that hasn’t been tried, in America, is to use the thinking, approaches and tactics the NS used, which I’ve quoted samples of above. Instead we’ve gone with the polite approach, which does not work. Let’s call it the conservative failure pattern. Our enemies are the biggest liars, cheaters and mass murderers in history. Yet our common assumption seems to be that staying safe, legal, mannerly and polite will defeat them. It will not. I always feel like I’m saying the sky is blue, but there sure seem to be a lot on our side who think it red.

See the thing is, as one of your emotional spasms above shows—the emotional inability to handle something outside the conventional democratic-electoral box—we are psychologically in two camps: thinking in the normal democratic, electoral vein, while speculating in the radical-violent vein. We are loathe to part with the illusion that the normal democratic change channels are open to us. They appear to be open. That’s a crucial part of the System—maintaining the illusion that the processes are neutral machinery open to all. But in fact they are closed.

Look at the votes, in America. If votes mattered, we wouldn’t have forced race-mixing, anti-White job discrimination or open borders. No white majority has ever supported these things. Yet we have them—everywhere. So we kidding ourselves that voting matters. We are playing along with a genocidal lie when we pretend it’s true. The truth we are trying not to see, or reacting emotionally too when it’s stated to us is that voting will only work for the White man when he is physically able to threaten the judge or official or police who try to steal, blunt, queer, reinterpret or reverse the outcome.

Free association, which is the practical legal basis of communal self-defense was lost as a result of a judge reversing settled law. Law that had been in place for decades, duly voted in and adjudged back in the 19th century. Yet a bunch of judges simply reversed it because it thwarted the jewish anti-white agenda of race-mixing. Another 100 examples of legal illegality like that could be cited. But from that point on, the jews were simply big-dogging us. Daring us to do something about their brazen cheating.

That’s where it stands today. We’ve ignored their challenge. And we have seen our societies destroyed due to our lack of intellectual integrity and physical courage.

* * *

Like the other conservatives you see yourself as the servant of the public, the public as some sort of queen, and you the waiter with the silver salver in waiting to bring it some cat food or caviar. Think of yourself and our cause rather as the master of the public. Its leader. But needing the public. Just as Hitler would play it: the future of your (nation) (race) is tied up in whether you personally join us. Look in their eyes. Mean it. No bullshit about “appealing to women” or likesuch horsecrap. We aren’t pandering. We aren’t procuring. We’re fucking leading. That petty political Rep-Dem lying money-shuffle is 100 miles away from this stuff.

It’s the meta-message that matters. Yeah, those cheap weakling cads like Buchanan used and abused you for your money, but we mean it. We will stick by you thick and thin (Parrott hit on this the other day). You can trust us. We won’t run at the first sign of trouble like other conservative cads who sorta sound like us do. They are cowards. We are real men. Trust us and work with us, because we need you to join us so together we can all solve these common problem we all recognize.

The old style guy, the well meaning but hapless Southern conservative, focuses on the nigger that committed the crime. Not the people who created the System that facilitated it. We have to be much smarter than that, and go after the jews (and sellouts) who keep this foul thing running. There is no other example in history more applicable than the NS taking on jews in Germany yesterday. That doesn’t mean every particular has a parallel, but it means in general the jews today follow the same practices in suppressing the natives they did back then, so whatever the Nazis did that worked in Germany then will probably work for us today. Or we could keep on with the conservative failure patterns that have literally never worked a single time in history.

Can you imagine Hitler using terms like Christ-insanity in public, for example?

No, Hitler would not have used it in that time, but times have changed, like you all are always saying. Christ-insanity is weaker than it’s ever been, and many of the white men we can attract, on the left, openly mock and despise it just the way I do, altho for different reasons.

Consider this commentary culled from a poster off some blog:

What I was trying to communicate is the woefully deluded “mindset” of the lovely Pennsty rural White Christian. I am surrounded by this type of benighted, and doomed, creature.

They have not ever lived around non-Whites in their entire lives. They interact with Nons in carefully controlled settings. Workplaces. Churches. Darkies are showing up in Uber Alabaster churches now. The corrupted Marxist shill, serinv as a “minister” is really pimping for the delights of We Are All One Multi Culti lunacy, in even the teeniest little churches. The woefully deluded flocks are nodding their heads, and doing what their Beloved Sheperds are telling them to do. No questions asked. Adopt non-Whites kids. Make best friends with the polite, nicely dressed Darky that has shown up. The Whites couldn’t be friendlier, or more accommodating. Because Being a Racist is now the Cardinal Sin.

I know of a Catholic family, that produced two amazing little White boys. Their Priest told the congregation to Go Forth and Multiply with Guatemalan orphans. So they did. They adopted a Guatemalan female toddler Orc in. The mother can’t stand this child. The kid is not terribly bright—but extremely aggressive.

So—Haughty Blonde ran into this family a few months ago. What have they done now? Why—they adopted a Somalian!

This is not merely crazy – it’s evil.

Yet this is going on all over PA. You can see little Darky kids amidst the most dazzling White families.

And what I was trying to communicate is the steadfast refusal of these Good White Christians to acknowledge that racial differences exist at all. That the Black kid, that is always wreaking havoc, and committing escalating levels of violence, and can never seem to finish the simplest homework task, let alone make passing grades in a very dumbed down curricula—well—it’s always passed off as “Just that one. You cannot judge everybody that way”.

It’s not about White self-loathing, or “White guilt”. It’s about White arrogance, and egoism. These “Liberal/Conservative” Yankee Christian-baptised Whites really truly believe that if they try hard enough, and they give enough—they can “crack the code” —and get Blacks and other non-Whites to be just like them. White. Want the same things, think the same way, do the same things.

They refuse to believe that there are any intractable differences. It’s all wrapped up in false morality—and the source is Pride, and Vanity.

It’s now Revealed Wisdom with my fellow PA Whites that the very worst, deepest Sin is to consider the possibility that racial differences exist and are real. They are perfectly virtuous because they refuse to admit, or even consider, for a single second, that racial differences even exist.

And that God knows, in their hearts, that they really really really don’t mind when that kind-of trashy fast-mouthed Black Boy paws heir pretty blonde daughter—scause that would be wrong. That would be racist.

Capiche?

Yeah, no, this kind of creature we must walk on eggshells around. It would be crazy to treat them as the open enemy they are, we must pretend they’re on our side and suck up to them.

It’s later than some of you think.

The cultural degradation the jews have inflicted on White society has been for the worst in most ways, but not insofar as the jews have degraded the christ cult.

Show us how after ten years the polarization strategy has worked out for you. List your accomplishments.

Yeah… this has got to be trolling. You’re not a dumb enough guy to ask such a dumb question. I’ll indulge you once.

The polarization strategy is not something an individual can do, or a state or local thing, it’s a strategy for a national group operating at the national level. Because, as you know, as a lawyer, that’s where the meaningful political decisions are made.

The point of the strategy is to set up a credible oppositional power to the ruling jews. Right now, the oppositional power is a fake opposition, actually controlled by the ruling jews, after Lenin’s advice (create and lead the opposition yourself).

What WN has always done up until now is work with the conservatives like we’re all part of the same team. All this does is make conservatives rich. The White cause continues to go backward.

So the answer is that the polarization strategy has not been tested in North America. It can’t be until there is a party, or some kind of vehicle, that is both national in scope and willing to adopt it. The unbroken record of failure that is mixing racialism with conservatism suggests to anyone who can think that just maybe we ought to go the other way for once.

Trying to nudge the Republicans into doing the White thing is sad effeminacy unworthy of intelligent men. Fuck them. Start something new and better and take their pie from them and eat it. But you can’t do that when all you offer is a poorer, less respectable version of what they’re doing because you look like pathetic me-tooers—which they do the A3P. You need to go wholly the opposite direction. Come up with swagger, the looks, the bearing, the symbols, the agenda platform—purely White and jealous as all hell. Willing and soon able to vanquish all pretenders. That’s how you do it. It’s not a thing that can be done online, nor is it a thing that can be done alone. It takes a group.

Silver: “Sure, if you ignore the racial conservative whites who won themselves entire continents by virtue of their racial conservative disposition.”

I’m not going to make a big thing of this, Silver, but I don’t believe you’re who you say you are. I don’t believe your tale about your own background.

Your point above is the same fallacy we hear from the christ lunatics claiming their cult is pro white because whites lived along in harmony for centuries under christian dominion. If those whites conquered the continent for racial reasons, then, those racial principles would have preserved the conquest. Instead, those racists forgot everything Silver lies they knew, and quickly lost the continent back to jew-led savages. So clearly the original Americans were not racialists in any other than a direct, immediate sense—i.e., fight off the scalping indians next door. There was never enough thinking put into race in any section of the country, and that, combined with christian lunatical universalism, and the later influx of anti-white communist jews, sealed the deal for anti-Whiteism.

And now we get the desperate claim that, oh, don’t worry, the Republican party and normal voting and Pat Buchanan, and the whole normal regular lineup of trusties is going to save us.

Why hasn’t it then? Where has it been for fifty years? Why has anything changed now?

Rounder, so feared by the feds he is literally forbidden from living in the South, is to be mocked, but Pat Buchanan who has presided over 50 years of dramatic decline while gorgeously pressing a scented handkerchief to his womanly throat is to be respected? On what basis?

Conservatism can’t get the job done. That’s what history shows. There is no second opinion.

The internet has shown up the Patsy Declines for what they are. A lounge act for tired race.

No future in Republicans. No future in conservatism.

Make this your mantra: If it’s christian, conservative or Southern, it’s a non-starter.

That’s the truth.

* * *

[Apparently responding to Hunter Wallace:]

The ’50s and ’60s anti-White movement succeeded for one reason: jewish control of the media. Pointing out individual, anecdotal non jews here and there is always an attempt to draw attention away from the jewish root of the anti-White movement. Always.

This jew control of the mass media is the reason that no White strategy based on mirroring the “civil rights” approach of the jew-organized niggers can succeed. The media will never treat the White cause as just. Therefore it will always look bad in the eyes of the tv-macerated majority. There is no solution but taking power, and that means, more than almost anything else, taking the mass media back from our racial enemy.

Just as Churchill wrote as a journalist about communists back in 1919, jews were the driving power. Investigate whichever radical movement you like and you’ll find the same thing.

Only one policy cures jews and the trouble they cause: NO JEWS. JUST RIGHT.

__________

There’s a follow-up to this article here.

Tags Adolf Hitler, Christian problem (CP), Degeneracy, Feminized western males, Jewish problem (JP), National Socialism

Savitri Devi Third Reich

Why Hitlerism should be our new religion

Post author By C .T.
Post date June 14, 2011
5 Comments on Why Hitlerism should be our new religion

The recent blog wars of nationalists vs. counter-jihadists was so engrossing that I interrupted the reading of a piece by Savitri Devi (photo below), “The Religion of the Strong” that reminded me a Counter-Currents featured article by William Pierce, republished also in this blog under the title “God and White Nationalism.”

Finally, today I had a little time to finish my reading. Devi wrote (no ellipsis added between unquoted excerpts):

You who exalt the image of the solitary rock, free yourself from two deadly superstitions: the search for “happiness” and concern for “humanity”.

Attach yourself to the essential—to the eternal. And never worry about happiness. He who has the Word, father of thought, and who, far from putting it in service of the essential, wastes it in the search for personal satisfactions, he is not Strong; he is not an aristocrat in the deep sense of the word, but petty, an egoist and a coward, an object of disgust in the eyes of the natural élite.

All society, all “civilization” is marked by the seal of the Powers of Decadence, a civilization of the Dark Age. If you are obliged to suffer it, suffer it by unceasingly opposing it, denouncing it, combating it every minute of your life.

It is, however, true that—beyond a certain degree of mixing of races and cultures and conditioning on a vast scale, thanks to all the modern means of communication—people end up resembling each other strangely, psychically if not physically, a uniformity of grayness, a kind of manufactured homogeneity—desired by those who control the masses; a uniformity which reveals only the deterioration of a society that has definitively turned its back on the eternal—in other words: a damned society.

But one can still sometimes discover an exceptional individual within such a society, an individual who disdains the ethnic chaos that he sees around him and of which he is perhaps himself a product.

As for the enemy, fight him with all the ardor of your heart. It is not necessary to hate him. He follows his nature and achieves his destiny while being opposed to the eternal values. Fight him, and by all means, without respite and weakness. For he is your absolute opposite.

Any true religion is a path open to those who tend towards the eternal, consciously or not. And there is no true religion without ritual.

One almost can define a decadent age simply by saying that it is an age when traditional doctrines, that is to say, those that raise the faithful to the contemplation of the eternal, cease to interest men, except for a negligible minority.

In order for a Weltanschauung, a vision of the Universe, a “philosophy,” once infused with the magic of ritual, to become the basis of a true religion, it is necessary not only that it contain no internal contradictions, but also that its fundamental propositions are true, not relatively but absolutely.

A false religion in our age, the case with Marxism, adopted by Lenin as the foundation of the proletarian State, is based on flagrant untruths: on the assertion that man is nothing more than what his economic milieu makes of him; on the negation of the role of heredity, therefore of race; on the negation of the role of superior personalities.

Among the doctrines of the twentieth century called political, I know of only one that meets the condition sine qua non to be used as the basis of a true religion, namely, that it rests on eternal truths. Only one, I say, and I speak of the true Aryan racism, in other words, Hitlerism.

In a passage of his novel The Seven Colors, Robert Brasillach describes the consecration ceremony for the new flags of the Third Reich at one of the great annual meetings at Nuremberg, at which he himself was present. After the imposing procession of all the organizations dependent upon or attached to the National Socialist Party, the Führer solemnly advanced under the eyes of five hundred thousand spectators crowded on the steps of the immense stadium, on which reigned an absolute silence. One after another, he raised the new banners and put them in contact with the “Blood Flag”: the standard that his earliest disciples had carried during the Putsch of 9 November 1923 and to which the blood of the Sixteen who fell this day had given a sacred character. In this way, each flag became similar to that one; “charged” like it with a mystical fluid by participation in the sacrifice of the Sixteen. And the French writer remarks, quite justly, that he whom the religious meaning of this act escapes “does not understand anything of Hitlerism.” He emphasizes, in other words, that this act is a ritual.

But this ritual, to which many others can be added, would never have sufficed to give Hitlerism the character of a religion, if it had not already been a more-than-political doctrine: a Weltanschauung. And above all, it would have been unable to make it a true religion, if, at the base of this Weltanschauung, there had not been eternal truths and a whole attitude which was not (and does not remain), in last analysis, anything other than the quest for the eternal even in what changes—the traditional attitude par excellence.

These words may seem strange in 1969, more than twenty-four years after the defeat of Hitler’s Germany on the battlefield and the collapse of its political structure. They can seem strange, now that one would seek in vain, in the whole geographical region covered by the Third Reich, a visible sign of the resurgence of National Socialism such as the Führer intended it, and that the majority of the organizations which, beyond the old frontiers of the Reich, claim they would rescue the condemned Movement, are just pale imitations without heart, or just lamentable caricatures.

It is correct that Hitlerians had been vanquished on all fronts in 1945; it is correct that the Third German Reich was dismembered; that the National Socialist party does not exist anymore; that in Germany and elsewhere there are no more Swastika flags in the windows, no streets bearing the name of the Führer, no publications of any kind that honor his memory. It is correct that thousands of Germans learned how to scorn or hate He whom their parents had acclaimed, and that millions are no more interested in him and his teaching than if he had never lived. Yet it remains no less true that the essence of the Hitlerian doctrine is the very expression of eternal laws; the laws that govern not only man, but life; which represent, as I wrote in a book in the German language, “the wisdom of the starry heaven,” and that the choice posed to the world is, consequently, the same after 1945 as before. It is the acceptance of this more than human wisdom, it is this accord with the spirit of the Nature, which Hitlerism implies, or disintegration, ethnic chaos, the degeneration of man—separation from the Heart of the cosmos; damnation. It is—and the words are again mine—“Hitler or hell.”

People of our planet seem to have chosen hell. It is what a declining humanity invariably does. It is the very sign that we are completely in what the Hindu tradition calls the Kali Yuga, the Dark Age.

But the ages follow one another. The laws that regulate their succession remain.

A doctrine like Hitlerism, whose spirit and application in this world can only go against the current of our time [contrasts with] the religions “of extinction,” as I call them—such as Buddhism, Jainism, and later Catharism—guide the lost and the desperate for whom the absence of hope is suffering, people broken or rejected by the fight without end and who aspire to “leave it.” The doctrines that preach action in detachment and enthusiasm without hope are addressed to the Strong.

Hitlerism considered in its essence, i.e., stripped of all that attaches it to the political and economic contingencies of a particular time, is the religion of the Strong of the Aryan race, as opposed to a world in decline; a world of ethnic chaos.

When will one see in Germany monuments, if not “temples,” to the glory of all those Germans hung from 6 October 1946 and after, up to 7 June 1951, for having been faithful to their faith, which is also ours, and having done their duty?

The Führer said to each of his compatriots: “You are nothing; your people is all.” Only he who is of Germanic blood can be a member of the (German) people. From whence it follows that no Jew can be a citizen of the (German) State”

It is a return, pure and simple, to the ancient conception of the people: of the German conception, certainly, but also the Greek, that of the Romans before the Empire, with that of all peoples, or almost all. It is the negation of the Roman attitude of the centuries of decadence, which allowed any inhabitant of the Empire, any subject of the Emperor, to become a “Roman citizen,” be he Jewish, like Paul of Tarsus or Flavius Josephus, or Arab, like the Emperor Philip—and, later, it sufficed to be “Christian,” and of the same Church as the Emperor to be an Byzantine “citizen,” able to reach the highest offices. It is the negation of the ideas of the “people” and the “citizen” such as presented by the French Revolution at the moment when, at the suggestion of the Abbé Grégoire and others as well, the Constituent Assembly proclaimed “French” all the Jews residing in France and speaking French.

In other words, if a people is an historical and social reality, if its common memories, glorious and painful, common habits and, in general, common language, are factors of cohesion among its members, it is also more than that. It is part of a great race. It is an Aryan or Mongoloid people, an Australoid, Negro, or Semitic people. It can, without ceasing to be a true people, contain a more or less large proportion of different sub-races, provided that these are all part of the great race to which it belongs. (The Führer himself was physically as “Alpine” as he was Nordic, and perhaps more. The brilliant and faithful Goebbels was almost purely Mediterranean. And they are not the only greater Germans or the only personages in the first rank of the Third Reich not to be one hundred percent Nordic.)

If one admits, as I would readily, that “the Divine sleeps in the stone, wakes up in the plant, feels in the animal, and thinks in the man” Hitlerism represents, in the midst of ethnic chaos, in the midst of an epoch of the world’s physical and moral decline, the supreme effort to bring the thinking Aryan back to respect for the cosmic order as it is affirmed in the laws of development.

_______________

My two cents:

But how could Hitlerism be our new religion in the West’s darkest hour? Tip: focus Northwest.

Tags Adolf Hitler, National Socialism

2nd World War Francis Parker Yockey Swastika Third Reich

What Germany was trying to prevent

Post author By C .T.
Post date May 20, 2011
9 Comments on What Germany was trying to prevent

Hitler greatly admired the U.S. 1924 Johnson Immigration Act which sharply reduced the number of Jews from Eastern Europe who could get entry into America each year.

As far as Nazi doctrine goes, Alfred Rosenberg said that the swastika was the symbol of White Revolution/Rebirth which must someday save the entire West, including America. Rosenberg had extensive contacts with White Nationalists in every Western country. However, from a military point of view it was not Hitler’s duty to liberate America from Jewish domination. You must remember that the German Reich only had at maximum of—including Austria and the Sudetenland—about 100 million people. It is illogical to think that Hitler could have conquered America and we are foolish if we are disappointed in him because he could not do so.

The Third Reich was not just one thing. Yes, Hitler wanted an empire for Germany in Central and Eastern Europe in which the Nordic race would dominate but he also wanted the doctrine of Nazi racialism of the superiority of the White race to spread all over the world. Nazi policies on Slavs were largely tactical, the Slavs had to be labeled “inferior” to justify stealing their territory.

The “Anti-Semitic” doctrine of the Third Reich was sent to Muslim North Africa, the Middle East, South America, and even Japan. There was an Arabic language edition of Mein Kampf printed in Syria in 1938. The Arabic version deleted references to the Nordic race but all non-Jews were taught to guard themselves against the Jews who were the most dangerous foe of mankind. The ruler of Iran, Reza Shah Pahlavi, established close relations with Nazi Germany. One weekend while I was surfing the internet I found an Iranian website and several Iranians made the statement, “Iran has modern highways because of Hitler, Hitler built our roads.”

What I’m trying to say here is: The Third Reich had a doctrine but they knew when certain aspects of that doctrine needed emphasis under different scenarios.

If you are asking if Hitler cared whether America remained dominated by Jews, yes he cared. If the Germans had won WW2 they would have spread Nazi doctrine by radio, film, and television all over the globe and certain parts of America would have come under its influence. As Francis Parker Yockey wrote in Imperium, a political idea needs a state in order to expand across the world. Now if the Third Reich had become a massive Empire from the Atlantic to the Urals, the culture and philosophy of the Empire would have inspired large parts of the Western White world, including South America.

Commenter replies:

Good points, Otto. I can see Uncle Wolf’s problem. Imagine trying to tell 1940’s White America that in 50 years their country would be controlled by jew banking and media, overrun by third world scum, race-mixing with niggers, jew-led foreign wars that never end, Whites-only hate crimes, unheard of taxation, debt, usury, black power, mex power and faggot power!

They never would have believed it!

Commenter replies:

Yes, you are absolutely right and it’s also the reason why the senior citizens who did grow up in that 1950’s All White America still cling so strongly to the idea of Hitler as Demon. They never needed Hitler to be anything else but evil because they were protected and satisfied in their All White World, but for those of us who did grow up in later decades, either 1980’s or 1990’s see very clearly the minority-oriented Communist Jew chaos that Hitler was trying to prevent long before any of us were even born.

Let the truth be told: America really lost WW2 because they fought on the side of those who would one day enslave them.

______________

Originally posted on VNN Forum in 2004.

Tags Adolf Hitler, Germany, Jewish problem (JP), National Socialism, United States

Audios

Covington on Hitler

Post author By C .T.
Post date April 21, 2011

Listen to Harold Covington’s podcast on Hitler and the ten principles of National Socialism that he recorded this April 20th.

Tags Adolf Hitler, National Socialism