web analytics
Film Mein Kampf (book)

Heydrich, 9

I have just watched the rest of Die Wannsee Conference from this point onwards (five minutes to the end).

I loved what Heydrich said to Kritzinger: he referred him to page 772 of Mein Kampf, where it is mentioned that poison gas should be used on the Hebrews. (I know I have said that I don’t like that book because I am very explicit and don’t like euphemisms. But I fully understand that in the face of the German people’s sensitivities, this sort of thing could only be said between the lines, or so far into the reading that few would read past page seven hundred.)

Shortly afterwards, with cognac, Heydrich toasts with Gruppenführer (Group leader) Heinrich Müller and Obersturmbannführer (Senior Assault-unit Leader) Otto Adolf Eichmann, and I asked myself a question.

If my beloved Nazis had won the war, would Disney Studios be putting out Star Wars films like the ultra-woke Acolyte, released this month, or would children be at home watching a healthier Disneyland (an anthology television series since 1954) as I did in the 1960s and early 70s? I remember one of those programmes, in black and white, where a teenage Billy Mummy discovered femininity through a beautiful white woman, within the decorum of the time, of course; and that gave me faith in Life.

Mexico City Miscegenation

Jewess president

Mural depicting Claudia Sheinbaum as a Jedi in a Star Wars scene.

In the comments section of the previous post, Dale Jansen asks me:

Could you blog on your new Jewess President of Mexico. How did that happen? I would have thought that Mexicans were more naturally racist than that. Aren’t brown Mexicans more anti-Semitic than Whites? Also, we’re getting reports of upwards of around 40 political assassinations throughout Mexico. Could you describe that phenomenon. Is that purely the result of Amerindian violence and drug cartels?

It’s one thing for me to live in Mexico, it’s another to be interested in its politics or society. It may surprise you that I try not to find out what is going on in this country.

This is because, since the mestizaje was consumed, the bulk of Spanish speakers, the very few Criollos included, have been addicted to the blue pill. It is easier for neighbours north of the Rio Grande to take the red one for the simple fact that many haven’t mixed their blood. Here’s how someone who took the red pill sees things:

The Amerindians that ruled Mesoamerica from 2500 b.c.e. to 1521 c.e. were a culture of serial killers (cf. my book Day of Wrath). When the Spanish arrived in the 16th century, the first thing they did was to interbreed with these serial killers! (albeit males marrying Indian women, not white women marrying Indian males). After importing black Africans for the hardest tasks, tri-racial miscegenation was consummated during the Spanish viceroyalty.

The Mexican War of Independence, fought by Criollos, mestizos, Indians and mulattos (1810-1821), was a war against the peninsular whites. And the Mexican Revolution a hundred years later reduced racial taboos and encouraged the rise of non-Criollos.

Mexicans today have internalised the current western narrative (feminism, LGBT, idealisation of pre-Columbian Mexico, etc.) with such violence that, in all Mexican media, there is not even a ‘purple pill’ to half-awaken them.

I have written extensively on the Mexican racial question in the third autobiographical book of my trilogy. If you don’t know Spanish and want to find out my views on the subject, you can do so using Google Translate and read what I have written on my site La hora más oscura para la raza blanca. There you will see that the situation in Latin America is beyond repair because of what I said above: they are addicted to the blue pill.

To make matters worse, the highly mesticized Mexicans you mention have a lower IQ than the pure Criollo, and even the latter sleeps peacefully in the ethno-suicidal matrix that controls him. If the Criollo sleeps, you can imagine the depth of sleep in the common mestizo, not to mention the Indians with very little white blood. Indeed: the murders we are increasingly suffering in the country are a product of the birth rate of the latter compared to the ever-dwindling Criollos. Jared Taylor has published statistics on how low IQ influences the crime rate in the US, and this applies equally to Latin America.

The subcontinent is a basket case, and not worth spending my time deciphering except what I have written in my third book and La hora más oscura para la raza blanca.

As far as the new president is concerned, last year I posted a brief note about the Jewish community in Mexico City. Since I have lived here for decades, I have been several times to the zone where most Jews live, Polanco, which looks like a first-world area compared to others in the great Mexican metropolis. But there is no anti-Semitism in Mexico for the same reason that there is no anti-Semitism in the US, even though there are many more JQ-conscious people in the US than south of the Rio Grande.

My suggestion to the pure Criollo, or the American who hasn’t yet polluted his blood, is to forget about these forsaken lands of the hands of the Gods and focus on trying to understand the reason for the Aryan decline. To this end, my next project will be to put together a new anthology to complement my old anthology of blog posts, Daybreak.

Friedrich Nietzsche


against the Cross, 17

Nietzsche was already forty years old when, in May 1885, his sister Elisabeth (pictured above) married Dr Ludwig Bernhard Förster, a man wise on the Jewish problem. The newlyweds moved to Paraguay to found a Jew-free New Germania. The quixotic enterprise would obviously fail because the only way to achieve such an ideal would have been to conquer the country militarily.

Nietzsche, for his part, finding himself isolated (‘in my most dreadful times of loneliness’) and without social recognition, began to use his soliloquies, missives and philosophy to boost his self-esteem and increasingly overvalue himself: dangerous medicine, for it can lead to a delirium of grandeur. An unpublished draft for a four-part work, which was to be called Noon and Eternity, and which opens with a great hubbub of heralds’ trumpets, announces: ‘The Earth now appears as a marble workshop: a ruling race of indispensable violence is needed’.

In May 1886, when Nietzsche was living in Nice, he published Beyond Good and Evil: Prelude to a Philosophy of the Future. But the futurist philosopher had, as he put it, a ‘dog’s life’ and never understood the rustic, though healthy, flourishing anti-Semitism of the time; or why his sister had become involved with Dr Förster.

After his dreadful experience with Lou, Nietzsche didn’t dare to make any further advances towards women. Nevertheless, he composed music for a poem by Lou, which was later adapted for choir and orchestra by Peter Gast, and then recorded and published. Nietzsche always hoped that his friend Gustav Krug would perform this work in Cologne.

In Monte Carlo, Nietzsche heard the overture to Parsifal for the first time and was rapt. To Gast, he wrote in January 1887: ‘Has Wagner ever composed anything better?’ The following month Nietzsche read, for the first time, Dostoevsky and in July he published On the Genealogy of Morals, written in Sils-Maria, where he makes mention of a term that would become famous in the next century, ‘the blond beast’.

When confronted with the contents of this book we see that, although Nietzsche had lost all his social faculties, he had reached the peak of his intellectual maturity: for the first time in Christendom someone had detected how the Judaic infection had corrupted our souls through the magic of the New Testament! The book is divided into three parts. The first part is a treatise on the psychology of Christianity: a movement that rebelled against the dominance of the aristocratic values of the Greco-Roman world (see the quotations from On the Genealogy of Morals on pages 116-118 of The Fair Race).

A digression is in order here. One of the older commenters on this site never understood why I reject the US as a project of nationhood. I reject it precisely because that country was founded from this inversion of aristocratic values, something that is noticeable even from the time of the American Revolutionary War of Independence, led by Washington (one hundred years before the publication of On the Genealogy of Morals, the Constitution of the US was signed in 1787 in Philadelphia).

In his 1887 book Nietzsche realised that the motive of the early Judeo-Christians was the thirst for revenge of the priestly people par excellence: the Jews. I would add that it shouldn’t surprise us that creating a new nation by the founding cucks, who never rejected the Bible, will end up in New Zion (consider how now the government wants to use the law to equate criticism of Israel with anti-Semitism!). This inversion, Nietzsche tells us, calls evil what was once good, and today’s neo-Christianity (‘liberalism’) is heir to this inversion of the values. Everything inspired by the Bible is not a religion of love, Nietzsche discovered: it is a religion of the deepest hatred of what is good and noble.

No wonder that a powerful nation under the sky of this inversion ended up not only assassinating the Third Reich, but defaming it after its death and, with it, condemning the Aryan race to eventual extinction. I write these paragraphs shortly after Putin and the Russians celebrated, in grand style, Stalin’s victory over Hitler; and on this day they launched a major military assault against enemy forces in Ukraine. This is what prompted my digression. Had it not been for Christian and neo-Christian Anglo-Americans, this May we might be celebrating the defeat of Stalin by the Nazis in a transvalued world: something that the American racial right is still unable to see. But let us return to our German philosopher.

In the autumn of 1887 Nietzsche’s old friend Paul Deussen decided to visit him at Sils-Maria with his wife. His report is worth reading because it paints a very good picture of the hermit:

With a beating heart I rushed to meet my friend and, deeply moved, embraced him after fourteen years of separation. But what changes had taken place in him during that time! The proud attitude, the elastic step, and the flowing words of another time were no longer there. He seemed to be slurring and leaning a little to one side: quite often his speech became clumsy and clipped. Perhaps he wasn’t having a good day either.

‘Dear friend,’ he said gloomily, as he pointed to some passing clouds, ‘to be able to concentrate my thoughts I must have a blue sky above me’. Then he took us to his favourite places. I especially remember a grassy spot, situated next to a chasm, above a mountain stream that roared past in the depths. ‘Here,’ he said, ‘is where I like to lie and where I have my best thoughts’…

The next morning he took me to his dwelling, or as he put it, to his cave…

We left in the afternoon, and Nietzsche accompanied us to the next village, an hour down the valley. Here he spoke once more of the gloomy omens which, alas, were so soon to be fulfilled. When we parted he had tears in his eyes, which I had never noticed in him before. I would never see him again in his right mind.

On the day spring broke out in 1888, Nietzsche asked Gast where he should now go, always in search of the ideal sky: ‘Zurich? Never! The Italian lakes—suffocating, depressing! Switzerland? Still too wintry, cloudy, misty’. In his reply, Gast, his best correspondent who didn’t like to leave Venice, recommended Turin as an intermediate station.

At the beginning of April 1888, Nietzsche left for Turin. This was the year when Van Gogh, who used to paint with as much frenzy as Nietzsche would write that year, would paint his most famous self-portrait and Vase with Fourteen Sunflowers.

Nietzsche felt very much at home in the Italian city—he didn’t even seem much affected by the clouds. Not long afterwards a Danish newspaper reached him with the wonderful news that a professor, Georg Brandes, had started a series of lectures on his books.

Friedrich Nietzsche Richard Wagner


against the Cross, 13

If I were to write a cold but informative article, I would say that by 1879 Nietzsche’s health worsened with headaches, eye pains and continuous vomiting.

On 2 May he called in sick and gave up his professorship in Basel. He travelled for the first time to the Upper Engadine, where he spent his summers from that year onwards. He spent the winter in Naumburg with his family. In the early 1880s, he went to Riva on Lake Garda and later to Venice, where he studied Christianity intensively. Nietzsche spent August in Marienbad and the next couple of months in Naumburg. He then spent his first harsh winter in Genoa and in November published The Wanderer and His Shadow (added to Human, All Too Human). In 1881 he published The Dawn of Day and spent his first summer in Sils-Maria. In August he was assailed by the thought of the eternal return and in October he heard Bizet’s Carmen.

But I don’t like the informative style of encyclopaedias: it robs us of the real person and his inner experiences. The real Nietzsche then wrote things like ‘I can’t read, I can’t deal with people’. This flesh-and-blood Nietzsche implored his friend Overbeck, the theologian, to visit him: his wish was granted. Nietzsche’s joy was unbelievably great, as Overbeck later recounted.

These were times when Nietzsche had already established his mode of work as walking in solitude for several hours until his best thoughts came to him, which he would catch on the fly from his walks in his notebook. Rhode had distanced himself from the philosopher, but not from the person, the friend; and the pains in his eyes meant that even his mother had to read books to him on his visits to Naumburg.

Nietzsche was very depressed by the climate in his hometown. ‘Unfortunately, this year the autumn in Naumburg has turned out so cloudy and wet’, he wrote, where he continued to have horrible attacks of vomiting. ‘I can only endure the existence of walking, which here, in this snow and cold, is impossible for me’. To Overbeck, he wrote: ‘Last year I had 118 attacks’. But what is relevant for us was still the Wagner case, who, about his former friend, wrote in his notes: ‘Again one must be surprised at this apostasy’. On 19 October 1879, Wagner wrote to Overbeck:

How would it be possible to forget this great friend, separated from me?… It grieves me to have to be so totally excluded from taking part in Nietzsche’s life and notes. Would it be immodest of me to beg you cordially to send me some news about our friend?

A week later the report of Nietzsche’s disconsolate state reached him. At the end of December Wagner dares to read The Wanderer and his Shadow and even reads some passages to Cosima. ‘To have nothing but derision for so lofty and sympathetic a figure as Christ!’, Richard exclaimed angrily.

The old composer was by then already in poor health, and like Nietzsche, he was burdened by the ‘permanently grey Bayreuth winter sky’, so he went to Italy for the winters. Nietzsche, for his part, spent four months with his new assistant, nicknamed Peter Gast, who read aloud to him: times for his book The Dawn of Day, which in some ways prefigures The Antichrist as far as the critique of compassion is concerned. (To try to understand Nietzsche we have to contextualise his philosophy in the present, where neo-Christian compassion taken to the extreme has led us to normalise pathologies such as those suffered by trans people: unwise levels of compassion that we have been calling ‘deranged altruism’. And the same can be said of Christian and neo-Christian love for marginalised black people: unbridled compassion.)

Like Wagner, even in 1881 Nietzsche also still loved his former friend, to the extent of confessing to close friends that if Wagner invited him to the premiere of Parsifal he would go to Bayreuth. But Wagner was repulsed by the whole course taken by Nietzsche. It is worth looking into the matter a little because the case has certain similarities with my tortuous relationship with the American racial right, and there is something I would like to clarify about the Jewish question.

First, while Nietzsche wanted to push for a supranational European spirit, Wagner believed in the Germanic character as a culturising force.

Here, Wagner was right, while Nietzsche didn’t seem to realise that the ethnic factor is fundamental. American racialists, from this comparison, are closer to Nietzsche than to Wagner because, unlike German National Socialism, American anti-Nordicists imagine a supranational Europe, all united under the banner of a chimaera they call ‘white nationalism’. Sebastian Ronin, the Canadian critic of the American racial right, was right to say that all nationalism is ethno-nationalism (just as Wagner and later Hitler believed as far as Germany and Austria were concerned). It follows that it makes no sense to grant amnesty to the mudbloods of the Mediterranean who have ceased to be properly white (or the mudbloods of Portugal, Russia, etc.).

Secondly, this is precisely why Wagner saw the emergence of the Jewish element as a threat when Nietzsche fantasised that Jewish capital would finance his anti-Christian works! Wagner supported the anti-Semite Adolf Stöcker, of whom Nietzsche would go so far as to write years later, when he lost his mind, that he should be shot!

Today, the impossibility of the collective Aryan unconscious to make a political movement in which, say, Swedes and Sicilians feel perfectly brotherly to the extent of making both a single empire, gives the lie to the precepts of so-called white nationalism in the US. Although Richard Wagner knelt before the cross, he was right on this point and Nietzsche was wrong. The Germanic race does matter, as does a healthy anti-Semitism.

Friedrich Nietzsche Richard Wagner


against the Cross, 12

The documentary in the image above was made in 1999, not 2019, as the title says. In fact, when it was released and I watched it I was living in Manchester. It is worth watching it again for the images show many of the places we have been mentioning in this series. The dramatised images of Nietzsche’s dreadful loneliness remind me of ‘the lands of perpetual winter’ far north of the Wall in George R.R. Martin’s fiction.

______ 卐 ______

In the same year as the great premiere of the Bayreuth opera house, Nietzsche began writing Human, All Too Human. This work breaks with his previous style: for the first time, he experiments with short, penetrating aphorisms as an instrument for writing and communicating deep, incisive thought (he would write even more clearly in the last year of his lucid life).

Nietzsche applied for a leave of absence from the university due to illness. He took a year’s leave and went to Sorrento, one of the world’s beautiful coasts with a mild climate, where he spent the winter with Malwilda von Meysenburg, Paul Ree and other friends.

Ree was Nietzsche’s Jewish friend, which Cosima would eventually interpret as the betrayal of Judas, and that was the year of Nietzsche’s last conversation with Wagner. Although Nietzsche appreciated Ree, he always retained his reservations, so that with the Jew he never used the you of a friend. In German—as in Spanish—there is a fundamental difference that English lacks. Sie (usted in Spanish) is used when we speak to strangers and du ( in Spanish) when we speak to people we know very well.

The sabbatical year showed Nietzsche that his ailments were not, as he perhaps believed, a psychosomatic conversion of his tedious academic activities as his acute attacks continued. The aetiology remained mysterious, and surely his malady had deeper roots than mere academic tedium, but Nietzsche still couldn’t find the right therapy.

The group of friends at the kindly Malwilda’s house read the freethinkers, Voltaire and Diderot, although Albert Brenner wrote with astonishment: ‘Rarely did the New Testament bring joy and comfort to unbelievers’. Epistolary, Malwilda confided to Cosima that Nietzsche disliked the Spanish writer Pedro Calderón de la Barca for his religiosity during the evening readings.

Elisabeth, like Cosima, had a better instinct for the Jewish question than her philosopher brother. For example, she was scandalised that her mother entered into an epistolary relationship with Ree. To my way of thinking, this means that intellectual sophistication should by no means be the yardstick for measuring the goodness of a philosophical system. Great philosophical cathedrals have been built on foundations of clay, and a plump and to some extent silly woman like Elisabeth could be much wiser in matters of Jewry than her sophisticated brother. This is a phenomenon I have encountered in life—a simple uncle turned out to be much wiser than another uncle with a high IQ—, but it was only until the third book of my autobiography that I matured in this matter, after decades of abject blindness.

In his sabbatical year in search of a cure, Nietzsche, already four years ill, began to discover that he was healthiest when he was alone. The first edition of his book, Human, All Too Human, was dedicated to Voltaire and its publication was planned for the centenary anniversary of his death on 30 May 1778 (in subsequent revised and expanded editions Nietzsche would remove the dedication to him). In early 1878 Nietzsche received Wagner’s libretto of Parsifal, and as a first cross-crossing of swords with his father figure, Nietzsche sent him Human, All Too Human.

Wagner, like Cosima, had become devout and saw himself as a descendant of Luther. Sending the new book without any accompanying words (perhaps only Nietzsche’s signature) was a major affront because the author criticised religious life and moral perceptions. The situation was made worse because Ernst Schmeitzner, who published both Wagner and Nietzsche, was threatened by Wagner that he would take the Bayreuther Blätter out of print. But Schmeitzner didn’t hold his tongue. He called the Wagners ‘hypocrites, they stink of church; Mrs Wagner goes to church, he goes to church too, though not much’ and added that ‘Wagner had knelt before the cross’. Wagner, for his part, considered it a terrible thing to take religion away from the German people.

This is where the paradoxes begin. Since he was seeking therapy for his ills, Nietzsche was doing himself a cathartic good by initiating a critique of Christianity—with which he had scores to settle from his cloistered time in Pforta—albeit in the form of aphorisms for the time being. But he was flatly wrong on the Jewish question, which he mentions in section 475 of Human, All Too Human. Here the musician was right that the Jews should be expelled from Germany, as Cosima admits in her diary: a position not uncommon among 19th-century patriots. (We can compare it to the situation in the United States today: rustic Christians like Nick Fuentes and company are wiser on the JQ than the more cultured or sophisticated atheists.)

Nietzsche, who after publication received a bust of Voltaire in the mail as a gift from a Parisian, feared he would be excommunicated in Bayreuth, as he let Peter Gast know, but thanks to the publication of his book he felt greatly rejuvenated. ‘If you felt what I feel since I have fixed my ideal of life’, Nietzsche wrote to Rhode, ‘the fresh, pure air of height… you might be very, very glad of your friend’. But to the German palate Human, All Too Human seemed harsher than that of the French Enlightenment, even to his friends.

Nietzsche was wrong in his new book to say that art should make way for science. In this Wagner was right, and our horrendously technological, scientistic century shows that the positivism of the new Nietzsche betrayed the earlier Nietzsche of The Birth of Tragedy. Wagner, for his part, wanted a return to Jesus Christ in a world without chemistry. He was right about chemistry (the fire of Prometheus shouldn’t have been given to the Europeans so prematurely, we see what would happen in the First World War!). But he was wrong about Jesus Christ. That’s why I said that this is where the great paradoxes begin as far as the split between Wagner and Nietzsche is concerned. Each was right on some points and wrong on others.

Cosima, in her correspondence with Elisabeth who wanted to mediate the conflict, wrote that she still loved the Nietzsche of former times, but that the author of Human, All Too Human was in an unhealthy state, and she ended her letter with the words: ‘May you soon show signs of life again, and may we keep our affection, despite all the trials… This is what your Cosima wishes you, in embracing you’.

'Hitler' (book by Brendan Simms)

Hitler, 35

Hitler sometimes liked to say that the hard part was reviving Germany domestically; thereafter, dealing with her foreign enemies would be easy. In reality, he was under no illusions.

A nationalist revival would make Germany ‘capable of making an alliance’ again, but this was only a necessary, not a sufficient condition to secure her position in the world. That would require actual allies. Temperamentally, Hitler was not averse to a Russian alliance, preferably without the communists, but if necessary with them. ‘We must try to connect to the national [and] anti-Semitic Russia,’ he demanded, ‘not to the Soviets.’

That said, in August 1920, nineteen years before the Hitler-­Stalin Pact, he remarked that he would ‘ally not only with Bolshevism but even with the devil in order to move against France and Britain’. He feared, however, that this attempt to break free through a Russo-German pact would simply be crushed by the British and French. A British alliance was far more desirable, if that country could be kept out of the hands of the Jews.

Instead, Hitler looked further afield, at least conceptually. He hoped that he could confront the forces of international financial capitalism with the united front of the ‘International of the productive’, to mobilize ‘voices for the defence of the rights of the productive peoples’. Germany would spearhead this effort, by purifying itself first. Hitler demanded no less than a pan-Aryan international anti-Semitic front. Inverting the Communist Manifesto’s famous slogan, he announced: ‘not proletarians of all countries unite, but anti-Semites of all countries unite!” Aryans and anti-Semites of all peoples,’ he elaborated, ‘unite to fight against the Jewish race of exploiters and oppressors of all peoples.’ He repeated these injunctions in various forms on many occasions throughout the early 1920s, and indeed beyond. Though Hitler never suggested that Nazism was ‘for export’, he was clear from the beginning that his programme required a high degree of international cooperation among international anti-Semites to compensate for Germany’s weakness.

In the long run he believed that none of this would make any difference unless Germany solved the question of ‘space’.



In political theory, the Overton window represents an ideology acceptable to the public. Yesterday watching the interview of Colonel Douglas McGregor by Judge Napolitano, I was impressed that the colonel said that the Israeli lobby controls Western politics, the media and the financial sector because both the colonel and the judge are normies. I used to watch the judge on Fox News and the colonel worked in Donald Trump’s cabinet—in other words, they are both normies.

It’s amazing how the window has expanded as far as the JQ is concerned thanks to Bibi’s genocide in Palestine. While it is more accurate to say that Jews control the aforementioned sectors, clearly the window has expanded. I wonder if, when the Middle East conflict escalates into a regional war, the window of acceptable discourse will expand even further and the JQ will be openly discussed (no longer needing to say that it is just the Israeli lobby)?

It seems that at last, the pendulum of history is beginning to swing to our side. But its inertia is insufficient because the racial right still doesn’t have Uncle Adolf as its guiding star. There are still no leaders with whom the ordinary dissident could identify. Perhaps tomorrow I should resume my comments on Simms’ book.

'Hitler' (book by Brendan Simms)

Hitler, 28

Hitler rejected the standard solutions to Germany’s predicament. He wondered whether Zionism might be a solution to the ‘Jewish Question’, but quickly came down against the idea. Hitler saw in Jewish aspirations for statehood proof of their sense of national identity, despite all their international rhetoric. ‘The Jews,’ he wrote, were ‘one people’, who ‘identified themselves as a people (Zionists)’. The ‘proof’ of this, Hitler continued, was ‘Palestine’.

Hitler was deeply sceptical, though, that the Zionist project could succeed, because it was completely inimical to the nature of Jewry. The ‘Aryan’ concept of the state, he claimed, was ‘territorial’, while the parasitic Jews could only feed off existing states, not establish one of their own. The Jew ‘cannot build a state’, he argued, because he was ‘incapable of building a state’. Moreover, even if such a state could be erected, Hitler believed that it would merely increase the Jewish threat. ‘The planned Zionist state “Jerusalem”,’ he argued, should not be regarded as an area of Jewish national settlement, but rather as ‘the headquarters for Jewish world power plans for exploitation and nefarious activity’.

For the rest of his life, in fact, Hitler stuck to the view that the establishment of a Jewish state, in Palestine or anywhere else, would simply create another focal point for world Jewry.

Intelligence quotient (IQ) Psychology

On Sam Vaknin

Although I still believe what I said in December in ‘Deep, deep within’ about the Jewish question, today I received a shock when I saw how the Jew Sam Vaknin showed his subversive colours, whom I referred to in recent posts when psychoanalysing Marco in my series on malignant narcissism.

Vaknin is a typical subversive Jew living in the West! In this video I started watching today he says that women will dominate the society of the future because male muscle power is obsolete. He also says that the future of the US will be brown in a hundred years because whites are on their way out; and that both are inexorable processes that only troglodytes rebel against. (Following his perverse logic, I guess Negresses will be in charge of the US of the future!)

So this clinical psychologist is as crazy as the malignant narcissists he psychoanalyses: something very common in the so-called mental health professions—fraudulent professions that I have criticised much on this site. (The racial right has been blind on this issue. What white nationalist knows that psychiatry, psychoanalysis and clinical psychology are pseudo-scientific?) What bothers me most is that Vaknin’s insights into the aetiology of narcissism are valid. But in the video linked above he mixes his valid insights with the monstrosities he says.

For anyone who didn’t get the message, I would like to repeat something I have already said here and in my autobiographical books.

Since the traitorous Western world empowered the Jews after WW2, the greatest findings in depth psychology were not made by Aryans (which would have happened if Hitler had won the war), but by Jews. For example, as far as the abuse of children by their parents is concerned, the greatest breakthrough was to take the side of the child, not the parents or society. And that step was taken by the Swiss-Jewish Alice Miller. In my series on narcissism, I mentioned Silvano Arieti, who unravelled with his treatise the inner world of the schizophrenic. He was an Italian Jew who fled to the United States at the time of the Third Reich. Jeffrey Masson, another Jew, also opened my eyes to the malignity of Freudian psychoanalysis.

What I do in my books on parental child abuse is simply to use the findings of these guys and relocate them from the Aryan POV, which is also possible with Vaknin’s work on malignant narcissism. The difference is that the latter, in the video linked above, seems much more subversive in his message than the other Jews mentioned.

There is nothing wrong with appropriating the findings of Jews as long as we purge them of their subversive messages. However, someone unfamiliar with the JQ will be unable to do so. The work of Kevin MacDonald, for example, is useful for this kind of task. But as long as there is no purely Aryan state, and as Hitler wanted, a Lebensraum where Aryans can flourish unmolested by non-whites, those with the highest IQ, the Jews, will continue to serve as spearheads in various fields where high intellect is required.

The mere fact that in recent centuries Jews have overtaken Whites in IQ should provoke hatred of Christianity since Christianity has for two millennia been dysgenic (unlike the eugenics practised by Ashkenazi Jews). Gaedhal recently quoted me in one of his communiqués recalling my complaint that good Aryan sperm ended up in the asses of convent novices, when it should have ended up in Aryan vaginas, during Christendom. Since the monks were the carriers of good genes as far as IQ is concerned, that was grotesque dysgenesis that whites self-inflicted on themselves out of their paranoid horror of libido we see in, for example, Augustine’s Confessions.

Without Christianity, the Jews would never have won the IQ race against the Greco-Romans in a hypothetical world where Constantine would have been defeated outside Rome.

'Hitler' (book by Brendan Simms)

Hitler, 26

Worse still than the old European imperialism of western powers, according to Hitler, was the Jewish aspiration to world domination, of which the Germans were the principal victims. Drawing on the Protocols of the Elders of Zion, he claimed to see a grand plan to control the world. The ultimate aim of policy towards Germany and other independent states, Hitler stated at the beginning 1921, was the creation of a ‘Jewish world state’. He came back to this theme repeatedly over the next two years, when he spoke of the ‘Jewish-imperialist plans for world domination’, the ‘Jewish world dictatorship’ and the ‘final aim [of the Jews]: world domination [and] the destruction of the national states’. In his notes for one speech, Hitler made the connections absolutely clear in point form: ‘World domination with a Jewish capital—Zion—that means world enslavement: world stock exchange—world press—world culture. World language. All for slaves under one master.’ In this way, Hitler closed the circle of western imperialist, Jewish and capitalist enemies of the Reich…

Left, Zion (1903), Ephraim Moses Lilien. ‘Zion’ (Hebrew: צִיּוֹן Ṣīyyōn, Septuagint, Σιών, is a placename in the Hebrew Bible, often used as a synonym for Jerusalem as well as for the Land of Israel as a whole. —Ed.

It is in this context that Hitler’s evolving attitude to communism and the Soviet Union should be seen. At times, he suggested that Bolshevism and international capitalism were working together. He spoke of the way in which Jewish capitalism allegedly used Chinese ‘cultural guardians’ in Moscow, and black ‘hangmen’s assistants’ on the Rhine, while the Soviets in Genoa ‘walked arm in arm with big bankers’. The Jews, Hitler claimed, ‘had their apostles in both camps’ and thus agents on both the ‘right’ and the ‘left’. From time to time, Hitler claimed that communism was the main threat. It is also true that after the Bolshevik victory in the Russian Civil War, the threat of international communism loomed larger in his mind than it had in 1919. Hitler now called for ‘the overcoming and extermination of the Marxist worldview’. ‘Developments in Russia must be watched closely,’ he warned, because once the communists had ‘consolidated their power’ they would ‘probably turn it against us’…

Despite all this, Hitler still did not regard capitalism and communism simply as two equal sides of the same Jewish coin… More generally, his rhetoric and attention were still overwhelmingly directed towards the threat posed by the western powers and international finance capitalism.

For this reason, Hitler was bitterly opposed to any form of internationalism, not just because he despised it in principle, but because he considered it humbug. In part, this hostility was directed towards the German left, whose blind faith in universal principles, Hitler argued, had left Germany defenceless during the world war and its aftermath. For this reason, he argued, ‘[we should] free ourselves of the illusion of the [Socialist] International and [the idea of ] the Fraternity of Peoples’. Hitler’s main objection to internationalism, however, was that it simply served the interests of the western imperial powers.

Where was international law, he asked, when Louis XIV had plundered Germany in the late seventeenth century, when the British had bombarded neutral Copenhagen in 1807 and starved and oppressed the Irish, or when the Americans had displaced the native Indians. It had not escaped Hitler’s attention that ‘in the home of the inventor of the League of Nations [Wilson’s America] one rejects the League as a utopia, a madness’. There was not even a racial solidarity among whites, Hitler lamented, because France had sent ‘comrades from Africa in solidarity to enserf and muzzle the population on the Rhine’. For this reason, Hitler rejected the whole notion of international governance, claiming that ‘The League of Nations is only a holding company of the Entente which wants to secure its ill-gotten gains.’