Strong meat

One of the advantages of rereading what one has written years ago is that the faults of the old manuscript become visible. Yesterday I reread my ‘Why I am not a neo-Nazi’ originally published in March of 2014, and I see that the text had an unnecessary tail in which I criticise Covington’s feminism, almost half of the original text.

But most of the article is redeemable and I will add it without the tail as the last essay of the 2018 edition of The Fair Race’s Darkest Hour. The essay shows that my differences with white nationalists are inconceivably deeper than what a casual visitor of this site may surmise. They are Christians and atheist neo-Christians—all of them. Conversely, I am a true apostate of the religion of my parents, which means rejection not only of the theological side but of the axiological side as well. Pay special attention to the quotation of a Swede about the Holocaust in the text below.


Virtually all white males have been brainwashed about what really happened in the Second World War, and they have been feminized. Characterologically they are basically the antipodes of the Spartans, the Vikings or Himmler’s SS men. Even white nationalists are reluctant to repudiate the conquests of ‘feminism’, and by this I don’t only have in mind allowing women to vote (keep in mind the last paragraphs of Yockey’s essay), but allowing their ‘right’ to inherit wealth or property (also keep in mind what we said about Austen’s novels and the causes of Greco-Roman decline in Pierce’s long text).

The humiliating empowerment of white women throughout the West is directly proportionate to the cretinisation of white males. Now that I have reproduced my translations about the prime example of polar Yang in Aryan history, Sparta, I would like to qualify that what we need is Aristotle’s proverbial golden mean. Sparta produced the best soldiers in world history but perished because it ignored what we now know: that enslaving non-whites is fatal in the long run. What we need is the Hegelian synthesis between yang Sparta and yin Athens: a sort of modern Rome. That is exactly what National Socialism was all about. Inspired in Rome, and let us remember the virile Roman salute, the Third Reich incorporated and eliminated—Hegel’s aufheben—the contradictions in both extremes: it was highly cultured as well as a tough military state.

I consider myself a spiritual inheritor of the Nationalist Socialist legacy. But I reject neonazism. Why?

Because neonazis are basically white nationalists plus Nazi paraphernalia. We have already seen that, unlike the NS men, these groups love degenerate music, Judaized Hollywood and non-reproductive sex. Many of these décadents are also anti-Nordicists who would dismiss the command cited in the very first lesson of Stellrecht’s Faith and Action already quoted in previous pages: ‘But if your blood has traits that will make your children unhappy and burdens to the state, then you have the heroic duty to be the last’.

The surreal thing is that even the pure Aryans hate Nordicism. Conversely what I love about Himmler is that, precisely because he was not handsome, he admired the hyper-Nordics of a Norwegian town he visited and harboured the thought that its people could become a paradigm for the Reich. Remember Stubb’s words about white nationalists:

Not only does it [Nordicism in general and National Socialism in particular] retrigger all the anti-racist conditioning they thought they’d gotten rid of, but it makes them ask ‘where does it end?’ ‘At what point can we finally stop paying attention to each others genetic (and non-genetic) flaws?’

The answer is that it doesn’t end: that all life is struggle and hierarchy and that the Aryan race will never be perfected nor entirely freed from threats. But that’s not what they want to hear. Pierce made eugenics the core of his religious outlook as a means of protecting the eugenically-selecting society. But I see little concern for the subject among modern white nationalists. Can you imagine a racial state with a comprehensive eugenic policy which didn’t consider the reversal of mongrelisation to be a major objective? [Stellrecht’s ‘heroic’ advice] That it wouldn’t make its population look more like Swedes and less like Sicilians, as time goes on? It’s hard to do so, which is why I believe ‘anti-Nordicism’ in white nationalism has, among other things, shut down much of the discussion on the subject.

On September 2013, in Harold Covington’s Northwest Front blogsite, several commenters subscribed politically correctness by bashing Covington in order not to offend the feelings of contemporary Greeks. A saner Northwest Front commenter said, ‘Those among us who don’t have the ability to look at a picture of half-Turks and tell they’re not White weren’t ever going to amount to anything on behalf of the White race’. The other side, the ‘revolutionary’ neonazis, ignored that DNA tests have even revealed nigger genes among quite a few of the Portuguese; and we have already seen El Greco’s painting of crossbreed Spaniards as well as Pierce’s statement that ‘a 5 percent decline in average IQ would cause our civilization to collapse’, which applies to Sicily and Greece even before the Turkish invasion.

This cowardly lack of recognition of the very Letter A in Indo-European studies is not the only thing that annoys me about the embryonic movement known as white nationalism. Over the internet boards I find it bothersome when typical neonazis demand that I dismiss the Holocaust stories as hoax; and that if I fail to do it my morals are beyond the pale.

As someone who has spent many years studying controversial subjects (the pseudoscience in both parapsychology and biological psychiatry), I know perfectly that you must spend at least a decade of your life trying to digest the scholarly literature of both sides of an academic debate. I am in my fifties now and don’t have the time nor the motivation to research the Holocaust claims and counter-claims. For me it is enough to point out that two former Holocaust revisionists, Mark Weber, the director of the Institute of Historical Review, and David Irving, our best historian of the Third Reich, have changed their minds over the years, both accepting now that a few millions of Jews probably died during the war. Irving’s forthcoming book on Herr Himmler quotes historical records proving that, even though the six-million figure is an invention, a couple of millions of Jews probably died as a result of harsh Nazi treatments.

David Irving in 2012

But I would like to go beyond Irving’s scruples. Rephrasing a passage of Peter Helmkamp in Controlled Burn, Joseph Walsh commented in my blog: ‘The truth is that the glad stirrings of genocide lurk in the heart of every man, yet only the Nazis had the courage to acknowledge the truth’. Another commenter, a Swede, went even further:

What is certain is that the Holocaust would not have produced any debilitating psychological effect on non-Christian whites. (By Christianity I mean ‘Christian morality’. Most atheists in the West are still Christian, even if they don’t believe in God or Jesus.) Being emotionally affected by the Holocaust presupposes that you think:

1) Victims and losers have intrinsically more moral value than conquerors and winners
2) Killing is the most horrendous thing a human can do
3) Killing children and women is even more horrendous
4) Every human life has the same value

None of these statements ring true to a man who rejected Christian morality. In fact, even if the Holocaust happened, I would not pity the victims or sympathize with them. If you told the Vikings that they needed to accept Jews on their lands or give them gold coins because six million of them were exterminated in an obscure war, they would have laughed at you.

It must be comical for the Nietzscheans of the North that, unlike the monocausalism ubiquitously present in the neonazi and white nationalist movement, Himmler acknowledged other factors: ‘Our people’s thinking was misled by the forces of the Church, Liberalism, Bolshevism, and Jewry’. And let us never forget Hitler’s own words in one of his table talks: ‘The heaviest blow that ever struck humanity was the coming of Christianity’. If neonazis were true Nazis and had transvalued Christian/Neo-Christian values they would be trying to demonstrate that Himmler’s Posen Speech in 1943 is genuine, not a hoax as they claim, and even find genocidal inspiration from the speech.

Of course: they will never do it because all of them are Neo-Christian pseudo-Nazis. Speaking with a little humour I would say that neonazis, white nationalists, and American southern nationalists subscribe what we may call the Harry Potter approach to the Jewish problem. Throughout those novels for children, the female author presents us a Harry who never uses ‘Avara Kadavra’, the killing spell against the bad guys; Harry only uses the disarming charm, ‘Expelliarmus’. But only in novels and movies for kids the good guys, who never are depicted as cold assassins, can win. In real life you have to make a transition to the dark side, to Himmler’s ways, to become a soldier.

I have read The Turner Diaries twice. When I read it for the first time, or rather listened the audio version with Pierce’s own voice, I was still struggling with the last remnants my Neo-Christian programming. I didn’t like the Breivik-like cruelties such as dispatching an entire group of pro-white warriors for not taking care of the Jewish problem in Toronto. And in the novel’s Day of the Rope I was troubled by the description that many innocent young whites also die. Then I read most of Covington’s Quintet and sensed a moral difference. Covington’s characters are not so bloodthirsty, not so genocidal exterminators. I could imagine myself doing the things in Covington’s novels but in the past some passages of the Diaries made me wonder…

But now that I have definitively left behind Christian ethics I can see that Pierce was ultimately right. As NS soldiers in the coming racial wars, altogether imbued in the martial qualities of gravitas and severitas, we must behave. The huge difference between the Quintet and the Diaries is that in Pierce’s world not only an ethno-state is born: in the final pages it is described that only the white race shall inherit the Earth. In Covington’s world that is dismissed because it would mean genocide on a scale not even performed by the Bolshevik Jews. But as Pierce said in Who We Are, already cited way above:

The hard lesson taught by the different results of the European colonization of North America, Latin America, Australia, New Zealand, India, and southern Africa is that the only type of colonization with lasting significance is racial colonization; and that racial colonization can succeed only when Whites are willing and able to clear the land of non-White inhabitants and keep it clear.

This idea in both Who We Are and the Diaries is so strong meat that I will elaborate on it only in Day of Wrath, and in the autobiographical books in Spanish that I’ll write after the completion of the present one.

14 Comments

  1. I like the strong meat parts of this essay, particularly at the top, the first several paragraphs. You’re right: one does not hear from WNs about such things, and no one in the WN is capable of saying such things.

    However, you will have to do revisionist research about the Holocaust on your own, like I did, rather than take the word of “experts,” such as Mark Weber (who is a “step over” guy: he steps over the Holocaust in any discussion and is unwilling to go into details) or David Irving (who has suffered at the hands of the Jews) on the Holocaust.

    Both men have been compromised to a significant extent and are not “strong meat” when it comes to the whole truth about the Holocaust, and how and where they compromised the truth involves lots of complicated history and facts, some of which is not well-suited to the average generalist reader, but it suffices to know that those two men are not the definitive and best sources of information about the Holocaust, nor should they be looked upon as such, and to know a more complete understanding is still available through other historians and revisionists, for example,Germar Rudolph, who is very good. link

    Vince Reynouard is another good revisionist, and he also has YouTube videos.

    Hadding Scott, Carolyn Yeager, and CODOH (link) are also helpful guides through the morass. IMO. I got a lot of help from Victor Thorn’s short book, “The Holocaust Hoax Exposed,” a book that once was sold on Amazon, a book I myself reviewed on Amazon when I once was a Prime member, but due to Jeff Bezos’s willingness to follow the orders of the Jewish World Congress, he took Thorn’s book off his inventory, labeling it vile and indecent. That should tell you something about its true value. link

    Reading reliable revisionist historians does not take years, and pretty much they all end up saying the same things, reciting the same facts, which finally does amount to exploding the Holocaust as a myth. It’s weak arguments from weak people like Greg Johnson who claim revisionist historians have made the truth about the Holocaust too complicated that lots of feminized men or WNs don’t bother.

    • It seems that The Holocaust Exposed is available from Barnes. If I receive any donations I’ll order it.

      Incidentally, by chance I rescued your above comment from the spam bin. The software always spams all comments with links.

      • I just donated $50 USD to you, Cesar, so that you can order “The Holocaust Hoax Exposed” and read it.

      • Oh thank you!

  2. Can we please come up with a different term other than “white”? It’s really a stupid description. No one can hold a sheet of printer paper next to their arm and honestly say they’re white. There are different streams of ethnicities here in the U.S., but I don’t believe the “white” race has any existence in objective reality. Have you even been to the US and seen some of the worthless pale skins here? No, political/worldview terms like fascist and NS still make sense to me. Yeah, I loathe the term white nationalism. I’ve read Mein Kampt and Hitler never said anything about White Supremacy. He was a German imperialist and not what liberals and cucks say he was.

    • Natlfascist88, I agree completely on being against the term “white” as a descriptor for us.

      Unfortunately, both the USA government and the USA media have been using that term for many decades to describe us. It’s only value is that we all know what is meant by “white” people (it’s also a single syllable and easy to say).

      When the USA empire eventually breaks up, the different “white” groups will come up with new names for themselves.

      • @kurt – that donation was so freakin’ nice of you!

  3. Well NationalFascist 88 you are not ‘up’ on your Hitler studies.

    He was a German Imperialist because he believed the Nordic countries, of which Germany was the most powerful, were under threat internationally from the Jews and their ‘twin’ philosophies, Capitalism and Communism. Hitlers Table Talk reveals not a few statements in which the Fuhrer makes it plain that WW2 was a war to make the world safe for White People.

    Ask yourself if America would have been invaded by 25 million Mexicans and we would continue to have the ‘crime scourge’ from Negros and now the invasion of Europe by Negro’s and Muslims all coordinated by the Jews if Uncle Adolf had survived. His philosophy is timeless because it is valid on historical facts.

  4. I assure you that the universally promiscuous criminality of niggers and Mestizos is not lost on me knowing the cause of it in our lands. I’ve only heard a few table talks by the Fuhrer. I’m confused about what Hitler actually thought of Slavs. I’ve seen photographs of him being kind to Slavs and I’ve heard people say he hated them. I’ve known plenty of people of Slavic descent. My attitude toward them was pretty neutral, meaning I could care less whether they are slowly genocided or not. Historically, they seem to be a brave people that had the misfortune of geography having to fight off murder and enslavement by Mongols and Ottomans. They seem to be pretty white to me, but the question is. Does NS have anything to do with “white supremacy”? If the answer is no, then the superior people have to be called something else. If the answer is yes, then there is not any difference whatsoever between neo-Nazism and National Socialism.

  5. “He who would pursue the golden mean must surrender the hope of achieving the great and the greatest aims.”
    – Hitler, April 10, 1923

    This was, at the time, directed towards the half-hearted and the lukewarm, but it is also in accord with what he later said 22 years later in the Hitler-Bormann documents (Februrary 21, 1945):

    “The universalists, the idealists, the Utopians all aim too high. They give promises of an unattainable paradise, and by doing so they deceive mankind. Whatever label they wear, whether they call themselves Christians, communists, humanitarians, whether they are merely sincere but stupid or wire-pullers and cynics, they are all makers of slaves.
    I myself have always kept my eye fixed on a paradise which, in the nature of things, lies well within our reach. I mean an improvement in the lot of the German people. I have restricted myself to making promises that I knew I could keep and that I had every intention of keeping. Hence the universal hatred which I have aroused.”

    It needs to be emphasized again and again that National Socialism was not an export article, it was conceived strictly for the German people. The ideals taught in it cannot possibly be comprehended by every race. One must distinguish the individuals of each nation that stand out among the masses. “The Nazis had a multicultural army.” “The Nazis had an Islamic division.” And how many of those people were qualified for it? They would have had to have been the best of the best.

    If an Aryan Jesus existed, he would not have said the things in the Sermon on the Mount in public. He would have betrayed his own principle of not casting pearls before the swine. His hearers could not all have been Jews, Galilee was composed of a mixed population. It is insanity to preach lofty ideals to people who can’t possibly comprehend and attain them; these products of miscegenation will in the end have only the hope of waiting for a coming man who will resolve their problems. It always leads to the destruction of the teaching and it’s authority and it represents the ideals as “a superfluous manifestation of sentiment”, as a distant dream to be gazed at from a distance. This is exactly what Paul accomplished when he destroyed Jesus’ teachings. What a tremendous explosion of beautiful words Nietzsche has uttered on this matter in The Antichrist.

    Rosenberg –
    “Only a Sokrates could preach such insanity as: virtue could be taught and imparted to all men, an idea further refined by Platon. He who should really understand the nature of the world of ideas must of necessity be virtuous. With the promulgation of such an individualistic and faceless worldview, the axe was truly laid at the roots of Greek life.”

    Table Talk entry February 26, 1942 (Trevor-Roper) –
    “What is ruining Christianity to-day is what once ruined the ancient world. The pantheistic mythology would no longer suit the social conditions of the period. As soon as the idea was introduced that all men were equal before God, that world was bound to collapse.”

    [this quote was somewhat of a hassle to find, the English version falsely labels it as a Feb. 20 entry. Currently translating an excerpt from Jochmann’s German TT, Trevor-Roper version is a placeholder]

    This is also what Nietzsche said in his Twilight of the Idols.

    Hence the Christian-American-Alt-Right appropriation of Hitler’s movement must come to an end. George Lincoln Rockwell crafted a form of NS that was best fitted for the American people. In a July 18, 1965 correspondence with Savitri, he deplores the general level of American intelligence and explains why he included Christianity in his propaganda.

  6. “The hard lesson taught by the different results of the European colonization of North America, Latin America, Australia, New Zealand, India, and southern Africa is that the only type of colonization with lasting significance is racial colonization”

    Pierce forgot about such a minuscule event as the Russian colonization of Siberia, which was not exterminationist yet largely successful.

    Of course, Russia itself has been the complex anti-Aryan melting pot somewhat controlled by the Baltic German aristocracy for a century until it all broke down, but hey, such matters were not considered by Pierce when he was writing that paragraph.

    • No non-whites in Siberia now?

      • Heh, non-whites were and are in Siberia and in European part through all Russian history.

        However, there is an important difference. The border between, for example, the British Empire and India was a vast oceanic expanse. But the Russian Empire was characterized by so-called “inner colonization” practice: It had no borders between the metropolis and its colonies. The center merged with its peripheries, and this led to unfortunate results – Russians adopted the wild native customs and habits, learned languages of the conquered tribes, took the native women to wives, got dressed “orientally” and internalized subhuman Eastern behaviour and methods of administrative management for applying them to their own people.

        Hence it follows a replacement of racial differentiation by class one and – of course, religious one. If some wog converts to Orthodoxy he becomes sterling Christian and therefore “Russian”, no doubt!

        On the other part, paradoxically India was closer to London in technological and psychological points than many Russian Empire’s regions to Saint-Petersburg. Russian aristocracy, half-German and half-Tatar, knew next to nothing on its own people existing kinda in an other world.

        There is a remarkable picture by Iliya Repin, “Alexander the Third Receiving Elders from Rural Districts”. It depicts the Tsar and the local leaders of different ethnic origins. Whatever their nationality these Russian, Uzbek or Chechen peasants are all equal for the monarch: they’re equally “own” and equally “alien”. What a nice eurasianism and multiculturalism!

        In general, shall I say, concerning colonialist politics, the Russian state featured negative hegemony, first of all negative for white identity of Russians themselves. And still one cannot but admire the adventurous power of the white Russian pioneers’ blood, looking at the Russian Empire’s map and those wide civilized spaces from Volga to California and from Arctic circle to Central Asian deserts!

        It goes without saying, the exterminations of non-white Siberian, Asian and Polar savages occured, but such phenomena (together with lack of strict segregation practice) didn’t matter racially and rather were related to excess of exploitative greed… Well, till 1917 there was the Jewish Pale in Russia yet.

  7. I’m going to make a retort to the arguments the Swede commenter made about the Holocaust, as I believe his arguments are flawed.

    In regards to points 1 and 4, Swede is right that Whites now believe that the losers and victims have intrinsically more value than the winners snd conquerors, and that all humans have the same inherent value. However, it appears that previous generations of White Christians didn’t believe those lies, as evidenced by the fact that the Puritans sent small pox blankets to the Amerindian tribes, and the Christian South broke away from the (((Union))) in 1861 under the justification that all men are not created equal (see two different speeches by Vice President Alexander Hamilton Stephens on the matter).

    Conclusion: Points 1 and 4 are post WW2 results of the Jewish march through the institutions. Whites believe Points 1 and 4 because Jews brainwashed us into doing so.

    As for Points 2 and 3, Swede is also off the mark. It’s not the killing of Jews per say that horrifies Whites. Observe the fact that support for the death penalty is strongest among White conservative Christians, and that the state which executes the most criminals (Texas) is basically the reddest state in the Union. No, the reason why the Holocaust horrifies people is the for the same reason that 9/11 horrifies people: Because Whites believe that every Jew killed by Germany was innocent. That is to say, Whites believe that Jews did nothing worthy of the death penalty on a mass industrial scale.

    Its not a matter of killing per say, its a matter of guilt vs innocence. If Jews are innocent of trying to destroy our race, then the Holocaust was indeed evil. But if Jews are guilty of conspiring to exterminate our race, then they deserved everything bad that happened to them, for we have the right to defend ourselves from those who would exterminate us, and if these other races want to tell us that we don’t have that right to self-defense, then we are morally justified in virtually every action we take, up to and including what Pierce describes in the Turner Diaries.

    By ignoring the moral aspect of the Holocaust and refusing to dismantle it, both Swede and yourself, Cesar, are making a practical and ethical mistake:

    -The practical mistake is that the White Race moved beyond primitive notions of strength and weakness thousands of years ago to a much higher plane of right vs wrong, and good vs evil. As such, the White Race is already dead if you expect us to accept the premise that killing should be divorced from concepts of guilt and innocence.

    -The ethical mistake is that life itself is meaningless if we ignore the fact that certain actions are inherently right (self-defense, providing for your family), while other actions are inherently wrong (Google Jerry Sandusky). As a White Nationalist, I have long since made the conclusion that Whites are inherently good people (albeit with some nasty flaws), whereas Jews are inherently bad people (whatever exceptions to the rule there may be). But if I were to divorce Whiteness from Goodness and Jewishness from Badness, than I honestly can’t say I’d care if Jews conquered the world like they are currently doing, because without morals to guide us, there truly is nothing better to do than become nihilists who live to please ourselves in the 8 puny decades that we are given in this world.

    Tl;dr Killing someone is indeed the worst thing you can do assuming the person you killed did nothing wrong, and killing women and children who did nothing wrong is even worse than that. As Rachel Dawes correctly told Bruce Wayne in Batman Begins: It’s not who you are underneath, it’s what you do that defines you.


Comments are closed.

%d bloggers like this: