Uncle Adolf’s table talk – 10

the-real-hitler
 
Saturday, 26 July 1941, night

[ Monarchy is doomed.]
 

The people needs a point upon which everybody’s thoughts converge, an idol. A people that possesses a sovereign of the stature of Frederick the Great can think itself happy; but if he’s just an average monarch, it’s better to have a republic. Notice that when the institution of monarchy has been abolished in a country—see France and Yugoslavia to-day!—thenceforward the institution is given over to ridicule, and can never again assert itself.

I am tempted to believe that the same thing will happen with the Church. Both are institutions that naturally developed in the direction of ceremonial and solemnity. But all that apparatus no longer means anything when the power that lay beneath it has disappeared.

Johnson’s amnesty

“White Nationalists treat Mediterraneans like Republicans treat Mestizos.”

Stubbs

In “Dies Irae” I responded to Greg Johnson’s bashing of Pierce’s novels, especially The Turner Diaries, and I exposed him as the pseudo-Nietzschean that he is. (Warning: that article is very strong meat indeed, not for the faint-hearted.) Now Johnson is bashing Pierce again but this time Pierce’s last book, Who We Are. He didn’t do it in writing but in a segment of his recent audio interview of Matt Parrott. In about minute 40 of the interview Johnson started to talk about “genetic purity and white identity,” and in minute 41:30 he began his anti-Nordicist tirade speaking about what he calls “weird forms of purism”:

My attitude is that we… should just have an amnesty for all remote past miscegenation. Because the really important thing… is to preserve our race as it exists right now.”

Since Johnson has in mind the miscegenation that took place in historical Europe through the millennia, he is omitting the crucial question: are, say, brown-looking Sicilians “white”? Pay attention to his words that I italicized below:

“…save the race as it exists… rather than being caught up in the past; and caught up in weird forms of purism.

There’s a kind of fallacy in this statement. Is Johnson implying that every European individual before the mass immigration of recent decades is per definition “white”? Is he asking us not to see the phenotypic difference between, say, a modern Greek that looks like a Turk and the hyperborean nymphs that make me mad? What about the Frenchmen and Frenchwomen who have nigger blood in their veins? Let me rephrase a bit from Arthur Kemp’s March of the Titans:

mulatos-franceses

(French women with non-white blood.)

According to official French statistics, some three million of North African Arabic mixed race and African Blacks, all from the French colonies, immigrated into France itself during the period 1919 to 1927. (Take note that this happened before the Second World War and the Morgenthau Plan to exterminate the Germans.) Kemp’s point is that a significant minority miscegenated with women like those in the pic, creating the inappropriately named “Mediterranean” look associated with the French in certain areas. But apparently, Johnson is not a believer of the one-drop rule: once you are descendant from a Negro you cannot be considered properly White.

Johnson continues his anti-Nordicist speech in his interview of Parrott:

One example of weird kind of purism is in this book by William Pierce called Who We Are, which I have been briefing thru. This book basically is a warrant for genocide—if you will—a brief for genocide, of whites by whites!

Has Johnson read the mini-book about Sparta, originally written in Spanish, that I recently translated? Or Kemp’s? Or Who We Are with due attention (“…which I have been briefing thru”)? The moral of these books is that you simply cannot coexist with non-Aryans or use a class of non-Aryan servants because, in the long run, quantity overwhelms quality. The blond Spartans decayed after the Peloponnesus War precisely because they had not expelled non-Aryans from their conquered territories: a hypothetical prophylactic measure that makes white nationalists like Johnson and liberals shrug in horror!

What Pierce wanted for ancient Greece, which outside Sparta had a substantial amount of Asian and North African half-bloods, is analogous to having expelled the Amerinds to a corner of the continent as the English-derived peoples did in America. The non-Spartiate Helots could have been whiter than the Amerinds, yes: but tolerating them and even darker peoples inside their lands caused the extinction of the Aryan Greeks (see the link to Pierce’s chapter that I baptized as “White suicide in ancient Greece” at the end of this post). Johnson continues:

Pierce basically wants to do [it] by identifying himself as a Nordicist… Everything is blond hair and blue eye and his attitude about say Greeks is that the Dorians invaders should have exterminated all these darker cute white people so they didn’t mix with them. So my attitude is that there were people in the past who were Dorians or Aryans of various sorts. They do not exist any more. They are just ingredients now in what we call white people today. Anglo-Saxons don’t exist anymore. The Anglo-Saxons tribes which landed in England—they are just ingredients in the modern Englishman.

I don’t know shorthand and had difficulties with my laptop to easily rewind the interview after minute 44 but still managed to catch Johnson phrases such as: “If we are concerned with preserving Americans, English, Greeks…” and his mocking for what Pierce, Kemp and others considered “the terrible miscegenation.” Johnson also claimed that we must get “out of that mentality,” and that it is “impractical” to do an “insidious distinction among whites today” (my emphasis).

The same old fallacy again: assuming that all ancient Europeans were, per definition, “white.” In another moment of the interview Johnson says he is concerned about the miscegenation of today but not about the miscegenation of yesterday.

He is simply begging the question. The question is that precisely because in the past white peoples were utterly unconcerned about mongrelization that we have mongrels today. The question is whether or not the French descendants of, say, the women in the above pic should be considered whites or not. Pay attention how in the above quote Johnson mentions the modern “Englishman” together with the modern “Greeks” as if both could be plainly considered “whites.”

When Johnson finished his speech Parrott mentioned his distant drop of Indian blood. But that’s different. A distant drop of Amerind blood does not invalidate your whiteness as some black drops do. See for instance Andrew Hamilton’s article, “Whiteness, blurring.” I believe Hamilton is on the right track as to where drawing the line. Curiously, most commenters of that article published at Counter-Currents subscribe Johnson’s anti-Nordicist stance so common in white nationalism today.

White blurring aside, the issue of this post is people that are literally brown, like many Greeks and Sicilians or even some Southern Spaniards and Portuguese. They look brown: and by mentioning the modern Greeks in his interview together with the Englishmen Johnson seems to be using a handy doublethink to consider them white irrespective of what his very eyes are telling him.

felix_von_luschan_skin_color_chart

(Felix von Luschan’s skin color chart.)


The doublethink mentality one sees in the comments section of Counter-Currents is exactly the kind of mentality that caused the problem centuries ago. Either white skin is white; olive skin olive, and brown skin brown, and black skin black, or we have entered the world of Wonderland.

When a humble commenter like me has to remind adults all-too elemental things that any toddler can understand—like colors!—something must have gone terrible wrong within the adult mind. Anti-Nordicist nationalists cannot refute us with facts just as liberals cannot refute the hard facts of race realism advanced by the likes of Jared Taylor. Like the liberals, what nationalists do is appealing to emotional non-sequiturs as to what is “practical” from the “political viewpoint.” The paramount issue about whether it’s OK to marry and have kids with, say, a Greek that looks like a Turk is treated with the same horror of what a leftist liberal would say. The leftist would label “racist” those who abhor the idea of seeing a daughter with mulatto grandsons. Would white nationalists call “Nordicist,” a pejorative term in their mouths, someone who would abhor the idea of having a daughter with Sicilian-like grandsons? If so, what about those who the media labels as “white” in the US? Is George Zimmerman a “White Hispanic”?

“Nordicism” is the white nationalist equivalent to “racism” in the liberal mindset. It might seem incredible but the stuff written a hundred years ago by American racialists like Madison Grant was un-infected with the virus of politically correctness as white nationalism is today. See the von Luschan chart. Isn’t it a no-brainer that human “white” skin is up to, say #15? Where do non-Nordicist nationalists draw the line, in which specific number?

Even if some would grant the lighter olive skin as still Caucasian, many so-called Mediterraneans fall into the numbers twenties of the chart. Harold Covington had a hilarious point recently when he said that quite a few modern Greeks “look like Mexicans.” And I find it rather incredible that for nationalists even of the revolutionary type not even the clearly brownish colors of the chart are to be considered “brown” anymore. If theirs and Johnson’s “amnesty” is conceded to them all what is the next step? What about the so-called White Hispanics in Johnson’s own town of San Francisco? Isn’t it so obvious that the line should be drawn somewhere in the second column of the chart (together with other factors, of course, like the shape of the cranium)?

But it is useless trying to discuss the matter with Johnson because he does not answer to honest criticism. In his site he has had a history of not letting pass the comments of those who present cogent critiques to his opinions.

Johnson controversies aside, Pierce was light-years ahead from contemporary racialists. He was the true spiritual inheritor of National Socialism for the American scene. Most, though not all, white nationalists are pigmies compared to him. Who We Are was his last testament and you will probably learn more brutal truth from that book alone than pursuing the diluted racialism so fashionable today. My purpose of translating texts from the Spanish blogsite Evropa Soberana is precisely to warn English-speaking racialists about what we might call politically-correct white nationalism. It was precisely the sort of mentality that we see in this movement, if we contrast it with the purer American authors of yesterday, what led to a runaway anti-racism that is about to grant amnesty to millions of “White Hispanic” Mexicans and other non-whites in the US.

There is a strong trend of anti-Nordicism in the movement just as there’s a strong trend of anti-racism in the conservative movement. Ultimately, when compared to personalities like Grant or Pierce, white nationalists are closer to the conservatives. Here there are three must-reads that transmit the idea of why I believe that today’s anti-Nordicist movement is a dead-end:

• “White suicide in ancient Greece.” These are my excerpts from the tenth installment of Pierce’s Who We Are: A Series of Articles on the History of the White Race. It is telling that this entry has received zero comments as to date.

• “Why Rome fell.” These are my excerpts from Kemp’s appendix to his March of the Titans: The Complete History of the White Race.

• “Were the Greeks blond and blue-eyed?” Yesterday I added all of my recent entry translations on the subject to Chechar’s so that this Evropa Soberana article may be read comfortably, starting with the first entry.

Artemis

Parting word to the anti-Nordicists: Compare the so-called “Mediterranean” descendants of the Frenchwomen caught in the first pic above with the original phenotype of the handsomest ancient Greeks…

March of the Titans

colhaze5

Perhaps the most prevailing myth in white nationalism is that Jews are Whites’ deadliest enemy. I don’t believe it. Unlike Hitler (cf. his table talks of 1941 to 1944), white nationalists are so willfully deluded that they are reluctant to face history. And this is because once you face history objectively, you see that whites have been their own deadliest enemy, as can be inferred from the books about the history of the race by William Pierce and Arthur Kemp.

One of the many historical paradigms that support the above claim is the French Revolution. The following are paragraphs from March of the Titans: The Complete History of the White Race by Kemp. Keep in mind that in a previous installment of that book I quoted Kemp claiming that “The French Revolution soon took a sub-racial undertone—often it was enough to have blond hair to be declared a noble and be beheaded. This was taken to an extreme under a bloodthirsty period known as the ‘reign of terror’ and led to civil and foreign wars for ten years…This led to a denordicization of the French population which is still evident today in the relatively small number of blonds amongst the modern French population.”

The French Revolution of 1789 was to serve as the spark to Saint-Domingue’s population pressures. A decree by the new French national assembly in Paris of 15 May 1791, gave the right to vote for a government in Saint-Domingue to the White and mixed race population on the island.

The White settlers on the island immediately protested, with the governor general of the island, the aptly named Blanchelande, sending a message to Paris warning that the implementation of such a form of government would result in “a frightful civil war” and the loss of the colony for France.

The French National Assembly then rescinded the earlier decree, issuing a new one saying that the colonists themselves could decide on what form of government was best for their own particular circumstances. When this news was made known in Saint-Domingue, it heightened tensions: the mixed race population reacted very badly to being told they had the vote one week and then being denied it a few weeks later. Racial tension began to build up.

One of the results of the French Revolution was the creation of a political lobby in the National Assembly known as the Friends of the Blacks (Amis des Noirs). The Amis des Noirs reacted with outrage to the second decree on Saint-Domingue, and applied sufficient pressure in the French National Assembly to not only have the second, earlier, decree withdrawn, but to have a new one put in its place which gave the vote to not only the mixed race population of Saint-Domingue but also to all Blacks who were not under any form of indentured labor—that is, to the free Blacks as well.

Haitian_revolution

When this news was received in Saint-Domingue, the Black population, which had somehow managed to seize a shipment of weapons, went over to a fully-fledged race war, attacking Whites, burning plantations and plunging the island into chaos. The mixed race population first sided with the Whites, then with the Blacks, only to ultimately find that neither side accepted them.

This chaos continued until 1802, when a detachment of 20,000 White French troops sent by Napoleon Bonaparte to restore order to the island, landed and crushed the long boiling race war. Black insurgents were hunted down and the leaders of the Black rebellion surrendered, pledging allegiance to the new French government.

Then in 1802, yellow fever broke out amongst the French troops, at one stage killing as many as 160 per day. By 6 August 1802, four fifths of the French troops who had arrived earlier in the year, were dead from the disease. Napoleon sent 10,000 fresh troops to bolster the beleaguered French garrison. The Blacks, seeing the ravages of the disease amongst the White troops (the Blacks were largely immune to it) relaunched their racial rebellion, and the security situation on the island had once again descended into near anarchy, with Whites and mixed race persons being targeted at random by Black rebels.

The conflict then took a nasty turn: the French troops decided that the only way to bring the now twelve year-old race war to an end, was to kill all Black inhabitants over the age of twelve years—since they reasoned that any adult Black who for the previous twelve years of the conflict had been a rebel waging racial war against the Whites, would never again meekly go back to working in the fields and would be, forever, a potential rebel and insurgent. The same applied to Black women, the French decided, as the female Blacks had proved themselves to be even more vicious and cruel to captured Whites than what the men had been.

Massacre_des_Blancs_par_les_Noirs

With ruthless energy, the new French troops pursued this task, and many Blacks were indeed killed in this arbitrary fashion. It was however not a one-way affair: both sides reacted to each others’ atrocities by committing even greater ones: the murderous situation escalated exponentially.

Then the Napoleonic Wars intervened: with France being at war with Britain, the French colonial possession came under attack from the British navy. The English fleet blockaded the island, not only cutting off supplies to the French garrison from France, but also aiding the Black rebels on the island with supplies of guns and ammunition.

Dessalines

The new Black rebel leader, one Dessalines, led a number of vicious attacks on isolated French garrisons on some coastal towns, during which all the White inhabitants were put to death. By 10 November 1803, the French could no longer hold out, and surrendered to the English Fleet off the coast. Of the 50,000 French troops sent to island, only a few thousand ever made it back to France—and this loss was to sorely count against Napoleon at later battles in Europe itself.

With the surrender of the French, the Black rebel leader Dessalines immediately set about slaughtering those Whites unfortunate enough not to have left the island. Saint-Domingue was renamed Haiti in December 1803 and declared a republic—the second in the Western Hemisphere after the United States of America and the first independent Black ruled nation in the Caribbean.

Having disposed of the Whites on the island, the Blacks and mixed-race population then turned on each other in yet another race war, ending with the virtual annihilation of the mixed race peoples. In October 1804, Dessalines declared his people to be the winners and to mark the occasion, declared himself emperor for life of Haiti.

The same year, Dessalines issued an invitation to the Whites who had left the island, to return and help rebuild the economy, which had been utterly destroyed as a result of the thirteen years of race war. A surprisingly large number of Whites took up his offer, but soon discovered, to their cost, the nature of their error.

massacre2

Scarcely had the new year, 1805, begun when the Black population once again rose up against the Whites, although this time there was no reason to do so apart from sheer racial hatred. The handful of Whites appealed to the emperor, but he was powerless to control the mobs: Whites were slaughtered if they were found.

Finally on 18 March 1805, the very last White man, woman and child on Haiti was killed. The Black rebels had for the second time succeeded in killing or driving out every single White on the island.

March of the Titans

The following sentences of March of the Titans: The Complete History of the White Race by Arthur Kemp caught my attention:

The birth of the United States of America

Although the United States did not emerge as a separate country until the end of the 18th Century, it assumed a massive, perhaps even dominating, role in world history from that time onwards. North America became as important as Europe in many senses: not least because it became, through occupation and natural reproduction, a new White heartland, mirroring the occupation of Europe by the Indo-Europeans some 7,000 years earlier.

By 1630, the Spanish, French, Dutch and English had all established colonies in North America: all except the French had found themselves waging racial wars against the Amerinds, who resisted the White settlers with methods which were by any standards cruel. This was the first time the Whites came into contact with the particularly nasty habit of scalping—the taking of the scalp of a defeated enemy as a trophy; a habit deeply ingrained in the Amerind culture of war.

1622_massacre_jamestown_de_Bry

The Amerinds living in these areas for the greatest part resisted the White settlements with violence. The last resistance to the Whites in New England came in 1675, when three Amerinds were executed by the White colonists for murder. An Amerind chief named Metacom led an alliance of Amerind tribes in fierce guerrilla raids on the colonists. The Whites replied in kind and a bloody tit-for-tat exchange followed until Metacom’s secret hideout was discovered and he was killed. The Whites then drove the majority of remaining Amerinds from New England.
 

Mass white immigration

As news of the colonies in the Americas, or the New World, as it became known, spread throughout Europe, there occurred one of the most incredible mass population movements since the Indo-European immigrations: hundreds of thousands of Whites from almost every country in Europe packed their bags and moved to the new territories.

Some were attracted by the opportunity of owning their own land—something impossible for common folk since the time of feudalism in Europe—while others wanted to escape the class system and religious conflict into which Europe had descended. Waves of Germans, Irish, Danes, Dutch, Swedes and others all started pouring into the colonies, even though they were still under the nominal control of England.
 

Racial consequences of the American wars with Britain

For the White population, the War of Independence was psychologically testing: of the approximately 400,000 adult white men who lived in the colonies in 1775, about 175,000 fought in the war, either as rebels or loyalists. Thus, husbands or sons from nearly half of all white families were part of the “shooting” war.

The American Revolution also carried with it clear racial undertones, not only in terms of the Amerinds. The open call by the British to Black slaves to rebel against the White Americans, and the raising and arming of all-Black armies for this purpose, served to alienate Blacks from the new republic: many thousands crossed into British North America with loyalist supporters to escape the slave-owning Americans whose republic they feared and distrusted.

The population growth in the American colonies was staggering: in 1700, there were around 250,000 people in the 13 colonies: by 1775 there were 2.5 million, a ten fold increase—of whom 567,000 or 20 per cent—were Black slaves.

About 250,000 Blacks had been brought into North America before 1775, but the total Black population numbered 567,000 on the eve of independence. Whatever else slavery may have done to the Blacks, it certainly did not kill them, as this population growth was virtually exclusively the result of natural reproduction.

The contrast with the situation in Portugal immediately springs to mind: in that European country only about ten percent of the population was Black, yet in America at its very founding, the figure was already 20 percent: why did Portugal vanish as a world power and America then go on to become a great world power?

Agostino_Brunias_Planter_and_his_Wife_with_a_Servant

The answer lies in the level of integration: in Portugal there was absolutely no segregation and mixed race unions were positively encouraged. In America, not only did the huge degree of racial alienation exist—but as a result integration was actively discouraged and, in many states, made punishable with prison sentences (many of these anti-miscegenation laws were only repealed in the 1960s).

Thus although America always had a larger Black population, it never absorbed this population into its mainstream society, as the Portuguese did: and the difference is marked, once again proving the reality that the nature of a society is determined by the nature, or make-up, of the people dominating that society.

In defense of Hitler and his National Socialism

 
Excerpted from William Pierce’s response to one of the Letters to the Editor originally published in National Vanguard No. 103, Jan.-Feb. 1985:
 

ss_woodcut_poster

The Second World War was the great watershed in the collapse of the West. Had any major Western nation—in particular, Britain, France, or America—had the integrity to resist the Jews and avoid being drawn into their worldwide conspiracy against Germany, there would have been no world war, but only a war between National Socialist Germany and the Marxist Soviet Union. Germany would have won, Marxism would have been eradicated, and it would have been the beginning of the end for the Jews everywhere.

Instead, Western men were persuaded by their bought politicians, their Judeo-Christian priests, and the Jewish manipulators of public opinion in their midst to take up arms against their German brothers in an unholy crusade to eradicate National Socialism, so that the Jews and the Marxist cancer they had unleashed on the world could survive. Before the Second World War the West was still viable; afterward it was not.

The catastrophe of 1945, with the triumph of the Jew and his allies, made inevitable the opening up of the immigration floodgates for non-Whites into Britain and the United States; the destruction of American White public schools; the enactment of laws curtailing White freedom of association and the rights of White employers and renters (and with them the rights of White employees and tenants); the rise of feminism, homosexuality, and drug use; the breakdown of the traditional family structure; a soaring miscegenation rate; and the displacement of healthy White art, music, literature and drama by a Judeo-democratic-Hollywood schlock culture. It also led to the metastasis of the Marxist cancer throughout huge areas of Europe and the rise of malignant Zionist power in Palestine—a power which surely would be the instigator of the Third World War.

It behooves those of us who still hope that enough healthy genes for a new beginning can be salvaged from the coming chaos, therefore, to understand everything we can about the Second World War; about its preeminent personality, Adolf Hitler; and about his ideology, National Socialism, from the eradication of which logically followed the evils briefly accounted above. That’s why National Vanguard often has articles on these subjects and will do so in the future.

March of the Titans

The following sentences of March of the Titans: The Complete History of the White Race by Arthur Kemp caught my attention:

Flamboyance and ferment – France

The history of France is bathed in blood. Millions of White Frenchmen have been slaughtered in what seems like an endless array of wars, military adventures and natural disasters.

• His [Clovis I] most significant deed was his conversion to Christianity in 496 AD—without this conversion it is doubtful that Christianity would ever have taken hold on the European mainland. He initiated the practice of converting White pagans by the sword when he invaded the Visigoth Empire in 507 AD, causing them to flee south into Spain.

• After fighting off the non-White Muslim invaders to the south, Charlemagne then proceeded to launch a bloody war of extermination against the Saxon and other pagan German tribes under his control. The full story of this process—which saw the last paganism on the western part of the continent of Europe exterminated—has already been recounted in chapter 17 of this book which deals with Christianity. Suffice to say here that after killing thousands of pagans, Charlemagne managed to create a virtually uniform Christian kingdom—even if many of his subjects only paid lip service to the new religion.

Charlemagne_denier_Mayence

A coin of Charlemagne with the inscription KAROLVS IMP AVG (Karolus Imperator Augustus)

• They were all of the same Germanic stock, but the wholesale slaughter of those Whites who were not Christians, or refused to become Christians, unquestionably had an impact upon White numbers and quality in these regions. This was particularly the case with the leadership element of these Germanic tribes. Usually the biggest, bravest and strongest members of these tribes (the original Germanics actually voted for their chiefs), were the first to be targeted for execution by the Christian “missionaries”. As such the Germanics lost entire generations of their best sorts to the Christian sword.


After recounting the history of Joan of Arc, Kemp writes on the French expansion under King Francis I (1515-1547):

• France continued to be a powerful nation, and although engaging in the slave trade along with some other European nations, did not follow the path of Spain and especially Portugal in importing non-White slaves into France itself. Only a very small number of Black slaves were ever taken back into France, but they were so rare that they were of curiosity value only.


What most Westerners are all too blind to recognize is the devastating effects of the French Revolution, about which Kemp has a subsection titled, “The Reign of Terror—Nordics Targeted:

The French Revolution soon took a sub-racial undertone—often it was enough to have blond hair to be declared a noble and be beheaded. This was taken to an extreme under a bloodthirsty period known as the “reign of terror” and led to civil and foreign wars for ten years.

During this period, revolutionary tribunals and commissions beheaded close on 17,000 people—when the numbers of Frenchmen who died in prison or who were shot out of hand is added in, the victims of the Reign of Terror totaled approximately 40,000.

colhaze5

Of those executed, approximately 8 percent were nobles, 6 percent were members of the clergy, 14 percent belonged to the middle class, and 70 percent were workers or peasants charged with draft dodging, desertion, hoarding, rebellion, and various other “anti-revolutionary” crimes.

One step taken by the new French Republic was the official emancipation of the French Jews, and for the first time they were allowed to participate fully in public office in France. For this reason French and European Jewry became outspoken supporters of the revolution.

Striving to establish a “Republic of Virtue,” the leaders of the revolution stressed devotion to the republic and instituted measures against corruption and hoarding—two trademarks of the Church. This led directly to the November 1793 closing of all churches in the Commune of Paris, a measure soon copied by authorities elsewhere in France. A non-Christian cult was established, known as the Cult of Reason, with its main center being the then desanctified Notre Dame Cathedral in Paris.

Although the French Revolution and the Napoleonic Wars did not result in the importation of any large numbers of non-Whites into France, huge numbers of White Frenchmen, both nobles and commoners, lost their lives in the period from 1789 to 1815, with the Napoleonic Wars alone resulting in the deaths of over a million White Frenchmen—a huge slice of the population at that time, possibly as much as 35 per cent of all able bodied Frenchmen of all ages. The French Revolution itself had dealt a serious blow to the Nordic element of French society, as Nordic features were associated with nobility and made immediate targets for the revolutionary mobs. This led to a denordicization of the French population which is still evident today in the relatively small number of blonds amongst the modern French population.


After explaining how the Second Republic’s constitution created a presidential republic with a parliament elected by universal male suffrage—one of the greatest blunders that with time would provoke the suffrage for women and non-whites—, Kemp writes about white suicide:

By 1919, the French population had been battered by more than two centuries of major wars, and had started to go into a serious decline. The French government then started allowing French speaking Black Africans and non-White Algerians into France, mainly for use as labor, but also as army troops, in order to make up population shortfalls. In this way the German territory of the Rhineland was occupied by Black French troops, creating much anger amongst the Germans and becoming a political issue in the latter country.

mulatos-franceses

French women with non-white blood


According to official French statistics, some three million North African Arabic mixed race and African Blacks, all from the French colonies, immigrated into France itself during the period 1919 to 1927. (This figure is probably an underestimation, as it does not take into account illegal immigration, which probably accounted for a least half a million more).

Although the majority of Frenchmen did not integrate with this non-White influx, a significant minority did, creating the inappropriately named “Mediterranean” look associated with the French in certain areas. This integration process did not however reach anywhere near the level of the Spanish, and was certainly nowhere near the Portuguese example. Nonetheless, it is possible to see the traces of the large Black influx in a minority of modern Frenchmen to this day.

From Breivik’s desk

“The nation is divided, half patriots and half traitors, and no man can tell which from which.”

—Mark Twain


Anders_Behring_Breivik

Traitor – classification system – Category A, B and C traitors

This classification system is used to identify various individual cultural Marxist/multiculturalist traitors. The intention of the system is to easier identify priority targets and will also serve as the foundation for the future “Nuremberg trials” once the European cultural conservatives reassert political and military control of any given country.

Any category A, B or C traitor is an individual who has deliberately used his or her influence in a way which makes him or her indirectly or directly guilty of the charges specified in this document: 1-8. Many of these individuals will attempt to claim “ignorance” of the crimes they are accused of.


Category A traitor

- Political leaders (NGO leaders included)

- Media leaders (chief editors)

- Cultural leaders

- Industry leaders

Category A traitors are usually any current Heads of State, ministers/senators, directors and leaders of certain organisations/boards etc. who are guilty of charges 1-8. Category A traitors consist of the most influential and highest profile traitors.

10 per 1 million citizens.
Punishment: death penalty and expropriation of property/funds


Category B traitor

Category B traitors are cultural Marxist/multiculturalist politicians, primarily from the alliance of European political parties known as “the MA 100” (parties who support multiculturalism) and EU parliamentarians. They can be elected and non-elected parliamentarians, their advisors and any public and/or corporate servant who has been and still are indirectly or directly implicated in committing the following acts.

Category B traitors can also be individuals from various professional groups (but not limited to): journalists, editors, teachers, lecturers, university professors, various school and university board members, publicists, radio commentators, writers of fiction, cartoonists, and artists/celebrities etc. They can also be individuals from other professional groups such as: technicians, scientists, doctors and even Church leaders. In addition, individuals (investors etc.) who have directly or indirectly funded related activities. It’s important to note that the stereotypical “socialists”, collectivists, feminists, gay and disability activists, animal rights activists, environmentalists etc., are to be considered on an individual basis only. Not everyone who is associated with one of these groups or movements is to be considered as a cultural Marxist/multiculturalist.

Former category A traitors; Heads of State, Ministers/Senators etc., directors and leaders of certain organisations/boards etc. can be re-classified as category B traitors for practical targeting reasons (they have lost influence and will not yield the same target value/effect as current category A traitors).

Certain ANTIFA leaders or organisers related to ANTIFA movements (and other dedicated members) are considered category B traitors. Non-essential members are considered category C traitors. Many professionals such as for example journalists, influential sociologists or university professors etc. are considered and categorized as category B traitors as we consider them political activists and not merely professionals. They will of course claim ignorance and state that they are apolitical. This strategy might work for them until the day where they are visited by a Justiciar Knight—their judge, jury and executioner.

1000 per 1 million citizens.
Punishment: death penalty and expropriation of property/funds. Punishment can be reduced under certain circumstances.

Category C traitor

Category C traitors are less influential and lower priority targets (often individuals who have facilitated category A and B traitors) but who are still guilty of charges 1-8.

10 000 per 1 million citizens.
Punishment: fines, incarceration, expropriation (considered as acceptable indirect casualties in larger operations where WMDs are involved).

Category D individuals

Category D individuals have little or no political influence but are facilitating category Band C traitors and/or MA 100 political parties/media companies through various means. They are not guilty of charges 1-8 but work with or for individuals who are. The classification is of relevance when calculating/estimating indirect casualties concerning larger operations where WMDs are involved, as any category D individuals is not considered an innocent “civilian” but rather as a secondary servant/facilitator.

20 000-30 000 per 1 million citizens
Punishment: none (not considered civilian)

Number of Category A and B traitors on Western Europe

There are approximately 400 000 category A and B traitors in Western Europe using the current classification system (1010 per million).

France 65 650

Germany 82 820

United Kingdom 62 216

Netherlands 16 665

Belgium 10 807

Sweden 9393

Austria 7839

Norway 4848

Switzerland 498

Luxembourg 7777

Spain 47 167

Italy 60 600

Portugal 10 807

Denmark 5555

Ireland 6060

Greece 11 312

Finland 5353

Iceland 322

Cyprus 800

Malta 417

________________

Source: Breivik’s manifesto

Tribute to Dominique Venner

by Guillaume Faye

Translated by Greg Johnson

Veneer

Dominique Venner’s suicide on May 21 at Notre Dame: Marine Le Pen bowed to this gesture of awakening consciousness, which may seem surprising, but it is to her credit. A topless representative of Femen, a group of feminist buffoons, tried to smear his memory the next day, mimicking his suicide in the choir of Notre Dame. On her flat chest was painted: “May Fascism rest in Hell.” It is the second time that these naked groupies entered the cathedral with impunity, even though there is security screening at the entrance. AFP journalists were notified in advance to cover this “happening” and are therefore probably complicit.

The Leftist media and politicians (especially the pathetic Harlem Désir) together accused Venner, post mortem, of incitement to violence, of provocation. Spitting toads. Clearly Venner’s Roman gesture, as tragic as history itself, scared these people, who spend their whole lives crawling.

Venner has given his death as an example, not from despair but from hope: the symbolic sacrifice encourages our youth, in the face of the ongoing foundering of European civilization in its bloodlines and its values, to resist and fight at the cost of death, which is the price of war. A war that has begun. Venner wanted us to understand that victory can be achieved in the history of peoples if the fighters are ready to die for their cause. It is for the future generations of resistant and fighting Europeans that Dominique Venner gave his life. He was an “awakener of the people,” in the words of his friend Jean Mabire.

And he killed himself, though he was not a Christian in the ordinary sense, on the central altar of Notre Dame de Paris, that is to say, the heart of one of the busiest sacred and historical places of all Europe. (Europe: Venner’s real, authentic homeland, not the marshmallow sham of the current European Union.) Notre Dame, a place of memory much richer than, for example, the Tomb of the Unknown Soldier under the Arc de Triomphe. He wanted to give his sacrifice a special meaning, like the old Roman traditions in which the life of a man, to the end, is devoted to the country he loves and must serve. Like Cato, Venner never compromised on principles. Nor on matters of necessary style—of comportment, writing, and ideas—which have nothing to do with posturing, looks, and pedantry. His sobriety displayed, in essence, the power of his lesson. A distant master, which was not unrelated to the Stoic tradition, a rebel with heart and courage not vanity and imposture, a complete man of action and reflection, he never deviated from his path. One day he told me that you should never waste time criticizing traitors, cowards, self-interested bellwethers; nor, of course, should you forgive them; just ignore them and press on. The silence of contempt.

This is the Dominique Venner who, in 1970, brought me into the Resistance, which I have never denied or left since. He was my recruiting sergeant. His voluntary death — echoing Mishima’s more than Montherlant’s – is a founding act. And it filled me with a joyful sadness, like a flash of lightning. A warrior does not die in bed. The sacrificial death of this man of honor demands that we honor his memory and his work, not to mourn but to fight. But fight for what?

Not just for resistance, but for reconquest. The counter-offensive, in other words. After one of my essays in which I developed this idea, Venner sent me letter of approval in his elegant handwriting. His sacrifice will not be vain or ridiculous. The voluntary death of Dominique Venner is a call to victory.

A secondary infection

“No one who is familiar with the 18th century and the 19th century can possibly believe that Whites are blameless” said Brad Griffin (“Hunter Wallace”) a little more than an hour ago. In another thread on the same subject, a commenter asked:

Why are Jews leading white nations to begin with? What level of idiocy does it take to allow your nation to voluntarily be led by a foreign tribe? That’s the question.

Griffin responded:

Ever since the French Revolution—see what happened in Haiti—, the answer has been liberalism.

Yankees believed in liberal capitalist democracy and their ideology legitimized the Jewish takeover of their society without a shot being fired. Germany put up more resistance under Hitler because Germans were less committed to liberalism.

It’s really that simple: Jews thrive in liberal democracies, under communism, and other systems that substitute abstract ideology for ethnic or religious solidarity.

Is Jewish influence bad? Of course.

It is a secondary infection. Jews don’t thrive in the Muslim world, China, Japan and other places because the conditions there aren’t favorable to Jews like they were in early twentieth century Yankeeland.

Yankees believed that Jews had a right to own their newspapers and film industry. They had a right to accumulate vast amounts of wealth and participate on an equal basis in their political system. The rest is history.

It couldn’t have ended any other way. See also Weimar Germany.

The strong feeling that Jews are bad and should be expelled is a healthy sentiment because Jewish influence has negative consequences.

What allowed the Jews to become so powerful? The culprit is Americanism which left the native population defenseless against the Jewish assault in the early twentieth century. Even without the Jews, Americanism alone had already inspired Yankees to destroy the South.

Liberalism also inspired Britain and France to inflict incredible damage on their Caribbean colonies.

Venner’s suicide note

venner

(translated by Greg Johnson)


I am healthy in body and mind, and I am filled with love for my wife and children. I love life and expect nothing beyond, if not the perpetuation of my race and my mind. However, in the evening of my life, facing immense dangers to my French and European homeland, I feel the duty to act as long as I still have strength. I believe it necessary to sacrifice myself to break the lethargy that plagues us. I give up what life remains to me in order to protest and to found. I chose a highly symbolic place, the Cathedral of Notre Dame de Paris, which I respect and admire: she was built by the genius of my ancestors on the site of cults still more ancient, recalling our immemorial origins.

While many men are slaves of their lives, my gesture embodies an ethic of will. I give myself over to death to awaken slumbering consciences. I rebel against fate. I protest against poisons of the soul and the desires of invasive individuals to destroy the anchors of our identity, including the family, the intimate basis of our multi-millennial civilization. While I defend the identity of all peoples in their homes, I also rebel against the crime of the replacement of our people.

The dominant discourse cannot leave behind its toxic ambiguities, and Europeans must bear the consequences. Lacking an identitarian religion to moor us, we share a common memory going back to Homer, a repository of all the values on which our future rebirth will be founded once we break with the metaphysics of the unlimited, the baleful source of all modern excesses.

I apologize in advance to anyone who will suffer due to my death, first and foremost to my wife, my children, and my grandchildren, as well as my friends and followers. But once the pain and shock fade, I do not doubt that they will understand the meaning of my gesture and transcend their sorrow with pride. I hope that they shall endure together. They will find in my recent writings intimations and explanations of my actions.

Note. For more information, one can go to my publisher, Pierre-Guillaume Roux. He was not informed of my decision, but he has known me a long time.

______________

(Source: here.)

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 196 other followers