‘Liberty, Equality, Fraternity,’ those three great lights of modern democracies are three colossal falsehoods, ignoble slave-shibboleths; impossible of actualisation even if proclaimed by some superhuman Satan, followed by armed hosts of un-killable demons, all armed to the teeth with flaming swords, Greek fire, and dynamite cannon.
You may trace Equality in letters of silver on tablets of burnished gold, but without engineering a perpetual miracle, you cannot make it—true.
You may write Fraternity in blazing diamonds on walls of enduring granite, but without reversing the mechanism of the Universe, you cannot make it a fact.
And, though you inscroll Freedom on countless sheepskins and rivet statues of Liberty on every harbour-rock, yet with ‘all the kings horses and all the kings men’ one being born to be a hireling and a subordinate—no power can free.
Can you build up a marble palace with mud and slime O ye drivelling bedlamites? Can you raise up a conqueror from the dunghill, or make the stupid great? Can you manufacture heroes out of hogs O ye snuffling ‘educated’ swine?
‘We can! We can! We can!’ shrieketh the raging rhetoricians of the market place and the editorial mill. ‘We can! We can!’ bellows the herd as it stupidly pours through the slip-rails to the pithing pen. ‘Yes, O yes! with the love of Jesus and our collection plate, whines the soft-skinned preacher as he turns over the sibylline leaves of his black art. ‘Of a certainty, we can,’ hisseth the plastic politician, the rattlesnake!—the hungry basilisk!—whose law making is more blighting than the breath of a simoom.
Thereupon, toward you, O America! they, one and all, point the finger of pride! Towards you!
America! Where the politicians rage and the people imagine vain things!—and the dogs in the alleys are—baying at the moon!
Then, turn I away! Sadly! Sadly! Sadly! And I brush against a slave in copper-riveted overalls, hurrying to his mill; and against another in gold chain and silken hat, hasting to his money-changing—and a lean woman in sordid rags, with a pile of lumber balanced upon her crown; and a splendid harlot in diamonds and brilliant plumage rideth slowly by.
And the cattle in the slaughter-yard are lowing for their hay; and a draught mare, with a galled shoulder, lieth swollen and dead on the frozen paving blocks. How nauseous it all is?
I recently said that I don’t talk about news on this site unless we use a news story to discuss metapolitics. From this angle, I can use the recent American election to illustrate one of the ideological pillars of this site.
Everyone knows what Christianity is. But those who have read Tom Holland will understand what we mean by atheistic hyper-Christianity, which we sum up in one word: neochristianity. In short, all Western atheists are neochristians since Christianity has not only the dogmatic side but also an axiological side. To give just one example. In my previous post I mentioned The Turner Diaries: a novel that ends when the Aryans exterminate the non-Aryans on the whole planet. Since that novel is never mentioned on white nationalist sites as the blueprint for what needs to be done, we could label them all as Judeo-Christian or Neo-Judeochristian. Why? Because the proclamation of human rights in the time of the French Jacobins, as Holland saw in his book, is at heart a proclamation of Christian ethics, albeit stripped of its religious trappings.
In his book Dominion, Holland included this image that imitate Moses’ commandments.
So there are no authentic apostates from Christianity in the West, except those who think as the late William Pierce thought in his novel—and in his history of the white race, where he said that all Aryan conquests failed because they failed to exterminate the natives. (This Hitler, Himmler and Heydrich did plan with their Master Plan East because, unlike the American racialists, they did dare to cross the psychological Rubicon: transvalue all Christian values.)
Once the POV of this site is understood, it becomes clear that the recent American election was a contest between the basically Christian values of those who voted for Trump and the neochristian values of those who voted for the mulatta. The problem is that both factions are two sides of the same coin. It was clear from Biden’s inaugural speech, from the Woke vocabulary he used, that whoever wrote it had already left traditional Christianity behind in pursuit of neochristianity: which takes the principle of Christian equity to its ultimate consequence (those who have not yet read Dominion should read it, abridged by me here).
Which faction is worse, the new or the old? It is very common among the American racial right to say that the new one is worse, but an accelerationist who has in mind the metaphor of the frog gradually burning out without noticing it would reply that maybe the old one is worse.
I don’t know which is worse. It is irrelevant. What counts is that the Pauline principle that there will be no more distinction between Greeks—that is, whites—and Jews came, in its secular transmutation in the 1960s, to be metastasised so that we would see blacks as brothers and ‘liberate’ our women. In our century Wokism took that principle to its ultimate consequences with homo ‘marriage’ and transgender empowerment. The latter may seem grotesque but it is grounded in Christian ideals, as I said in my 2019 post ‘On empowering birds feeding on corpses’, where I talk about the Franciscans of the 14th century.
The conservative revolution that is causing so much excitement among those rejoicing at Trump’s victory has to be understood from this meta-political angle. It is not a genuine revolution, as was the German NS. Rather, it is two Christian factions fighting each other: one very liberal and the other conservative. But salvation lies in abandoning Christian ethics altogether: which is why I changed the subtitle of this blog today from ‘Gens alba conservanda est’ to ‘Post-1945 National Socialism’.
Unlike today’s racialists Hitler understood Xtianity.
The previous two posts, in which I quote what Robert Morgan recently said in The Unz Review, are not about Trump or his VP marrying an Indian. The topic, as the red-lettered categories at the top of those posts say, is about the working hypothesis of white nationalism: that Jewry is the cause of Aryan decline. In a nutshell, Morgan’s comment illustrates that this isn’t true. It was we—and this I say—who doomed ourselves since, as Emperor Julian said in the 4th century c.e., we abandoned the true Gods in favour of the Jews.
That sin reigns throughout American white nationalism, so the typical American racialist reverses cause and effect, as was made clear not only in Morgan’s brief comment but in the red-letter links in the words ‘succeeded’ and ‘has seen’ that I put in the first of the two posts.
The paradigm shift is such that this site almost gets no comments. In spite of this tomorrow I will resume my quotes from Simms’ book on Hitler. I like that intellectual biography of Uncle Adolf’s thinking because the author shows that, while Hitler started with exactly that Judeo-reductionist POV he eventually realised geopolitics, the need for Lebensraum (cf. my last post on Eduardo Velasco’s essay on the Heartland) and things very similar to what John Mearsheimer has been saying about why his country destroyed Germany (and thus is ‘the enemy of Europe’, Francis Parker Yockey would add).
All this escapes and will escape the American monocausalists because, in their tunnel vision, they are not only unable to see what Hitler saw, but also such things as what William Pierce saw in his book.
There he mentions subversive Jewry but Pierce’s broad historical context makes us see history under a very different light from the history coming from the pen of Christians and neochristians. To give just a couple of examples: Alexander the Great and Julius Caesar appear not as heroes but as villains from the point of view of that book, which is also my POV (thanks Pierce: you were the most intelligent American of all US history!).
Editor’s note: this is Robert Morgan’s reply
today about what I posted yesterday:
______ 卐 ______
Hola, amigo!
Once again, our thoughts overlap. I especially agree with this:
The orthodox interpretation of white nationalism is that Jewry is the primary cause of white decline and that traitorous white men are like poor Manchurian candidates whom evil Jews hypnotised with malicious propaganda.
Certainly this is an apt summation of Kevin MacDonald’s view too, stripped of its “evolutionary psychology” trappings. The message of his signature work The Culture of Critique is that the Jews’ victory over gentile culture was won through propaganda, which is seen by him as able to both initiate and steer various social movements among the gentiles, or in other words, to manipulate them as though they were puppets. In my view, this way of looking at matters is not only completely wrong, but also very damaging in that by its misdirection it leads people to regard effects as if they were causes. Ellul put it very well:
Propaganda must not only attach itself to what already exists in the individual, but also express the fundamental currents of the society it seeks to influence. Propaganda must be familiar with collective sociological presuppositions, spontaneous myths, and broad ideologies.
By this we do not mean political currents or temporary opinions that will change in a few months, but the fundamental psycho-sociological bases on which a whole society rests, the presuppositions and myths not just of individuals or of particular groups but those shared by all individuals in a society including men of opposite political inclinations and class loyalties. A propaganda pitting itself against this fundamental and accepted structure would have no chance of success.
Rather, all effective propaganda is based on these fundamental currents and expresses them. Only if it rests on the proper collective belief will it be understood and accepted. It is part of a complex of civilization, consisting of material elements, beliefs, ideas, and institutions, and it cannot be separated from them. No propaganda could succeed by going against these structural elements of society. But propaganda’s main task clearly is the psychological reflection of these structures. —Jacques Ellul, Propaganda: The Formation of Men’s Attitudes, p. 38-9
Both the successes of the Jewish critiques of gentile culture and the Donald Trump phenomenon are better explained by Ellul’s view than MacDonald’s. For example, I would argue that America’s Christian heritage, and the very Christian commitment it had already made as a society to regard the negro as the white man’s equal following the Civil War, laid indispensable groundwork necessary for Boas’ views to be accepted. Because of this history, America needed to believe in racial equality as a biological fact, and Boas, the clever Jew, came along to take advantage of this. The gentile public was eager to buy what he was selling.
Conversely, propaganda failed to take down Donald Trump precisely because it went against some of America’s most deeply held beliefs. American culture respects a winner most of all, and he is the archetypal winner: a billionaire, a courageous fighter (his cry of “Fight! Fight! Fight!” after being shot was electrifying! LOL), a flagrant womanizer and a fucker of supermodels. The contrast between him and the effete, doddering Biden, Obama’s shoeshine boy, couldn’t have been greater or more sharply drawn.
Nevertheless though, MacDonald is wrong again in being encouraged by Trump’s victory. The decline of the white race will continue under Trump just as it has been, and likely even accelerate. It’s fitting that Trump’s a Zionist, because America is itself Zionist. His family is interbred with Jews, and his Veep is married to a street shitter[emphasis by Editor]. They set a fine example! We must reconcile ourselves to the fact that race mixing is the face of empire, and it would be crazy to expect less of it under Trump imperator.
Editor’s note: I will not translate the entire book on Heartland that Eduardo Velasco published on the now defunct Evropa Soberana site in Spanish (here, here and here). I limit myself to translating only a few paragraphs from the final section:
______ 卐 ______
Johann Gottlieb Fichte’s The Closed Commercial State (1800) is a tedious book, utopian and pedantic in its rationalism, but it is worth our attention. On the one hand, it had a certain influence on the development of what Spengler would call ‘Prussian socialism’ or ‘Prussianism’, and on the other, it defends the exact opposite thesis to that of globalisation, i.e. that a country should seek autarchy to extricate itself from the network of international trade, becoming, so to speak, an endorheic state of exclusively internal (commercial, economic) flow. Thinkers of all political persuasions have seen interesting things in Fichte’s work, liberals as well as socialists, communists, anarchists, fascists and Nazis[1] so it is not a work to be dismissed lightly.
We return, then, to Prussia, the land that before the Second World War was home, according to Mackinder, to ‘one of the most virile races of mankind’, a race that was to suffer between 1944 and 1946 an ethnic cleansing of extreme brutality. While England was ruled by a cosmopolitan aristocracy of shipping, trade, commerce and banking speculation, Prussia was ruled by a provincial, military, land and productivity aristocracy. Fichte sent a copy of The Closed Commercial State (ECC) to Frederick William III, supposedly to influence his economic policy.
Fichte was inspired by the peasant society of the Germanic world and the economic organisation of the old German cities. It is impossible not to see in his work affinities with Lycurgus, Plato and Thomas More. The German philosopher’s economic ideal was a completely self-sufficient state, with ‘nothing to demand from its neighbours and nothing to cede to them’. Fichte says that in such a state, ‘the government does not aim at acquiring commercial predominance, which is a dangerous tendency, but at making the nation completely independent and autonomous. If a single nation has achieved supremacy in commerce, its victims must use every possible means to attenuate this supremacy and restore the balance’: a clear reference to the power of Great Britain.
The danger of the commercial supremacy of a single nation was that the international trade handled by that nation took over all the goods of a rival state until that state had only one commodity left to sell: itself. In this way, ‘the state sells itself, sells its independence, collects a permanent subsidy thus becoming the province of another state and a means to any of its objectives’.
In this regard, it is worth remembering that, although autarchy is today surrounded by taboos, in classical Greece it was the ideal to which people aspired, even if it was not always completely attainable. Aristotle, in his Politics, considered autarchy to be the ideal situation for a state. Hesiod went further and proposed autarchy for each family household. Tellurian Sparta, the most respected state in classical Greece, was a closed, autarchic economy thanks to its conquest of fertile Messenia. Thalassic Athens, by contrast, was heavily urbanised and had to rely on grain markets such as Egypt and southern Ukraine.
Fichte divided society into three strata: producers, merchants and craftsmen. Then came the military, teachers and statesmen. Of all these castes, the most dangerous for Fichte was the merchants since, through their possession of commodities and especially money, they tended to escape the authority of the state and ended up imposing their own rules.
The philosopher thought that Europe had a great commercial advantage over the other continents, tending to take over their labour power and goods. He considered that this state of affairs could not be perpetuated forever and that one day, a large state would have to leave the ‘European commercial society’ to form its own closed productive circuit.
What Fichte was criticising in these reflections was the explosion of Europe, and he advocated an implosion: Europe could not be eternally dependent on overseas ‘backyards’ in the Third World and must one day be able to stand on its own feet. Moreover, a planned economy cannot be planned, nor can a country be like a self-balancing and autonomous microsystem, if it depends on foreign goods and production, the supply, processing and transport of which it does not control, and is thus at the mercy of the whims of the markets: price fluctuations, trade embargoes, competition with the domestic product, etc. Such economic phenomena will tend to turn the country that is subject to them into a mere province in the network of international trade, tending to specialise in one economic sector rather than hosting all of them.
In the 1930s, autarky seemed to be gaining the upper hand over international trade. Three distinctly autarkic geopolitical blocs emerged: the European Axis (Germany, Italy and allied nations), the Greater East Asia Co-Prosperity Sphere (the vast conquests of the Japanese Empire from Manchuria to Indochina) and the Soviet Union.
With Europe, Asia and the Heartland closed to the US export market (except, in the case of the USSR, the substantial military, economic and oil aid it received from the US and the UK), all that remained on the planet was the British Empire and the impoverished colonial Third World: a de facto and imposed US autarchy. In The Tragedy of American Diplomacy (1959), William Appleman argued that the US ruling oligarchy went to war against Germany and Japan to protect global export markets from the effects of autarky. The dynamics of the autarkic blocs were neutralised with the establishment of the Bretton Woods system (1944), with its three pillars: the International Monetary Fund, the World Bank and the dollar as the reserve currency of international trade. The only bloc that was spared to some extent was the USSR, which formed the economic organisation COMECON, formed in 1949, the same year that NATO was founded.
The COMECON bloc, of which the Warsaw Pact was to be the military arm. Red: Member states. Yellow: observer states. Pink: belonged to the organisation but did not participate. (Editor's Note: Compare it with BRICS).
Fichte—who believed that ‘in the beginning was action’ and that property emanates from labour and productive activity, that is, that the earth belongs to whoever pours his blood and sweat upon it—did not recognise the value of money, but the value of the commodities that such money is capable of buying. For him, ‘The total mass of money represents and is worth as much as the total mass of commodities’. No matter how much money is in circulation or is created out of thin air in the form of credit, its purchasing power will always be limited by the actual goods and services that can be bought.
Wealth does not depend on how much money one has, but on how large a fraction of the total existing money one possesses. It is clear that when there is, as today, much more money in circulation (especially electronic money and interest-debt-money) than real commodities, the excess capital floating in ‘the markets’ is devoted to inflating bubbles, opening new artificial markets (for example, by turning the emotions of the individual and human nature itself into a business), manipulating needs and demand with aggressive advertising and speculating to justify its existence. Not to mention that every time the money supply is increased, the creators of money (or rather, counterfeiters of money) increase the proportion of capital they own out of the total money supply, using this capital as if it were a commodity in itself. But ‘In the simple expression “to realise something in money”, the whole falsity of the system is already contained. Nothing can be realised in money because money itself is nothing real. The commodity is the real reality.’
To bring about the closure of the commercial state, Fichte advocated the ‘abolition of the world currency’ which he identifies with gold and silver (Editors’ Note: after the collapse of the British Empire, nowadays the dollar is still the reserve currency of international trade) and the ‘introduction of a national currency’. It is difficult not to see here the influence of Sparta, which forbade the possession of gold and silver by creating a new currency which was not accepted outside the territory of the Lacedaemonian state: rough iron bars, so that they could not be manipulated or moulded, were dipped in vinegar while still red-hot; the idea was to armour against the fluctuating and shifting influence of foreign trade.
In this situation, there is no longer any exchange with foreign states, except for one-off trade pacts based on direct barter, without monetary intermediaries. This is what Germany was doing before World War II in Eastern Europe and South America: a barter trade that did not need to use international currencies in the hands of its enemies. In contrast, initiatives for a world currency have always come from globalist individuals or entities, for example, the Rothschild family. (In this video, Mr. Evelyn de Rothschild proposes an ‘international currency’ to avoid conflict. What he does not say is who will have the power to issue such a currency—presumably himself, for example.)
Another of Fichte’s contributions to geopolitics is his idea that states should not overstep their ‘natural frontiers’, understood as those within which a state can achieve self-sufficiency. Towards the end of his writing, Fichte leaves us with a very politically incorrect reflection:
It is evident that a nation so closed, whose members live only with themselves and very few with foreigners; a nation which preserves by those measures its particular way of life, its institutions and customs; a nation which deeply loves its Fatherland and everything national, very soon a high degree of national honour and a very peculiar national character will emerge. It will become another nation, a completely new nation. That introduction of the national currency is its true creation…
______ 卐 ______
The power of High Finance has decided to base itself in the United Kingdom, North America and to a lesser extent the rest of Western Europe because among other things there is an excellent quality manpower there.
The American troops deployed in Iraq and Afghanistan have a fabulous genetic heritage, perfectly comparable to the Indo-European hordes of antiquity. Even in the faces of many white American convicts, we can discern a potential crusader knight, Viking, sailor, soldier, hard-nosed farmer or hard-headed labourer. These are people gone astray, uprooted by crossing the Atlantic, without the moral and spiritual foundations that only deep Asia, along with inspiring European history—based on heroic examples, war, art, culture, work, beauty and love—can provide.
What is currently being exported from Hollywood and MTV is not American culture, as the saying goes. ‘American culture’ is the love of family and country, the right to defend them with arms, civic sovereignty, religion, liberty and independence: the values of a people whose land was not given to them by a feudal lord, but won by blood and sweat. Neither Thomas Jefferson nor George Washington has anything to do with the toxic rubbish propagated from the meccas of the Yankee subculture, and the sphere of influence of the Pentagon and Wall Street is not an ‘American empire’ any more than the Vatican is the Roman Empire and the City of London is the British Empire.
We know—because we are not deluded or cultural Judeo-Christians, nor do we believe in globalisation or the religion of political correctness—what happens in countries that forget the fundamental laws of reproduction and race improvement: they become vulgarised, corrupt, unserious, undisciplined, disorganised, weakened and Third Worldised. The darkening of the race goes hand in hand with the darkening of the mind and spirit. Parasitic weeds take over the garden and eventually choke out the noblest and most productive trees and plants…
Deliberate and systematic ignorance of human reproduction, of the importance of race and genetics in geopolitics will only have the effect that the ‘myth of blood’ will resurface with greater force and violence. Globalisation pretends to make us believe that we are all equal while at the same time homogenising us racially, a clear proof that it does not consider us all equal. Genetic and anthropological-physical studies, i.e. recognising the difference between people, are therefore an anti-globalisation vector.
____________
[1]Dr. Carl Schmidt, associated with the power groups of Deutsche Bank, IG Farben and Siemens, defended the idea of a Closed Commercial State in Europe led by Germany.
‘This is the expression of an authoritarian state –not of a weak, babbling democracy [like the American one]–, of an authoritarian state where everyone is proud to obey, because he knows: I will likewise be obeyed when I must take command’.
—Speech at Nuremberg, September 14, 1935 (see Savitri’s Memoirs pages 172-177 to fully grasp this point).
Reverting, however, to Chicago’s reverend Utopia-constructor, thus waileth he with cajoling crudity:
The laws of social evolution, far from being the blind, barbarous, and brutal struggle for organic existence, consists in the physical, intellectual and moral wellbeing of all the members of society, so constituted that the politico-ethical principles of Liberty, Equality, and Fraternity shall have the largest possible realization throughout the social organism. The main features of the condition of progress are Christian churches, Christian schools, Christian governments, Christian ethics and economics.
Another seductive but most malignant State Socialist (Henry George) roundly proclaims that ‘The salvation of society, the hope of the free, and full development of humanity, is in the gospel of brotherhood, the gospel of Christ,’ and thereupon he proposes to make politicians the national rent-tax collectors, administrators of everything in general, and all-round distributors of state pensions to ‘the poor and needy.’
Has not mankind had sufficient experience of what politicians are?—Those black-hearted creeping thieves and frauds. Their sting is deadlier than the bite of a cobra, and in the breath of their mouth there is—death. Curses be upon ye, O! ye politicians, and upon all who advocate increasing your prerogatives!
______ 卐 ______
Editor’s note: Emphasis added in bold. What Arthur Desmond wrote above reminds me of people like Nick Fuentes, and what he says below reminds me of the racialists who are currently talking about the upcoming elections in their country. Remember that a true priest of the holy words repudiates democracy as the worst of all possible political systems.
______ 卐 ______
Presidential candidates, from Jefferson, to Lincoln, (also their apish imitators) have generally indulged in equally shallow rhodomontade, because it means votes, and for votes, office-seekers would dress up in glowing language, and ray forth any devilish deception.
For two thousand years these effeminate superlatives have been trumpeted to the remotest corner of every Christian land, and yet (while enervating the morale of people) they have dismally failed to inaugurate the much foretold earthly paradise. They were preached by bare-foot monks at the inauguration of the Dark Ages, in order that those saintly lovers of the common people might creep into the administration of co-operative wealth and power. Now, the same general ideas are revived and dressed up (this time in politico- economic garb) by the eloquent agitator, in order that he may rule and plunder in the future, through the agency of the State; just as the priest once ruled and plundered through the equally rapacious agency of the Church.
When the Church triumphed, the Dark Ages began, and when it is finally rooted out (together with all its social antenæ) the Heroic Age dawns once more. True heroes shall be born again as of old, for our women may yet be something more than rickety perambulating dolls and drug-stores in spectacles.
The ‘Church’ is the idol of the priestly parasite—the ‘State’ is the idol of the political parasite. Beware, O, America! that in escaping from the holy trickery of the monk, you fall not an easy prey to ‘the loving kindness’ of the politician. Even if the ‘reformer’ succeeds in re-establishing upon majority-votes, the dark tyranny of the ‘greatest number;’ we have this consolation to fall back upon, such organisation must ultimately tumble down of its own weight, and then re-divide up into warring fragments. Nothing that is unnatural can last for long.
The Universal Church is no more; all we see of it now is jealous remnants. And the Universal State, the Social Democracy, the Economic Republic, the Brotherhood of Man, should they take practical form, are pre-ordained to similar failure. All they could do, would be to postpone the operation of the survival of the fittest—drugging nations in temporary sedatives.
No matter how eagerly madmen may try to do it, there is no known process whereby they can jump out of their own skins. Christian or socialist churches, paternalisms, schools, governments, administrations, ethics, and moralisms (even if genuinely Christian and fraternal) would be wholly impotent to change the natural course of things and therefore powerless to command the survival of mental and physical cripples; even although those cripples were as canonized saints for ‘goodness,’ and as the sands of the sea shore for number. Shrieking sentimentalism is indeed a feeble lever wherewith to overturn the immutable order of the universe. It cannot do it. No! not if it were whooped till the crack of doom! Not even if it had a Lamb of God in every city, ready to be butchered each Friday afternoon, in order to make a Christian holiday.
The main reason why Hitler withdrew from party management was his plan to write a ‘large book’, which he stated clearly in the declaration announcing his decision. This project began as a quasi-legal defence of his actions for the court. It soon developed into the idea of producing, as Hitler told Siegfried Wagner in early May 1924, a ‘comprehensive settlement of accounts with those gentlemen who cheered on 9 November’, in other words Kahr, Lossow and Seisser. No doubt hopeful of signing a sensational book with high sales, various publishers offered their services to Hitler, either in person or by letter. In time, however, the emphasis of the work changed again, probably in part thanks to some sort of explicit or implicit bargain with the Bavarian state to let sleeping dogs lie in return for a mild sentence. There were also positive reasons, however, for the new approach. Hitler wanted to use the relative peace of Landsberg to write a much broader manifesto elaborating the principles of National Socialism, charting a path to power for the movement and showing how Germany could regain her independence and great power status. The first volume of Mein Kampf, most of which was written or compiled in Landsberg, seems to have been largely a solo effort, with relatively little input from others. Julius Schaub, another inmate who later became his personal adjutant, recalled that Hitler wrote Mein Kampf ‘alone and without direct input from anyone’, not even Hess, who had joined him in Landsberg. Hitler typed the book himself, reading out or summarizing large sections to his fellow prisoners, who constituted an appreciative or at any rate a captive audience. Sometimes, he was moved to tears by his own words.
Incarceration gave Hitler a chance to read more widely and gather his thoughts. One of his main preoccupations in Landsberg was the United States, which he was corning to regard as the model state and society, perhaps even more so than the British Empire. ‘He ‘devoured’ the memoirs of a returned German emigrant to the United States. ‘One should take America as a model,’ he proclaimed. Hess wrote that Hitler was captivated by Henry Ford’s methods of production which made automobiles available to the ‘broad mass’ of the people. This appears to have been the genesis of the Volkswagen. Hitler envisaged that the automobile would further serve as ‘the small man’s means of transport into nature—as in America’. He also planned to apply methods of mass production to housing, and experimented with designs for a Volkshaus for families with three to five children which would have five rooms and a bathroom with a garage in large terraced settlements. He was equally determined not be outdone in the construction of ‘skyscrapers’, and looked forward to the consternation of the ‘Deutsch-Völkisch’ elements by putting the party headquarters into such an edifice. Quite apart from showing that Hitler had an interest in vernacular architecture, and not just in monumental public buildings, these plans prove that he was thinking of elevating the condition of the German working class through American style suburban and metropolitan modernity. This was the model of an ideal society against which he wrote Mein Kampf.
Modernity was not an end in itself, but a means by which the German people, especially the German working class and German women, could be mobilized in support of the project of national revival. Hitler exalted technological development—aeroplanes, typewriters, telephones and suspension bridges, and even domestic appliances. These would free German women from drudgery and enable them to be better wives producing more children. ‘How little our poor women benefit from progress,’ he lamented, ‘there is so much one can do to make [a woman’s life] easier with the help of technology! But most people still think today that a woman is only a good housewife if she is constantly dirty and working from early until late.’ ‘And then,’ Hitler continued, ‘one is surprised when the woman is not intellectual enough for the man, when he cannot find stimulation and recuperation.’ Worse still, he went on, this was ‘bad for the race’ because it was ‘obvious that his overtired wife will not have as healthy children as one who is well rested, can read good books and so on’. The link between what Hitler would later call the racial ‘elevation’ of Germany, technological progress and maintaining the standard of living is already evident here.
Part and parcel of this programme of racial improvement was Hitler’s support for what we would today call ‘alternative’ technology. ‘Every farm,’ he demanded, ‘which does not possess any alternative source of energy’ should set up a ‘wind motor with dynamo and rechargeable batteries’. This might not be possible in the current economic climate, Hitler continued., but it would be a viable long-term investment. He rejected the idea that technological change took the romance out of farming. ‘I couldn’t care less about a romanticism,’ he exclaimed, ‘which puts people behind frosted windows in the twilight, [and] which lets women age prematurely through hard work’. Hitler therefore sneered at the city folk who went into the country for a day, enthused about the scenery and then returned to their modem and efficient homes in the city. Hitler claimed to support ‘the preservation of nature’, but in his view it should take the form of national parks in the mountains. ‘Here too,’ Hitler concluded, ‘the Americans have made the right choice with their Yellowstone Park.’
In Landsberg, Hitler did not abate his ferocious hostility to international finance capitalism. He did, however, qualify some of his earlier ideas about ‘national’ economies. Significantly, he rejected the demands of the German automobile manufacturers to be protected against competition from Henry Ford through higher tariff barriers. ‘Our industry needs to exert itself and achieve the same performance,’ Hitler remarked. Once again, the United States was the explicit model.
Hitler was also taking on board the concept of Lebensraum. This was one of the key ideas of Hess’s teacher and patron Karl Haushofer, the doyen of German Geopolitik. He visited Hess in prison, bringing him copies of Clausewitz and Friedrich Ratzel’s ‘Political Geography’, one of the seminal geopolitical texts. While there is no hard evidence that Haushofer met Hitler on those occasions it is highly likely he did so, or at any rate that his ideas found their way to him. In mid July, there was a debate about Lebensraum at Landsberg, which began with some good-natured joshing in the garden and ended with Hitler’s ‘marvelling’ inner circle being provided with a lengthy definition of the term by Hess. Its essence was simple: every people required a certain ‘living space’ to feed and accommodate its growing population. The idea seemed to provide the answer to the main challenge facing the Reich, which was the emigration of its demographic surplus to the United States. This was part of an important shift in Hitler’s thinking, away from a potential Russo German alliance and the prevention of emigration through the restitution of German colonies, towards the capture of Lebensraum in the east, contiguous to an expanded German Reich. It had less to do with hatred of Bolshevism and eastern European Jewry, and more to do with the need to prepare the Reich for a confrontation or equal coexistence with an Anglo-America whose dynamism mesmerized Hitler more than ever.
Let’s expand a little on my post last Thursday, ‘Walsh’, in which I said that mental health matters (it was the subject of my books before I discovered white nationalism). I have already spoken on this site about so-called narcissism; Richard Grannon, who studies it, and yesterday I saw this ‘short’ by Grannon on YouTube.
The short reminds me not only of my parents’ folie à deux when they started scapegoating us because of the unprocessed traumas they carried from childhood, but also of the denial of data that the American racial right suffers from. What are they denying? Let’s compare the US and Canada with Latin America. On Sunday I told Gaedhal in the comments section:
These days I’ve been watching videos of Spanish and Latin American historians (all Iberian whites) trying to refute the Black Legend against Spain. I was very impressed that, despite these noble attempts, they all subscribe to the Christian commandment that we should love all races. They take this for granted even though they are on a crusade against leftists who hate the European conquest of the Americas.
It is becoming increasingly clear to me that Spanish speakers are completely addictedto the blue pill—even Pedro Varela, recently incarcerated in Spain because of WW2 revisionism!
The common denominator between North and South America is religion. The entire continent was conquered by Christianity. Just as the videos of intellectual Spanish speakers I’ve been watching reveal that they are all plugged into the matrix that controls them, we can say the same of the WASPs north of the Rio Grande. Because of their narcissism, they are incapable of seeing, say, the data we have been translating about the criminal history of Christianity. And not only that. Yesterday I reviewed the books that Counter-Currents publishes. I was disturbed that the first one they published, Michael O’Meara’s essays, no longer appears. Unlike the racial right in his country, O’Meara did not suffer from a jingoistic narcissism. He did see the flaws of the US (e.g. that capitalism is very toxic for whites).
Young Michael O’Meara
White nationalism is a new image of Rockwell’s National Socialism and Pierce’s racist avant-garde. Spencer’s Alt-Right was a new image of white nationalism. The America First movement is a new image of the far right. The dissident right, now that the term ‘Christian nationalism’ is fashionable in the US, is a new image of the extreme right. Why does this plant has to be renamed every few years and never bear fruit?
Because, just as Latin American narcissists have been unable to think in racial terms, so, similarly, because of Christian or ‘cultural Christian’ narcissism racialist Americans continue to deny data.
What we seek in The West’s Darkest Hour is that, through eating humble pie (i.e., our civilisation erred since Constantine) we swallow the pride that prevents the Aryan from healing.
Before I continue with the normal topics of this site I would like to say a word about the attempted assassination of Donald Trump on the 13th of this month and Thomas Matthew Crooks, who lived with his parents in Bethel Park in Pennsylvania, about an hour’s drive from Butler, the site of the attack, about whom the schoolmates who knew him said ‘He was bullied so much…’
According to the FBI director’s testimony last week, Crooks had searched online for information: ‘How far away was Oswald from Kennedy?’ Crooks had apparently plotted to escape with the distraction of remote-controlled detonation of explosives in his car, but a Secret Service sniper spoiled his plans big time!
Failed shooter (July 13, 2024).
The day after his death I said that I wouldn’t write about the event because to me it wasn’t that big a deal. I still believe that. But what prompts me to post this entry is an issue related to it: the conspiracy theories that inevitably arise after such events.
Judge Napolitano’s most recent interviewee believes there was a conspiracy in this month’s event. Even Chris Martenson, an American whose videos I have publicised extensively on this site regarding peak oil, is now promoting the theory of a second shooter. Likewise, the racial right is rife with such theories (consider The Unz Review for example). Since it is the 14 words that interest me, this aspect of the urban myths that affect racialists do concern me.
In my view it is premature to believe that Crooks didn’t act alone. We must wait for the official report to see how convincing the lone wolf hypothesis is. But it is possible to shed some light beforehand on that future report through another case. I am referring to an assassination which, unlike Crooks’ attempted assassination, was successful. Although I was a five-year-old boy, I remember very well that November 1963 when Sandra, my little schoolmate at Arnold Gesell Elementary School, told me at recess that the American president had just been assassinated (I felt very bad)!
I have already spoken on this site about Vincent Bugliosi’s book which refutes the conspiracy theories and proves that Oswald acted alone. Bugliosi’s book is so voluminous that it is accompanied by a DVD with secondary information (the publishers didn’t want to add hundreds more pages to a volume that was already too thick). Keep in mind that most Americans believe there was a conspiracy in the JFK assassination. But as I said recently, I lean towards the minority reports because I think that the prolefeed with which the System feeds the proles is unreliable (remember that in a market society it is sensationalism that sells best, not the most prosaic explanations).
Those who don’t want to read Bugliosi’s book can now educate themselves about the hypothesis that Oswald acted alone with a couple of clever videos that can be viewed on YouTube, whose subjects are listed here:
The YouTuber refutes JFK conspiracy theories but anyone who wants to delve deeper into why even intelligent people forge these theories might want to read Michael Shermer’s The Believing Brain, and pay attention to what Shermer says about ‘pattern perception’ and ‘agency detection’.
Agency detection is also a feature of conspiracy theories by assuming that an act was carried out on purpose. Conspiracy theories rarely assume incompetence among the alleged culprits (e.g., the Secret Service, which until recently was run by a woman who only wanted to escalate feminist quotas!). Keep in mind what in my Day of Wrath we call ‘paleologic thought’. Our gullible brain sometimes makes us see agency where none exists.
