Uncle Adolf’s table talk, 188


24th June 1943, evening

The vibrant pulse of Berlin—Vienna the home of music— Mozart—Slav blood and German blood—Beethoven—For and against Vienna—The new capital of the Reich—A remark of Treitschke.

In Berlin, I think, people work harder than anywhere else. I know of no other city in which it would have been possible to complete the construction of the Reich Chancellery in nine months. The Berlin workman is unique as a swift and efficient craftsman. There is nothing to touch him in Munich or Vienna, where the infusion of foreign blood—Polish, Czech, Slav, Italian—still has an influence.

When one speaks of Vienna and music and proclaims Vienna to be the most musical city in the world, one must not forget that at the time of our great composers, Vienna was the Imperial city. She was an attraction for the whole world, and was thus the city which offered artists the greatest scope and opportunity. In spite of this, how shabbily the musicians were treated there! It is not true that either Beethoven or Haydn had any success there during their lifetime. Mozart’s Don Juan was a failure there.

Why then did Mozart go to Vienna? Simply because he hoped to get a pension from the Emperor, which he never obtained. Mozart’s family, it has been established, came from Augsburg; he was therefore not an Austrian but a Swabian. The whole blossoming of our music in Vienna is not due to the town; such things do not spring from their environment, but from the genius of a race.

Really creative music is composed partly of inspiration and partly of a sense of composition. The inspiration is of Slavonic origin, the art of composition is of Germanic. It is when these two mingle in one man that the master of genius appears. In Bach’s music it is the composition which is marvellous, and he certainly had no drop of Slav blood in his veins. As regards Beethoven, on the other hand, one glance at his head shows that he comes of a different race. It is not pure chance that the British have never produced a composer of genius; it is because they are a pure Germanic race.

Do not for a moment imagine that I am hostile to Vienna. I criticise with equal vigour everything in Berlin which displeases me. My task is a far greater one, and I do not think in terms of Vienna or Berlin.

It is perhaps a blessing in disguise that I was for so long a Stateless person; for it has taught me the tremendous value of a unified Germany.

Treitschke once said: “Germany has cities, but she possesses no capital.” To that I will add that she must, and she shall, have one. I shall take care that no town in the Reich can rival the capital.

I have examined certain projects for Vienna, but they demand a financial backing from the Reich which I do not consider should be accorded to any city but the capital of the Reich.

Any other decision would be wrong. Vienna must, of course, be cleaned up and cleared of slums; and this will be done. I have already cleared the Jews out of the city, but I should like to see the Czechs go, too. Whatever new construction may be undertaken in Vienna, it would be folly for her to try to surpass the existing glorious monuments of the Imperial City.


Consider obtaining a copy of the complete notes
published by Ostara Publications.

Published in: on March 13, 2015 at 10:25 am  Comments (7)  


for the new religion for Whites

by Cesar Tort

In a previous thread Stubbs responded to one of my comments:

I have, and I’m not really a theist. I’m more along the lines of Pierce or Heidegger or something. The problem with trying to emulate the NSDAP on this one is that they were able to use a lot of “meta-political” work done prior. They had Kant and Hegel and Nietzsche and so on, which wasn’t ideal but was at least a start.

Their religious dogmatism was mostly limited to things like banning freemasonry or not letting atheists into the SS, which wasn’t “separation of church and state” but wasn’t exactly a reformation either. They had to deal with the same problem as us: ending nihilistic atheism through something besides Christianity. It requires a new way of thinking, but I don’t see how the German people of 1940 could have been ready for it. They hadn’t witnessed the collapse of their entire civilization, they weren’t going to believe that God was dead just because Nietzsche claimed it. Now we know.

Maybe I’m being a little too bombastic; I don’t really care whether “the Spirit proceeds from the Son who proceeds from the Father” or “both the Spirit and the Son proceed from the Father”, but that doesn’t mean religion shouldn’t be debated in the public sphere, as a matter of right and wrong, and not merely a “personal opinion” to be tucked away. I see secularism as a sort of spiritual pacifism, and pacifism on the highest questions (is there a God?) trickles down to even the most basic issues (who are we to say homosexuals can’t marry?).

So let me think of some fundamental questions that need to be answered: Why does it matter if the White race exists, if the rest of the humans are happy? Why does it matter if the White race continues to exist if I personally live my life out in comfort? Why should I be concerned with the White race if it only recently evolved from our ape-like ancestors, knowing that change is a part of the universe? Why should I be concerned with the existence of the White race if every White person is mortal, and preserving each one is futile? Why should I be concerned with preserving the White race if all White people who live will suffer, some horribly, and none would suffer if they were wiped out? Why should I as an individual put effort into helping my race when it’s very unlikely that my personal effort will tip the scales? Why should I bother living at all, if my life is not immediately entertaining to me?

These are big questions. Maybe no one in the 1930s would ask why Germans must survive, but Pierce’s student has become the norm in 2013. I don’t think we can just give a smattering of different reasons and call it good enough. We’re going to need answers, and we’re going to actually need to agree on what the answers are, and how we got them, and that means no separation between religion and politics. Incidentally, this also makes a Christian-pagan-atheist alliance very difficult, and I think each position will have to divorce itself from and, at most, work in parallel with the others. Eventually something will become “king of the hill” and it will flip the world upside-down.

This is my response:

So let me think of some fundamental questions that need to be answered: Why does it matter if the White race exists, if the rest of the humans are happy?

That and the rest of your questions are easy questions—for me. But I acknowledge that trying to respond in a blog entry is extremely difficult (William Pierce tried to ponder along similar lines in the very first of his weekly speeches). The real problem with this topic is that it involves something that we may call “psychoclasses,” a subject I mention in those pages of my book where I try explain psychohistory.

If regarding music you belong to a superior psychoclass to those of the masses, you will find it impossible to “prove” your superiority unless you are a scholar of musical science (see e.g., this response by Roger to one of James’ articles on music at Counter-Currents). I can grasp what Roger says intuitively. But I am not a music scholar. I can’t use language to prove that those who like the crassest forms of pop music are spiritual degenerates. Similarly, it’s all too easy to recognize a beautiful or an ugly face you see in the real world, but when trying to use mere language to describe that face to, say, the police, you will see that you need a visual representation of it.

It is the same regarding your questions above. As I told you in that thread, to me the beauty of the white Aryan woman (some would argue that leptosomatic ephebes fall in this category too) could transform itself into a new myth. To use Michael O’Meara’s words in Toward the White Republic:

For it is myth—and the memories and hopes animating it—that shape a nation, that turn a “motley horde” into a people with a shared sense of purpose and identity, that mobilize them against the state of things, and prepare them for self-sacrifice and self-rule.

Myth, not race realism, not stats on black-on-white crime or an excruciating analysis on the Jewish problem, will create the white ethnostate. Let us not use only those old tones anymore when trying to communicate with the broader population. Remember those words written specifically by Beethoven (rather than Schiller) for his Choral symphony:

Oh friends, not these tones!
Rather, let us raise our voices in more pleasing
And more joyful sounds!

For the emergent individual, classical music is the manifestation of a spiritual stage; the crassest forms of pop music and sexual permissiveness, the manifestation of a degenerative, hedonistic stage. The problem with the new myth that potentially could galvanize Whites is, of course, that like music it cannot be articulated except by means of using the right hemisphere of the brain; in this case, the visual arts.

Terre et Peuple, Blut und Boden

Catalina, the crown of the evolution, a girl I met in 1980

The above illustration comes from the brush of the American painter Maxfield Parrish. That Westerners in general and Americans in particular have been degrading their psyches into descendent spirals since World War 2 is evident when keeping in mind that it was estimated that a copy of one of Parrish’s masterpieces, Daybreak, could be found in one out of every four American households in times when Hitler was in power.

Even later, when I was a child in the 1960s, I remember how the American and British cultures still celebrated spiritually the beauty of the Aryan woman. I was a child when the original Prince Valiant came up in every Sunday paper, a comic-strip where the female characters were depicted as hyper-Nordic beauties and the institution of marriage (and the femininity of women) was solid.

Whites need to evolve, make a quantum leap from their current degeneracy to their previous stage. This cannot be done as some young people in the movement say, by invoking the year of 1936—as the Spanish Civil War was, literally, the last ditch of the Christian era (ask me: who studied in the Madrid High School of Mexico City). Following Hegel’s dialectic I would say that Christian numinousity can be merged within its antithetical secularism, giving birth to a synthesis that would be neither Christian nor secular in the current liberal sense.

Let me finish this post with the last paragraph of my essay “Gitone’s magic,” a sort of Platonic response to Counter-Currents’ explicitly “gay” agenda:

I imagine modifying the Northwest Republic tricolor flag by means of placing the colors horizontally and adding the full image of Parrish’s Garden of Opportunity in its middle. Not because in our search for the inexplicable superiority of the Venusinian we males should try to imitate Gitone or Tadzio, which is impossible. But because only the unreachable archetype of the eternal feminine will lead the white race to the Absolute.

I don’t know why, but I confess that every time I read this last line I find myself almost on the verge of tears…

On the electric guitar and more

“I apologize as it’s not my purpose to browbeat you, but your promotion of said ‘music’ is prima facie evidence that the West is defunct.” —Iranian for Aryans

Music is the external side of the soul. If a culture’s soul is rotten, the external side of that culture must be rotten too.

Together with sexual mores and architecture, music has been my litmus test that shows that many white nationalists have not really rejected the rottenness of our world.

In another thread the illustrious Roger said:

You are right that jazz requires some skill from the performer. What it does not require, however, is discipline from either the composer or the performer. It is inherently transient because of its improvisational character—if not for audio recording technology, alleged classics like Kind of Blue would have no posterity. The only thing that most jazz musicians bother to compose is what they refer to as the head, whilst the rest [is] improvised. Their structure is a binary A-B-A-B-A-B-A form: A represents the head, and B represents the improvisational passages led by each of the soloists. It is about showmanship and impulsiveness. That might be impressive for unruly teenagers and permanent adolescents, but it is not serious music. The mere form and structure of jazz prevents it from integrating any thoughtful counterpoint and orchestration. The harmony tends to be very basic and trite.

As for heavy metal, I don’t deny that people like Steve Vai and John Petrucci are capable performers with their electric guitars. Their problem is that they adore a bastardised conception of music, and they seem unable to perform without using artificial amplification and/or sound effects (which automatically close the instrument off to subtle dynamics and articulation). The electric guitar is one of the worst inventions of the 20th Century. Its steel strings create a sound which is not at all conducive to interesting polyphonic music (unlike, for instance, the classical guitar music of Fernando Sor). You will seldom hear an unaccompanied electric guitar, and if you do, it will be no more appealing to the ears than the accompaniment of an overbearing drum kit, a bass guitar, a screechy “singer”, and perhaps a keyboard synthesiser.

degenerateIt might also be added that jazz and rock music are both highly repetitive. The song you have posted is a good example. Not only are the lyrics juvenile and unpoetic, “sung” in a lacklustre fashion, but the lauded guitar solo is unmusical and (as expected) affected by irritating wah-wah sound effects. James O’Meara might enjoy it, because it is filled with bent notes and whammy bar movements, defying the twelve-tone equal temperament which he so opposes. It certainly does not require the same discipline from the performer as, for example, Joachim’s cadenza for Brahms’ violin concerto. There is no attention to ornamentation (e.g. staccato, legato, trills), harmony or dynamics, and there is no real craft involved. Joachim’s cadenza has all of those things, and it requires a very high level of skill to perform all of the double and triple stops—and that’s just the cadenza! It is the least interesting part of the concerto, in my view, as I find Brahms’ orchestration far more compelling and ingenious than any violin solo. The third movement is more exhilarating than anything one can find in heavy metal, regardless of how much the New Right wishes to think of it as “Viking” music (as if!).

You also wrote:

We can not listen to Beethoven all day, we also need a more basic entree to lighten our daily burden, which is “folk music”. Which has to be reinvented after a total extermination process since the 40’ties.

This is wrong on several counts. Starting with your last point, it is not true that folk music needs to be “reinvented”. I rather like Breton and Scottish folk music, and I can testify that these are two very strong living traditions. If you visit Lorient during the first two weeks of August in any given year, you will have a hard time making it down a street without hearing at least one busker (or a group of them) performing traditional music. People flock in from all over France and Europe for the “interceltique” festival in Lorient, and the enthusiasm on the streets is a stark reminder of Old Europe (there’s rarely a black face to be seen, either).

I love it, and I find the music of the Breton bagads delightful. The sound has a wonderful sense of discipline, and the better ones have a strict regimentation of the different sections of the band. It is well-suited for outdoor events in general, and street parades in particular. This is just one example to show that the folk traditions in most European countries have not suffered a “total extermination”, contrary to your claim. Most people are disconnected from them in the West (many favouring the modernist music you offer as an alternative), but they still exist, and enough people take an active interest for competitions, festivals, sessions and concerts to be regularly staged. The strong rhythm of this folk music is designed to complement traditional dance forms like the hornpipe, the an dro, the hanter dro, the gavotte and the reel, incidentally (this is also a function of much classical music). Jazz dancing is a different thing altogether, as is the frenzied idiocy of rock crowds. To compare the two is laughable. One of them serves the cause of decency, and the other serves the cause of debauchery.

As for the first point, nobody is suggesting that we ought to “listen to Beethoven all day”. There is so much variation in the Western classical canon that it would take at least a decade to properly absorb the full catalogues of all the major composers—and that’s without even mentioning the all of the lesser-known composers of merit (neglected or unesteemed composers still have more value than slimy modernist music). Beethoven is the acme of late Classical music, but there is obviously more to it than him alone. Frequently played favourites in my house include Dowland, Buxtehude, Bach, Monteverdi, Josquin, Dufay, Byrd, Haydn, Elgar, Schubert, Rachmaninoff and Dvořák, with many others in between. It is not hard for an attentive listener to hear the distinctions between each one of these composers, nor to understand what it is that unites them as part of the same broad musical tradition.

I think it comes down to this question: are we to behave as animals or as men? Their music appeals to the body because of the primacy of its rhythm (and, in the case of rock music, its deliberate, artificial loudness). Western music, on the other hand, appeals to the soul. This is something that you appear to be contemptuous of with your comments about “repression” (a favourite word of the feminists). I do not hold out much hope of convincing you to reject the sensualism which underlies your assumptions about the purpose of music.

(Source: here)

Published in: on May 22, 2013 at 12:01 am  Comments (47)  
Tags: ,