‘Our present malaise, I would argue, stems less from these ideological influences [JQ, capitalism, etc.] than from a more recent development—the Second World War—whose world-transforming effects were responsible for distorting and inverting our already tenuous relationship to Europe’. —Michael O’Meara
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 An unpublished draft for a four-part work, which was to be called Noon and Eternity, and which opens with a great hubbub of heralds’ trumpets, announces: ‘The Earth now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.
Hitler was also increasingly interested in the United States, which he came to regard as the repository of (in his view) all the best European racial elements, including the supposedly better sort of Germans. He remarked that, unlike Germany, which admitted swarms of eastern Jews, ‘yellow people are not allowed to settle in America’. In August 1922 he was introduced to Kurt Lüdecke, who had spent some time on business in the United States and whom Hitler would later send as an emissary across the Atlantic. In the middle of that month, Rudolf Hess wrote on Hitler’s behalf to the legendary automobile manufacturer, and fervent anti-Semite, Henry Ford for support. Moreover, Anglo-America was also becoming interested in Hitler. He had appeared on the radar of the British Foreign Office as early as 1920, and by later 1922 he was firmly established in their minds as a figure to be reckoned with, but there was no attempt to make contact with him.
By contrast, the United States embassy, probably influenced by Mussolini’s coup in Italy, decided to take a closer look at this rising politician. In November 1922, the US assistant military attaché to Germany, Captain Truman Smith, came down from Berlin and met with Hitler on 20 November. Hitler argued that he was America’s best chance of keeping the Bolsheviks out of Germany, condemned monarchy as ‘an absurdity’, claimed that ‘dictatorship’ was the only answer, denied any plans for a war against France and railed against ‘the present abuse of capital’. To be sure, these were all things that the American wanted to hear—apart from the remarks on capitalism—but they also represented Hitler’s genuine views. One way or the other, the two men—both Wagnerians—seem to have hit it off. A ‘marvelous demagogue’, Smith wrote a few days later. ‘I have rarely listened to such a logical and fanatical man. His powers over the mob must be immense.’
It was Smith who put Hitler in touch with Ernst ‘Putzi’ Hanfstaengl immediately after their meeting. Hanfstaengl epitomized the relationship between Germany and the United States, which was to play such a central role in Hitler’s thinking and policy over the next twenty years or so. Hanfstaengl’s maternal grandfather, Wilhelm Heine, had emigrated to America as a liberal refugee from the failed 1848 revolution. He reached the rank of brigadier-general in the Union Army and served as a pallbearer at Lincoln’s funeral. Hanfstaengl’s father owned a large art business in Munich. Hanfstaengl himself was partly brought up in the United States, where he attended Harvard University and was personally acquainted with the young Franklin Delano Roosevelt. From 1912, he had run the New York branch of his father’s business. Hanfstaengl spent the war—which killed a brother fighting on the German side—in America. The business was ruined by the American entry into the conflict and the associated ‘Trading with the Enemy Act’. Hanfstaengl became an enemy alien: the insider had become an outsider.
Over the next year, Hanfstaengl and Hitler were in almost daily contact. Hanfstaengl impressed upon Hitler not only the immense industrial and demographic power of the United States, but the fact that every German had a close relative there or in some other part of the world, something of which Hitler was already well aware. He argued that the party needed to reach out to the world through a coordinated foreign press policy. Hanfstaengl now became effectively the NSDAP’s external media liaison officer. He also entertained Hitler with his piano, playing from a repertoire which included not only Wagner but Harvard football marches. Captain Mayr later recalled the ‘American methods of salesmanship’ used to push out the Nazi message. The United States thus increasingly became a model as well as a rival.
What has Marco’s madness got to do with the West’s dark hour? In short, with their neo-Christian religion of equality of race, gender and sexual identity, the Aryan in general is as crazy as this poor Mexican. In my diary entry of 10 December last year, I wrote:
When I woke up and couldn’t reconcile sleep something came to mind that I had recently heard in an interview of Judge Napolitano with Colonel Douglas Macgregor. All, of course, to contextualise Marco’s psychosis because his madness is the same as the madness of the people in power. Let’s see.
The gringo Secretary of State, Antony Blinken, doesn’t want to see that Russia has won the war in Ukraine but, like Marco, reversed it all. This is what Blinken said: ‘NATO will continue to support Ukraine, assuring that Russia’s war of aggression remains a strategic failure’.
He went on to say that they will not allow anyone to change the borders of Europe (Russia has already changed them), and that Ukraine remains militarily and democratically strong! Blinken added: ‘Ukraine knows that its future is a free, vibrant democracy and its path to NATO and the European Union depends on its own methods’.
This is what I am seeing in a YouTube video. But the video I remember best is the interview with Macgregor. It’s a pity I can’t even locate it. Blinken said there that Ukraine will regain the lost territories, and that they will push Russia back [red emphasis in my diary].
This is pure Marco when he grotesquely deceives himself by telling me ‘the house you are going to occupy’ not giving a rat’s tail about everything I had told him. Marco’s pathology is as undetected by Marco as Anthony’s pathology by Anthony. What Marco does is common even in the highest echelons of power on the planet. There is no difference between the extent of Marco’s psychosis and the extent of the American Secretary of State’s psychosis. It is the same thing.
Macgregor mocked Blinken after Napolitano played him the clip I couldn’t find. The colonel said that, of the points Blinken made, he failed to say that another step is that the Ukrainians will soon develop technology to reach the moon. So, on a par with Marco’s delusions, is the Secretary of State of supposedly the most powerful nation on earth. And so is Biden. The judge, in other videos, has played several clips of Biden saying things very similar to what Blinken has just said.
If there is one thing I have noticed in my writings about the mental disorders of people I know, it is that they are less serious than the disorders of those in Western governments, universities and the media. Nutty Marco only harms himself and his cousin. Crazy elites harm the entire white race.
The NSDAP programme—for example point 13[1] with its attack on ‘trusts’—was ferociously anti-capitalist and so, as we have seen, was much of Hitler’s rhetoric. Despite Hitler ‘s willingness to moderate his message to business audiences, emphasizing his anti-French and anti-Bolshevik themes, business was not reassured. Paul Reusch, a major Ruhr baron, noting the Nazi nationalization plan, remarked that ‘we have no reason to support our own gravediggers’. The party remained dependent on donations from the Bavarian Reichswehr, either in cash or in kind in the form of weapons or vehicles, and from a motley group of smaller donors, mainly traders, retailers and small businessmen.
Given the shortage of funds, the growth of the party and especially its propagandistic reach was impressive. There were significant gains in membership: 4,300 by the end of 1921, and more than 20,000 a year later… There was a real quantum leap in early 1922, when Hitler regularly spoke to between 2,000 and 6,000 listeners in the larger beer halls. A high point was the Deutsche Tag in Coburg in October, which culminated in a massive brawl with hostile demonstrators…
The purpose of all this activity was not the creation of a party organization capable of winning elections, still less that of a force capable of mounting an armed challenge to the Weimar Republic. Instead, Hitler’s main aim remained the establishment of ideological coherence in the movement. ‘The final strength of a movement,’ he claimed in mid February 1922, lay ‘not in the number of its local groupings but in its internal cohesion’…
Hitler claimed that ‘there was no fruitful work to be done in parliament’, and that ‘individual National Socialists would be corrupted by the swamp of parliamentarism’.
Throughout the early 1920s, therefore, Hitler used his speeches to rehearse and develop his ideology. During this period his words—which were, of course, acts in themselves—were more important than his deeds. The recent defeat and its causes remained the central preoccupation. Hitler repeated his conviction that the war had been caused by an Anglo-American capitalist conspiracy. Sometimes, he attributed the ‘original sin’ to Britain, whose commercial and colonial ‘envy’ of the Reich had driven a ‘policy of encirclement’ against Germany, and whose press had vilified her before and during the war as a nation of Huns and barbarians. On other occasions, he targeted the United States. ‘Not least because the social welfare and the cultural development [of the German Empire] was a thorn in the eyes of the American trust-system,’ he thundered in March 1921, ‘we had to disappear from view.’ Hitler repeatedly contrasted ‘Germany’s social culture’ with American capitalism. He reserved particular scorn for US president Woodrow Wilson as the ‘agent of international high finance’…
Fighting France, and especially the British Empire, was bad enough, but what had ultimately tipped the scales was US intervention. This, Hitler was convinced, would have taken place with or without the U-boat war. Having previously been a ‘passive’ supporter of the Entente through the supply of armaments, the Americans intervened when Britain and France were on the verge of defeat in order not to lose the ‘billions’ which it was owed by the Allies. ‘America was called in,’ he claimed, ‘and the power of international big capital thereby became openly involved’…
___________
[1] Editor’s Note: ‘We demand nationalization of all businesses which have been up to the present formed into companies (trusts).’
In chapter 3 of Brendan Simms’ book on Hitler we can read:
Hitler now moved to reorganize and expand the NSDAP. By the end of 1921, membership stood at about 6,000. The party moved from Sterneckerbräu to larger premises at Corneliusstrasse 12. Local groups were founded in Hanover, Zwickau and Dortmund. Hitler tightened his control over the party, including the cells outside Germany. In the spring of 1922 the Austrian and Bohemian NSDAP accepted Hitler’s authority. Collegial decision-making was abolished…
Ideological purity rather than control for its own sake seems to have been his main concern.
The day before yesterday I mentioned a recent article by Matt Parrott just to quote a few comments from its comments section, but I omitted the subject of the article: the recent demise of a racialist party in his country that had barely been formed.
Early critics of the United States told great truths about that country: truths that now seem much harder to see. Alexis de Tocqueville in his famous book wrote that freedom of speech did exist in the newly formed nation across the Atlantic, as long as opinion was confined to the paradigm accepted by most Americans.
Born on July 29, 1805, into a family of royalists that lost several of its members during the period known as The Terror of the French Revolution, the fall of Robespierre in 1794 spared Alexis’s parents from the guillotine. For that reason, he was suspicious of the revolutionaries all his life, and let’s remember that the ideologies that led to the founding of the US and modern France were twinned.
Alexis accepted a government mission to travel to the United States to study its prison system; his stay there lasted nine months. The fruit of this trip was a work on American prisons but his stay served him to deepen his analysis of the American political and social systems, which he described in his work Democracy in America (1835-1840).
Let us now think about the above quote from Simms’ book on the party that Hitler founded and Parrott’s piece. It is curious how the Old World without a First Amendment to the US Constitution, written in such clear prose, was de facto more tolerant than what is now happening in the New World. Someone might retort to me that Europe is currently more intolerant about us than the US, and it is true. But we should not forget the free speech gag laws that the Allies imposed in Germany and Austria after WWII.
Only when the dollar collapses and the US government has to withdraw the huge number of military bases it has around the world, including those still existing in Germany, will it be possible to see again the Teutonic character unmolested by the country Alexis visited.
Cato the Elder (234–149 BC), the most persistent advocate in the Senate for the total destruction of Carthage, was associated with repeated use, in or out of its proper context, of the phrase
Delenda est Carthago.
A little over two years ago I quoted some passages from an article published in The Occidental Observer that, now that I am reviewing Brendan Simms’ book on Hitler, are worth repeating:
Hence, early America prospered and flourished in spite of, not because of, Christianity; in spite of, not because of, Blacks and Jews; and in spite of, not because of, the principle of equality. Blacks, Jews, “equality,” and Christianity were millstones around the young nation’s neck…
Therefore, it is time to accept reality and give up America for lost. Put away your flags, your pins, and all your red-white-and-blue paraphernalia. Toss out your MAGA hats; America will never be “great again.” Anyone who tells you otherwise is a liar or a fool. The country is rotting from above and below. Vermin are calling the shots from on high, and human detritus washes in over the borders. This was precisely how Ancient Rome fell. Such is the terminal stage of many an empire…
America is dying a slow and painful death. Let us euthanize the long-suffering nation, redraw the boundaries, rethink the guiding principles, and begin again.
To achieve this, the first step is to look in the mirror, as the quote from Canadian Sebastian Ronin says in one of my posts this week.
Brendan Simms continues in the third chapter of his book:
From mid November 1919, Hitler mounted a series of full-scale attacks in public speeches on the main enemy—‘absolute enemies England and America’. It was Britain which had been determined to prevent Germany’s rise to world power, in order not to jeopardize their ‘world monopoly’. ‘That was also the reason,’ Hitler claimed, ‘to make war on us. And now America. As a money country it had to intervene in the war in order not to lose the money they had lent.’ Here he explicitly made the link between his anti-capitalistic critique and the hostile behaviour of the western coalition. This was closely connected to Hitler’s anti-Semitism. ‘The Americans put business above all else. Money is money even if it is soaked in blood. The wallet is the holiest thing for the Jew,’ he claimed, adding: ‘America would have stuck with or without U-boats.’ What is remarkable here is that the terms ‘the Americans’ and ‘the Jews’ were used almost interchangeably.
As I said earlier, a small faction of the American racial right, represented by Francis Parker Yockey (1917-1960) and the retired Michael O’Meara (1946 – ) were, like Hitler, harsh critics of Anglo-American capitalism.
Anyone wishing to be introduced to Yockey’s thought can do so by reading Kerry Bolton’s essay, ‘A Contemporary Assessment of Yockey’, pages 47-70 of this PDF I compiled.
Anyone wishing to be introduced to O’Meara’s thought can do so by reading my excerpts from his Toward the White Republic here.
O’Meara’s Toward the White Republic was the first book published by Counter-Currents. In yesterday’s post I discussed ‘White Nationalism is Not Anti-Semitism’: an article by O’Meara that should have been included in Toward the White Republic (the first page of the hard copy I own contains a few words the author wrote to me). Greg Johnson delayed the publication of the short article ‘White Nationalism is Not Anti-Semitism’, whereas O’Meara wrote it in 2010 and Johnson published that piece in October 2011.
O’Meara always wrote very clearly, concisely and didactically, which I cannot say of Yockey, although Bolton’s essay linked above summarises Yockey’s philosophy admirably. But even if a visitor reads carefully the summaries of these two intellectuals linked above, he still won’t have arrived at the Christian Question that Hitler himself would, years later, understand. Even more than Mammon worship, the CQ has been the real poison for ethno-suicidal whites. For example, although the Chinese have become Mammon worshipers, by not submitting to Christian ethics they haven’t become ethno-suicidal like the white madmen, who import millions of coloureds. But let’s take it one step at a time. Simms continues:
If Hitler’s profound hostility to the Anglo-Saxon powers was shaped by his anti-Semitism, it was also distinct and, crucially, anterior to it. He had, after all, spent almost the entire war fighting the ‘English’, and latterly the United States. Hitler became an enemy of the British—and also of the Americans—before he became an enemy of the Jews. Indeed, he became an enemy of the Jews largely because of his hostility to the Anglo-American capitalist powers. Hitler could not have been clearer: ‘We struggle against the Jew,’ he announced at a public meeting in early January 1920, ‘because he prevents the struggle against capitalism.’
The rest of Germany’s adversaries, by contrast, fell into a second and milder category. The Russians and the French, so the argument ran, had become hostile ‘as a result of their unfortunate situation or some other circumstances’. Hitler was by no means blind to the extent of French antagonism, but it is striking that he discoursed at much greater length about the financial terms of the treaty, and the blockade, than the territorial losses to Germany’s immediate neighbours. This focus on Anglo-American, and increasingly on US, strength, with or without anti-Semitism, was by no means unusual in Germany, or even Europe generally. It reflected a much broader post-war preoccupation with the immense global power of the United States. As we shall see, Hitler’s entire thinking, and the policies of the Third Reich after 1933, were in essence a reaction to it.
Remember the words by the Canadian Ronin in my post yesterday: ‘The betrayal of the White European race stems from deep, deep within, so deep that it is not visible or obvious for most’. That’s something the white nationalists south of Canada still don’t want to see! These are the words of Greg Johnson, Michael O’Meara’s editor a dozen years ago, in the thread discussing O’Meara’s article that white nationalism, as O’Meara understood it, is not simply a synonym of anti-Semitism:
I think that O’Meara has a chip on his shoulder and is spoiling for a fight with people who are essentially on his side. I don’t see any good that can come from that.
This, of course, is to misunderstand the whole thing, as O’Meara wasn’t trying to unnecessarily provoke the Counter-Currents commentariat. What he was trying to convey is that there are more serious causal factors in white decline than Jewish subversion, and that consequently our horizon shouldn’t be limited to the JQ.
Johnson’s words quoted above are from 2011. What American white nationalists still don’t want to see, we will see in this extensive review of Simms’ revisionist biography of Hitler.
The West’s Darkest Hour disappeared for a few hours as of 2:20 pm. The server informed me that they made some adjustments. Apparently, the problem has been fixed.
This short clip from 1992 of Ted Koppel’s interview with President Nixon is fascinating to back up what I said yesterday about the ‘Christian Cup’ (note that John Mearsheimer, who comments on the clip with Judge Napolitano, wrote a great book about the Israel lobby).
The ‘bond’ Nixon speaks of between the US and Israel is, according to the president, a ‘moral commitment’. This is analogous to what Tom Sunic recently said in The Occidental Observer, of which I quoted this. Then Mearsheimer talks about the extraordinary relationship between the US and Israel. It reminds me of what Charlton Heston used to say about his marriage: rather murder than divorce!
It is increasingly clear, at least to me, that rather than Israel the real perp is the US (cf. Sunic’s Homo Americanus, especially the chapter ‘A War Crime of the Bible’ referring to WW2 ).
